Christian Martyrs

[Animavore]

Why has no one made the incredibly obvious parody thread?

[Seth]

She's an elected official. As an elected official the most pertinent question is whether the court has the authority to compel her to do anything, especially something she does not, as an elected official, believe she has authority to do.

Kim Davis was an elected official, yes, but she was not given the right to decide which of her prescribed duties she could refuse to fulfill.

Tell that to Obama, willya? The President of the United States seems to think that's exactly what an elected official can do. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for Kim Davis.

One of those duties of the office she was elected to perform was to issue marriage certificates to all couples who are legally entitled to one.

One of the duties of the office of the President is to "faithfully execute" the laws of the United States. And according to Kentucky Revised Statutes 402.240, "In the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in office, the county judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk."

Same-sex couples are not excluded at law for such entitlement, but she refused to issue marriage certificates to them. That is a clear dereliction of duty. Being elected, she could not be fired, so the District Court ordered her to do her job. Davis persisted with her refusal. That brought her into contempt of court. Contempt of court is a gaolable offence. Instead of running foul of a court order she could have appealed the court's decision or resigned. She did neither. So she was gaoled. As I said before, she was not gaoled for her religious beliefs. She was gaoled for contempt of court, i.e. for her refusal obey the court order to do the job she was elected to do.

Well, the point is that a FEDERAL court judge doesn't have the authority to tell the county clerk how or when to do her job because it's her job, the one she was elected to do. But it IS the local county court's job, as it happens, to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky "in the absence of the county clerk." All the gay couples have to do is go to the local judge and get a license. Therefore the cause of action brought by the complainants in this case is not ripe for review precisely because the plaintiffs have not exhausted all of their avenues of redress in seeking a marriage license. The federal judge should have known that, and probably did, but didn't give a fuck about the actual law.

She was jailed by a FEDERAL JUDGE as an example and threat to anyone else who might have religious scruples about gay marriage and for no other reason, which amounts to nothing more or less than religious persecution, however you, or the judge, may choose to characterize it.

There is no more clear example of deliberate and intentional religious persecution than this. It's all part of the gay agenda to demonize and vilify anyone who presumes to disagree with their lifestyle. In this case, they used the biggest hammer they could find to victimize Kim Davis rather than simply going about the business of getting married in Kentucky, something that was not denied to them. And they found a sympathetic federal judge who decided to make an example of Davis rather than simply allowing the citizens of the county deal with her intransigence in due course and directing the plaintiffs to the local judge/executive.

Gay couples are entitled to get a marriage license in Kentucky but they are not necessarily entitled to get it from one specific individual. So long as they can obtain a license from anyone that is valid, they have not been denied anything. Now, if the local judge/executive and every employee at the clerk's office had refused to issue the license, then they might have had a case. But that's not what went down. Despite Davis having her name removed from the form and her allowing her employees to issue the licenses (the county clerk is not required to personally sign every document that is filed), she was still persecuted and ordered to personally sign the licenses. Why? Because the couples wanted a form they could parade about and display as a "victory" over their religious enemy, something they are NOT constitutionally entitled to.

Should she resign? I think she should, but I'm not a registered voter in her county and I would not vote for her if I were. Should she be replace? I think she should, but that's my opinion only. If the residents of her county think she needs to be replaced they can agitate for her to resign or they can recall her in a special election and replace her with someone else. Or not.

In any event, no gay couple has been denied the right to marry in Rowan County, Kentucky, that is a simple legal fact. They have CHOSEN to sue in federal court rather than simply exercising their right to bypass the county clerk by going to the judge/administrator of the county for their license precisely and ONLY because they want to use the Mace of State to bludgeon this particular individual into obedience to the gay marriage agenda, and that's both utterly reprehensible and demonstrates exactly why many people find gay activists to be scumbags of the lowest order. They are not content to peaceably pursue their rights and allow others to hold their own opinions, they demand both recognition and public acceptance and rather than earn it they try to abuse the law to force people into suppressing their (superior) right to believe and speak as they like, which happens to include disapproving of the gay lifestyle.

Are such people being "diverse" and sociable about something that's none of their business? No, they aren't, but the Constitution guarantees every individual the right to be a bigot and to espouse bigoted opinions if they choose, and while I don't care for bigots or their opinions (including Atheist bigots) I will defend to the death their absolute right to speak or write or peaceably act out their bigotry because if I sanction suppressing them, I sanction suppressing my own rights and I sanction the suppression of the rights of anyone who holds a minority opinion, and THAT is utterly intolerable to me.

[Seth]

Davis continued to defy Bunning's court order after the Supreme Court upheld it.[6][34] When several couples sought to obtain marriage licenses, Davis turned them away, saying she was acting "under God's authority".[7][8] Some sources questioned whether Davis, having been married four times, was acting hypocritically in the "application of her beliefs".[35][36][37][38]

That says it all.

Where in the bible does Jesus say it's ok to keep getting divorced and remarrying?

Where in the Bible does it say it's not?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

No, it's only legal stuff because the government wants it to be legal stuff, which is my point.

Which is true for all the legal codification of our social rules. But, it's not just "the government of the day", it's an accretion of state powers over centuries of common law, precedent and constitutional provisions, which are, in total, more powerful than a single government's legislation. Have a little faith in the useful inertia provided by the checks and balances which underly state powers in most western democracies...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

No, it's only legal stuff because the government wants it to be legal stuff, which is my point.

Which is true for all the legal codification of our social rules. But, it's not just "the government of the day", it's an accretion of state powers over centuries of common law, precedent and constitutional provisions, which are, in total, more powerful than a single government's legislation. Have a little faith in the useful inertia provided by the checks and balances which underly state powers in most western democracies...

