This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

And the Beat Goes On For Kim Davis

 Some readers took umbrage over my equating the Kentucky clerk with Rosa Parks.   Today in an WSJ op ed goes me one better.  The writer compared Kim Davis to Thomas Moore who stood up to Henry the VIII.  “Just as More was willing to go to the Tower of London rather than put his name to something he believed to be contrary to God’s law, Ms. Davis” was put in a Kentucky jail for a similar belief."

The author goes on to ask “Is the priority ensuring that Rowan County’s gay couples can get the marriage licenses they are entitled to, without hassle? Or is it breaking a Kentucky woman asking for an accommodation?”

If the goal is the former there are any number of solutions. “She’s not asking the state of Kentucky to share her view or even to deny couples their licenses. What she objects to is that the marriage licenses come with her name “affixed to the certificate.” She asks the state to find a way around this.”

Interestingly, Title VII of the Civil Rights“rejects the ‘you don’t like the job requirements, so quit the job’ argument” writes a legal scholar.  The law requires employers to make accommodations from generally applicable rules provided they do not impose “undue hardship.”  Kentucky has its own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which may give Ms. Davis even other avenues of defense.

Meanwhile must the judge make Kim Davis issue these licenses, or having them issued in a way she believes conveys her approval? Is clapping this woman in jail really the only solution?  Its a rare thing in America to see someone go to jail for their beliefs, the writer says.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am curious -- the marriage licenses that were issued by assistant clerks while Davis was in jail -- were they issued WITHOUT her name? If so, didn't the court actually do what she requested, only they jailed her first? Why couldn't they have just did as she requested and allowed the licenses to be issued without her signature if that is what they did anyway? Sounds to me like she just needed to serve as an example...

Anonymous said...

Blogger

Lets be clear, Ms Davis went to jail for voliating a court order against her discrmination and for acting against the human rights and civil rights of LBGT citizens she is sworn to serve equally under the law.

Ms Davis is paid to act as an agent of governement, not as a missionary of her personal religious beliefs.

Sarkazein said...

Next a doctor will be jailed for refusing to perform an abortion.

Sarkazein said...

or prescribing the "morning after" pill for someone on Obamacare. California is ready to allow doctors to help someone commit suicide. Will it be mandatory for the doctor?

Sarkazein said...

Doctors forced to commit murder.... not so far fetched. Who would have ever thought, even 5 years ago, an elected government official would be jailed for not endorsing two men "marrying" each other?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I will try to explain the difference in very simple terms. The issue is discrimination. If the doctor offers an abortion service - he cant discriminate about who gets the service. The government is not forcing the doctor to provide services - just like the government cant force a baker to offer wedding cakes. He can simply have a policy that says - no wedding cakes. If a baker does offer wedding cakes - those cakes must be made for everyone that asks for one - it does not matter their age, race, color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Kim Davis refused to provide a legitimate public service - the very job she was hired to do. She was jailed for violating a court order. If she could not sign the license document (that apparently must be signed by the clerk of court)then she should step down so that the public service can be provided by someone who can.

Anonymous said...

Abortion is legal.

Sarkazein said...

HM you wrote- " The government is not forcing the doctor to provide services... "

If you weren't trying to be so "simple" you would have read my comment. These are things that logically could follow. There are government employee doctors and federally funded doctors. If insurance companies are forced to provide things against their religion and religious places have to go to court and sue to not be forced to participate in abortion, it is not a stretch.

Again, who would have thought 5 years ago an elected government official would be jailed for not endorsing homosexual "marriage"? Who would have thought, after years of being told by liberals that our tax money would never pay for abortions when we now have to register in Obamacare that provides abortion and will eventually provide suicide pills.

Who would have thought even a couple of years ago that our tax money would support a group that sells murdered baby parts on the "black market"?

You and your kind are the problem. Incrementalism through dishonesty.

Will said...

And what "Kind" would that be?

Sarkazein said...

Annoyance 8:48 AM- Left-wing radicals who use incrementalism. Was that not clear?

Happily Married said...

Blogger - this came across my screen and I thought it worthy of sharing (not my words - but from a pastor):

Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.

First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.

Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.

Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.

This is why we are losing.
This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.
Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.

We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.
We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.
If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I do not prescribe to your slippery slope approach. Since Insurance agencies are not religious entities - they are business entities, it is impossible to "force" them to do something against their religion. Religious entities are a tougher situation that will most likely be handled on a case by case basis.

You dont have to register in Obamacare - you are free to obtain health insurance in any number of ways. The Planned Parenthood videos are portrayed inaccurately: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/index.html

"My kind" is why woman have the right to vote and why segregation no longer exists. "My kind" is why if a man wants to marry another man - it is now legal. If a man wants to marry a man (and I know very good men in this position) then how is it up to anyone else and their particular religious qualms to say no to the fabulous relationship that would put two people in the position of wanting to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. Homosexuality has been around for all of mankind. Not marginalizing another human being because of their sexual orientation is not radical - it is progressive - but not radical. It is also long overdue.

Sarkazein said...

HM- Of course you don't admit to incrementalism. Wise guys deny there is a mafia too.

Insurance companies are owned by stockholders like me. Chic-Fillet is not a church either, but many business owners/stockholders have religious views or like me, don't like being told by men in black robes, not legislators, that they are changing the meaning of a word and that I must comply with their new definition.

Everyone must comply with Obamacare, so all are participating whether you get a subsidy or not. My premiums skyrocketed so that insurance companies could afford to insure others by law.

Anonymous said...

The southern baptist preacher quoted above must not have known that davis was saved AFTER her divorces. If he knew that, he would understand that you cannot hold a christian accountable for things they did before they were a christian. Thats the point of being saved -- your sins are forgiven. A non-christian won't understand that either which is why so many non-christians are trying to make it a big deal.

Blogger said...

Perfect response Anon 2:28 pm. Thanks. I thought exactly the same thing as you when I read it and I hope someone reminds the Baptist what he is preaching.

Democratus Rex said...

"...you cannot hold a christian accountable for things they did before they were a christian."

That's convenient.

Secondly, WHO cannot hold a christian accountable??

Anonymous said...

I can never decide wheither the conservative mind is more amusing or or more frightening.

Sarkazein said...

You're just a frightened little girl.

Sarkazein said...

HM- Would you say your "southern pastor" knows Kim Davis' mindset or is it his opinion?

Anonymous said...

http://todaychristian.net/a-detailed-explanation-of-why-christians-dont-accept-gay-marriage/

Anonymous said...

Democratic Rex said, ""...you cannot hold a christian accountable for things they did before they were a christian."

That's convenient.

Secondly, WHO cannot hold a christian accountable??"

Ahhh, the liberal mind at work -- open-mindedness, tolerance, acceptance of others -- all those things liberals CLAIM to support, on display right here!

Liberals demand tolerance and acceptance, but refuse to actually EXTEND such attitudes to others.

Your ignorance is surpassed only by your arrogance...

Sarkazein said...

Well said Anonymous 2:56 PM

Blogger said...

Ditto Sark

Happily Married said...

Anon, Sark , and even you Blogger - So a christian can hold someone else (homosexual) accountable - even if they are of different religions - until they are considered "saved"? - forcing the Christian view of homosexuality on them - and you somehow call THIS tolerance and acceptance?

I would not hold Kim Davis responsible for her many divorces - it is her life after all. I do hold her responsible for discriminating and shaming gay couples who have done nothing wrong - in and of themselves and in and of their won religious beliefs.

As stated previously, the concept that religious peoples can EXTEND that religious belief to include clients, customers, etc will cause society to digress into chaos. The personal practice of religion has no place in the business world- unless your business is religion - such as a church. This is a basic tenet that people will just have to get used to. It does not mean that Christians are being persecuted - it means they cannot discriminate.