I like bureaucratic inertia most of the time. I'm never happier than when Congresscritters are at one another's throats and the President's and absolutely nothing gets done and the government gets "shut down" (yeah, right, like in my dreams maybe... ). The less government at all levels does, or is able to do, the better because "he who governs least, governs best." (loosely attributed to Thomas Jefferson)

The point I make here is that it is that inertia that the plaintiffs in this case are trying to evade by pillorying and abusing one individual as their whipping-girl for their more general complaint that neither society nor law is moving fast enough to suit their radical agenda.

The problem with radical homosexuals is that they usually do more harm to their cause than they do anything to help it along. Did they succeed in pillorying one religious county clerk? Yes, they did, but did it help their cause? Not in the least, it damaged it severely. By doing what they did they ended up convincing the Pope to visit this woman and bless her for her stand for righteousness. And they pissed off a LOT of people in Kentucky and elsewhere and convinced many of them that it's even MORE important to fight the radical gay agenda because if they don't, the gays will take over and force all of them to have buttsex.

You don't make people comfortable with your lifestyle by throwing it in their faces and threatening their sacred institutions and their liberty, you solidify opposition and make enemies.

You don't convince parents that you aren't a threat to their children by holding parades that focus on homosexual buggery. You don't get sympathy for centuries of oppression by abusing people who don't believe as you do the first chance you get.

It's rank stupidity on their part and they are doing nothing useful for the cause of equality and privacy in intimate relationships.

[Tero]

Same old Seth bs about common law bla bla. We don't need centuries of precedent. If we did, tthe state church would prevent the poor and idiots from marrying and quietly drown their babies if they did.

[mistermack]

No, they are formed IN neuronal circuits, not necessarily BY them. But even if they are formed "by" such circuits, science has no explanation for how or why that thing called "love" occurs. Indeed, science cannot (at the moment) even explain consciousness or thought.

It certainly can. This is a complete load of bollocks. The latest line of bollocks being favoured by the religious apologists.
And even some scientists are falling for the spiel.

Because science hasn't investigated every single intricate bit of something, people trot out this old "science cannot explain" bollocks.
There's a big difference between "science hasn't yet fully explained" and "science cannot explain".

The basics of consciousness and thought are fucking obvious. Electrical impulses processing new or stored data.
My phone is conscious. It reacts to new data, and alerts me to a call.
It's got some way to go, to match a worm. But it's on the right track.

And the thing called love is easily explained by evolution and other sciences. Not in every detail, but what would be the point?
I think you people are confusing complication with real mystery.
Consciousness and love are incredibly complicated. But there's no real mystery there.

[Tero]

*like* button

[Seth]

No, they are formed IN neuronal circuits, not necessarily BY them. But even if they are formed "by" such circuits, science has no explanation for how or why that thing called "love" occurs. Indeed, science cannot (at the moment) even explain consciousness or thought.

It certainly can.

Can it? Prove it.

This is a complete load of bollocks. The latest line of bollocks being favoured by the religious apologists.

No, it's a fact of science. It can describe neurons, it can explain how signals move about, it can describe areas of the brain that become active under particular circumstances but it cannot, and has not ever been able to explain thought or consciousness. Please note I'm not making any theistic claims at all.

And even some scientists are falling for the spiel.

That's because they are way smarter than Atheists.

Because science hasn't investigated every single intricate bit of something, people trot out this old "science cannot explain" bollocks.

And it cannot, that much is proven.

There's a big difference between "science hasn't yet fully explained" and "science cannot explain".

Yes, and the difference is that science hasn't even begun to explain thought or consciousness in any way other than theorizing and hypothesis. Therefore, science cannot explain it. Someday it might be able to explain it, but there is no critically robust scientific evidence that it will ever be able to do so, which is the false presumption in your statement.

The basics of consciousness and thought are fucking obvious. Electrical impulses processing new or stored data.

Is that it? Prove it. Prove that consciousness and thought do not exist outside of electrical impulses processing new or stored data. For that matter prove that consciousness does exist in the electrical processing of new or stored data.

My phone is conscious. It reacts to new data, and alerts me to a call.

Is it? Prove it.

It's got some way to go, to match a worm. But it's on the right track.

Is a worm conscious?

And the thing called love is easily explained by evolution and other sciences. Not in every detail, but what would be the point?

Er, "science" would be the point, as opposed to ignorant speculation of the sort you're purveying.

I think you people are confusing complication with real mystery.
Consciousness and love are incredibly complicated. But there's no real mystery there.

Then you won't have any difficulty producing a peer-reviewed paper proving what you say. I'll wait...

[mistermack]

Prove it.

When you prove that you can debate intelligently, I'll prove anything you want.

[Seth]

Prove it.

When you prove that you can debate intelligently, I'll prove anything you want.

No you won't because you've already amply demonstrated that you can't.

[mistermack]

Prove it.

When you prove that you can debate intelligently, I'll prove anything you want.

No you won't because you've already amply demonstrated that you can't.

Prove it.

[Seth]

Prove it.

When you prove that you can debate intelligently, I'll prove anything you want.

No you won't because you've already amply demonstrated that you can't.

Prove it.

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum

[mistermack]

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum

Probare

[surreptitious57]

As an elected official the most pertinent question is whether the court has the authority to compel her
to do any thing especially something she does not as an elected official believe she has authority to do

The reason why she is refusing to carry out her duty as a public servant is because of her religious belief. However as that public
servant she is obligated to do what she is employed to do regardless of anything else. Otherwise she is in breach of contract and
so could lose her job as a consequence. Whether she believes she has the authority to do what is incompatible with her religious
belief or not is just an excuse for her not to carry out all her duties to the letter of the law. But employees cannot get to decide
which parts of their job they want to do and which they do not. They have to do all of it regardless of whether they like it or not