It was very informative to provide the christian perspective on gay marriage - but it changes nothing. This country is made of people from many faiths. All faiths must be respected. It is not acceptable to call someone a sinner just because your particular faith says they are. It is not acceptable to amend your actions toward people - be it breaking bread or issuing marriage licenses - because you consider those people sinners (see previous posts ref Galatians, Antioch). The Southern Baptist minister pointed out why you are losing this fight - I think mostly because you deserve to.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you get this -- the Christian isn't judging or holding the homosexual accountable for their PAST sins. They are refusing to condone someone who refuses to admit their sin and who wants to celebrate their sin. A Christian who becomes saves ADMITS their sins, asks for forgiveness and strives not to sin anymore. A gay person who gets married and wants to force a Christian to participate in that wedding isn't admitting that what they are doing is wrong and striving to stop their sinful behavior. If that's what they want to do, they have free will and can choose to do whatever they want, but don't force a Christian to go along with it by providing any type of service. Just leave the Christian alone. Ishmael said this pretty well. Why can't you see that the best thing would be to just leave people of faith alone instead of seeking them out to put them in a position of choosing between their faith and their careers? Again, a Christian will not judge someone for their past as you are doing, they are required NOT to condone sin and an unrepentant attitude. They are required to not help someone to sin -- if they are Christian, they will seek to help someone see that what they are doing is sin. What you are asking is that a Christian NOT love someone by sharing God's love and instead, help them to hell (in the Christian's mind -- not yours). You seem unwilling to understand the position you are putting Christians in with your attitude.

Since you want to discuss Galatians, maybe you know this part of Galatians 1: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

Galatians was written by Paul, who also wrote this in Romans 1, "24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Same author for both passages, so you seem to be distorting the gospel. I don't expect you to agree with anything I write. I only ask that you respect the beliefs of other people and not force them to do something they really don't want to do. Many Christians believe Matthew 10:33 - "but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Did you read the link I posted above, or are you not interested in understanding others, just yelling at them telling them how wrong and evil they are? Why are you so intolerant on this issue? Why not just leave people alone? Why do you feel the need to FORCE people to see things ONLY your way?

Anonymous said...

And I am not FORCING my view of homosexuality on anyone. The gay person and you are forcing YOUR view of homosexuality on the Christian. You are saying that even if a person disagrees with homosexuality, their view must be subservient to yours. Why do you think your way is the only right way? Christians just want to be left alone on this issue. You want to force the Christian to serve homosexuality. Who is really doing the "forcing" here?

Anonymous said...

From the article above:

For Those Genuinely Interested In Understanding Why Christians Oppose Gay Marriage

That’s why there is so much being said that doesn’t really reflect what Christians think. Some say we hate or we judge. Others say we are against love. Some think we’re threatened by homosexuals. Some think we object too vociferously because we secretly want to join their ranks. Some even claim we don’t think God loves gay people.

None of that is true, but maybe it’s understandable that you jump to those conclusions if you’re not familiar with the Bible or with the details of Christian doctrine.

What I want to do here is lay out an explanation for the basis of Christian opposition to gay marriage. The intent here is not to convince you if you don’t agree, although I’d be glad if I did. If you come away from this feeling that you better understand the Christian position, but still disagreeing with it, then I’ve accomplished my goal.

First, a few caveats: This explanation is going to reflect my particular denominational bent, which is Pentecostal. I don’t think the substance of what I say will differ in a substantive way from any Bible-believing denomination, but I recognize, for instance, that Baptists or Lutherans may not put as much emphasis on the supernatural as I do. Noted. I still think they would mostly endorse the substance of how I’m going to explain this. Also, my target audience here is people with a genuine interest in understanding. The fire-breathing ideologue who is simply spoiling for a fight about anything and everything is going to do what he or she always does. That’s not my problem.

Finally, I understand that some of you don’t believe in God or in anything spiritual, and for you, all of this is absurd on its face. You’re still welcome to gain an understanding if you’d like, even though I recognize you will not accept the basic premise behind any of it.

Anonymous said...

(cont)

With that said, let’s start by establishing a basic point about the Bible. The Christian (present company included) believes that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. The various writers wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so we don’t believe it was merely “written by men,” and we also believe that God has protected His Word over the course of centuries with new translations to reflect modern language – by choosing godly men and women to lead those translation processes.

That’s why, when we cite the Bible, we treat it as authoritative.

Also, since every writer of the Bible was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t matter when people argue that “Jesus never said anything” about this or that. Just because an issue isn’t specifically referenced in the red-letter words of Jesus (although the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman actually is, which we’ll get to shortly) doesn’t mean Scripture had nothing authoritative to say on the matter.

Now, let’s establish beyond any doubt what Scripture says about homosexual sex. I have five passages for you, starting with Romans 1:24-28:

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Anonymous said...

(cont.)

This passage clearly establishes that God intended a natural order for how we would receive and engage in the gift of sexual activity, and it likewise establishes that homosexual sex is outside that established order. It also establishes that there is a penalty for this. Loving Christian people want to see gay people spared of the pain of that penalty.

Next, let’s look at Mark 10:2-9:

2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees about divorce – one of their typically pathetic attempts to trap him – and in the course of answering, Jesus lays out God’s clear plan for marriage, affirming that it is indeed between a man and a woman. There are people who argue implausibly that Jesus only phrased it this way because, in that day and age, He couldn’t have conceived of gay marriage. That’s transparent nonsense. As the Son of God, Jesus knew everything that would ever happen. And Jesus introduced lots of concepts into His teaching that were radical in His day. If He had been OK with gay marriage, this was the perfect opportunity to say so. Instead, he affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Anonymous said...

(cont)

Next, let’s look at Leviticus 20:10-18:

10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. 11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 14 If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. 15 If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. 17 ‘If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his guilt. 18 If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.

Now I realize many will focus on the “put to death” aspect of this, and that’s where you have to understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law. A lot of people cite prohibitions against things like eating shellfish as evidence that Leviticus is just full of random nonsense. No. Those are laws specifically for the Israelites about remaining ceremonial clean for entering the Temple and offering sacrifices to God. Those are ceremonial laws.

Anonymous said...

(cont.)

The death penalty proscribed for these sins is likewise a penalty under ceremonial law, but make no mistake, God views the actions described as moral sins, and the reason I included so many other examples is to establish that there is such a thing as sexual morality, and there are limits to it. God intends sex to be enjoyed within marriage between a man and a woman who are not closely related to each other, and He is very stern with those who engage in sexual immorality – as defined in great detail in this passage. That’s because God establishes that when you unite with someone physically, you also unite with them spiritually – and He only wants you to unite spiritually with one person. Your spouse. Of the opposite sex. Taking on the spiritual iniquity of others with whom you were never intended to unite is a very dangerous game, and God is trying to warn you against doing so.

Next, 1 Timothy 1:8-11:

8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

Just to be clear, sodomites are those who engage in sodomy (referenced in other translations as those who practice homosexuality) and fornicators are those who engage in sex outside of marriage.

Finally, James 1:14-15:

14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

I included that last passage not just to show that desires of the flesh are sinful, but also to show that sin has ultimate spiritual consequence, which is torment in your life and ultimately death.

Anonymous said...

(cont.)

Now, I know that’s a lot of Scripture, so let me pull it together. Every one of us is born into sin. For the homosexual who says, “I was born this way,” I will not argue. We were all born with sinful urges of our flesh. Some struggle with anger. Some struggle with heterosexual lust. Some struggle with gluttony or addiction to alcohol. And some struggle with homosexual urges. These are our desires. They come from the flesh and they war against the spirit.

God’s desire for each person is that they will repent of those desires and surrender to Him so that He can deliver them from these urges by the power of Christ. The Christian who loves as God loves certainly does not a hate another human being for having sinful desires of the flesh. We have them too. We need the power of Christ to be delivered from them. But crucially, we recognize that these urges are sinful and we want to be delivered from them so we can be in a right relationship with God, and receive the fullness of His blessings in our lives.

I understand why some Christians struggle with this. They know a gay person, or maybe have a gay family member, and they want that person to be happy. It’s enticing to accept the “love is love” argument and to believe that surely God wants that gay person to be in a loving relationship.

But that argument wrongly conflates love with sex. There are a lot of different kinds of love. Hopefully you love a lot of people, but you only have sex with one person – the one to whom you’re married. If you want a gay person to know love in a romantic/sexual relationship, good, so do I. So I will pray that this person is delivered from those urges through the blood of Jesus so that he or she can find the mate of the opposite sex that God always intended for them to come together with.

For a Christian to encourage a gay person in the consummation of a gay “marriage” is to encourage their permanent indulgence in a lust of the flesh that Scripture clearly tells us God finds detestable, and to suffer all the spiritual consequences that come with that. It would be like encouraging you to go hiking down a path where we know a deadly wild animal is waiting to devour you. Far from hating you, we’re loving you by warning you of the consequences and urging you to repent – which literally means to turn back and change directions.

Anonymous said...

(cont)

That’s why the Christian baker doesn’t want to bake that wedding cake, and why the Christian adoption agency doesn’t want to process those papers, and why the Christian church won’t perform the ceremony. And that’s why so many people like me won’t be cloaking our Facebook profile pictures in the rainbow colors. What we want for you is something better than your flesh is leading you to, and we’re praying for you to receive it. We’re not going to encourage you to follow the desire of your flesh instead of the light God wants to put in your spirit.

I hope that by reading this, some of you gained a better understanding of the Christian position on gay marriage, and why a Bible-believing Christian can never accept it. If you did – even if you still disagree – I did my job.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Yes I read it - and you did not need to post it in its entirety. What dont you get? Its only a sin to the pigheaded "traditional" Christians - to the magistrate, the baker etc. but it is NOT a sin for their customers. So tell me again how the magistrates or bakers actions aren't FORCING their religion on their clients? Views on homosexuality become irrelevant - it does not matter. No one is forcing the Christian to be gay - just to do their damn job. What their client does in the bedroom is none of their business. I will repeat - this is why you are losing the battle People are tired of either people not minding their own business.

BTW - I ma not distorting the gospel any more than those who would cherry pick verses from the gospel to serve their purposes (or prejudices). I notice Ishmael retreated when I put his words back to him regarding this.

Anonymous said...

If a Christian serves gay customers in a million ways in their businesses, but respectfully asks NOT to be compelled to participate in a gay wedding when there are other businesses for the gay couple to go to, WHY is that such a big deal to you? Why not just say, "I respect your beliefs and how you feel about this and will not FORCE you to participate."

The only thing you can say in response is, "You can't discriminate!!!" Is that all you've got? NO respect for the beliefs of others. No willingness to just leave somebody alone? No willingness to just show a little respect and understanding? Again, it seems YOU are the one who wants to FORCE your beliefs on others. It is YOU who is being pig-headed, stubborn, intolerant and angry ("just to do their damn job?"). You are exactly what Justices Roberts and Scalia were talking about. I don't think Ishmael retreated -- he probably got tired of repeating the same thing because you're not interested in mutual respect and understanding -- you're only interested in making the Christian bow to gays. I've read the posts -- he seemed to say pretty much the same thing I'm saying now, and you still refuse to even be willing to SUGGEST a willingness to compromise. Why is that? Why do you hate so much?

You may think we are losing this battle, but the more people are persecuted by intolerant people like you, the more sympathetic more people will be. If a gay couple ever demands to get married in a church that doesn't want to host it, everyone will know what this issue is really all about.

Why do you hate so much, get so angry, refuse to respect the beliefs of Christians when they are really acting out of sincere beliefs. You must be a truly unhappy person.

Ishmael said...

HM,
I did not "retreat," I believe I very clearly said that I would not continue to interact with someone who essentially compares me to a wife-beater. You are losing when you sink that low. And I don't know what "words" you turned back on me.

Are you referring to Kim Davis' divorces when you said this: I pointed out that Kim Davis conveniently judges those brethren for whom she was a part of just a very short time ago. In this way Kim Davis is supporting and condoning a celebration of sin by divorcing on such a regular basis - but that seems OK with you. You blast me for cherry picking my laws and you "True Christians" are just as guilty of cherry picking your sins. Look forward to your response on that one.

I think that has been covered rather well by anonymous. If you don't accept or Christian theology, you'll NEVER understand this next statement -- when a person is saved, they are "born again" and their past sins are forgiven. They become a new person and their sins are "wiped away." I guess that Christian truth escaped you in your readings of Galatians and the Bible since you are quick to bring up Davis' divorces in this discussion. She says she became saved AFTER her last divorce. I won't judge her. But I WILL refuse to participate in a gay wedding in any way because a gay wedding is an event where the specific purpose is to celebrate something that I believe to be sinful. You don't have to agree with me. Gay people don't have to agree with me. We can differ and go on and be happy! But don't FORCE me to be there and take pictures if I'm a photographer. That would be discriminating against me and my religious beliefs.

Here's how this conversation goes -- I mention clerk Davis. You respond, "She didn't follow the law -- she should go to jail!" I ask about Gavin Newsome, who performed gay marriages against the law. You say, "He was doing what he thought was right and didn't hurt anyone." I say, "Isn't Davis standing up for what she thinks is right." You say, "Stupid Christians -- what you believe isn't 'more' right than what someone else believes -- and she's been divorced." I'm curious, why do you think that what you believe is more right than anyone else? You are so hypocritical -- you do exactly what you accuse others of doing! Claiming to be right and everyone else to be wrong.

I'm with anonymous on this. You ARE the one trying to force your beliefs on others, with no other argument than, "You can't discriminate" while you discriminate against the Christian. From now on, your rights to free speech are limited to your home. Don't say or type anything that can leave your home in any way, including contributing to this blog. If my religious rights can be so confined, so can your speech rights -- what you say might hurt someone else's feelings.

I'm done -- back to beating my wife -- still a vile and despicable thing to say that you never even attempted to walk back. You truly are an unrepentant jerk.

Democratus Rex said...

If it relies on the supernatural, which the article clearly says, then scripture is a myth, a fairy tale, superstition. The religious mind at work; afraid of the dark, no room for reason.

Happily Married said...

Anon and Ishmael,

I was indicating retreat when I very adeptly inserted my words into your words to represent how your interpretation of biblical scripture is just as willy-nilly as who goes to jail for breaking different laws. The bottom line is discrimination. When gays are treated as equals this conversation is over. I fully understand that you believe homosexuality is a sin - I suggest you not be a homosexual. If a homosexual (some of whom are Christian) believes that homosexuality is misrepresented in the Bible and it is not a sin - their beliefs are just as valid as yours. I dont claim to be right about homosexuality - I am right about equal rights and non discrimination. I will repeat for the benefit of the dim witted - Please please please believe what you want to believe in your home and in your church. If you are responsible (as dictated by the government) for issuing marriage licenses and your religious conscience will not permit others to simply live by their religious beliefs when it had nothing top do with yours - by all means quit your job. If you are a baker or a photographer who refuses to provide services for a gay wedding, then say "I am sorry - I am booked for that date" - or stop providing wedding services. You do NOT need to say how your belief is somehow "right" and the persons getting married and somehow wrong in their belief. It is simply unnecessary, demeaning and shaming in the process. Discriminators have gotten around the law for decades in various ways - please ask an old southerner how to get around serving the pesky negro. You know what my reasonable compromise on this one is - find a way to exercise your beliefs without it being discrimination. I believe I hate stated the only way - deception. I believe I have stated many times I do not hate Christians (for obvious reasons). Many Christians love their brothers and invite them in - regardless of their sexual orientation. So I am also not discriminating against the Christian - only the ones forcing their beliefs on others. What I have said many times and you dont seem to understand is that I fully respect your beliefs and your right to live by your beliefs. Issuing a marriage license, baking a cake, taking pictures, is a business transaction - not a religious action - get it through your thick skull - this will be final determination of the many judges who will take this up in the future. Since it is a business, your personal beliefs become irrelevant and discrimination is illegal. I will also repeat that I will fight with just as much enthusiasm to protect any church that refuses to marry a gay couple. That IS a religious action and deserves to be protected. This is why you are losing (and will continue to do so) - you cant be logical about how the world should work - you just think that your religion trumps all others - even when your not directly involved. I am a very happy person who will continue to beat this drum until discrimination is eradicated. I dont hate Christians and truly respect their beliefs. I respect the beliefs of all religions - as long as they do not discriminate. If you offer a business service to anyone - you offer it to EVERYONE. That is plain and simple (although beyond most here). Please tell me how I have somehow offered a service to anyone - and then not offered it to everyone on the basis of sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Aha - you seem to have forgotten the definition of discrimination - despite how quickly you accuse me of such.

Ishmael said...

But here's what I'VE been saying all along, and YOU are too dim-witted to understand. I have always opposed gay marriage because I have claimed that once legal, gays will use the force of government to compel religious minded people to do things that they previously did not have to do. Let me make this clear -- YEARS AGO, YOU SWORE GAY MARRIAGE WOULD NOT IMPACT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AT ALL. AT ALL! Now, you say that religious people MUST bake that cake, attend the service and photograph the service, etc. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Before gay marriage, Christians couldn't be forced to participate in such events. Now they are. How can you split hairs SO FINELY as to claim that this is actually NOT an effect on religious persons. You claimed that there would be no impact. Now, there IS impact, and you're only answer is, "You can't discriminate." SO I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG, AND YOU LIED!

You even went so far, at one point, to state that exceptions would probably need to be made for photographers, musicians, anyone who might actually have to attend, so that they would not be forced to attend. Where is that conciliatory attitude now? You've changed your position, and now demand that Christians be made to attend, and participate in something they object to. So I call you a liar and a tyrant, not because it is name-calling, but because it is true.

The ONLY ANSWER you have is "discrimination," but you do not see the discrimination that you yourself are engaging in. You cannot "respect" the beliefs of someone while you trample on those beliefs through your tyranny. And your response? You tell the person to lie to avoid having to participate. You really just don't understand, and you really don't care.

And you are just plain stupid. I keep saying that if a business serves gays in every way but refuses to serve a gay wedding, that is different from wholesale discrimination. I have previously linked articles from gay activists that say this very same thing. If quoting a baptist preacher is supposed to validate your opinion, why is my quoting a gay activist supporting my view not validating mine?

I will continue to battle for religious rights just as hard as you battle for denying Christian rights. To compel people to participate in an event they strenuously object to OR choose to give up their chosen profession, which they may have had for years prior to this farce of new "right" does not respect the religious views of others.

PLEASE RESPOND TO THESE LAST QUESTIONS, IF NOTHING ELSE: Why can you not just adopt a live and let live attitude? Every time I ask this, you ignore it and simply say, "You can't discriminate." Why can't you and gay people just respect the rights of someone else, and patronize a business that doesn't have a problem serving gay weddings, and not demand that THAT particular Christian baker or photographer be put on the spot to satisfy you?

Ishmael said...

And you are STILL a vile, despicable jerk for the wife beater comparison. You showed your true self with that and the constant cursing. You must know you have no answers other than "discrimination." Just pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Happy Married

Imagine an eternity with a place filled with "Good Christian" souls like Ishmael, Blogger and Sark for company?

With your logic, reasoning and humanity you may miss the opportunity of sharing an eternal space with these "Good Christian Conservative souls. It's also possible they will be reincarnated as gay people of color, in a poor country neighboring a stable wealthy nation. I love the concept of Karma so much better than a heaven or hell.

Happily Married said...

Ishmael,

The simple answer is that I AM suggesting a live and let live attitude. The gay couple understands that religion does not permit you to participate in a homosexual relationship and you dont deny any services available to anyone else and you are not forced to either participate in or condone a homosexual relationship. If issuing a marriage license or baking a cake celebrates sin - then you need to get over yourself.
The more complicated answer is that would you make the same statement or ask the same question of ANYONE that opposes mix race marriages? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 1970s - but the same concept is being fought today. I have proven with article after article how "Christian" principles were used to fight mix raced marriages - funny how the only response i got out of that is Sark's inane "Happy is trying to create a new race - homosexuals." As if discriminating against race is abhorrent - but homosexuals is OK. Answer me that Ishmael - was that OK?
Finally, I am a jerk for comparing your "Love" to a wife beater but humiliating wonderful couples because of their sexuality is somehow not being a jerk. I dont care how pretty a package you wrap it in - to look at a couple and proclaim - you are sinners and I cannot provide my same services to you that I provide to anyone else is shaming and hateful - period. Blogger was right - this is a civil rights issue. I did show my true self - I love all and do not discriminate (notice you did not answer that question as to how - exactly- I have discriminated).
I have thought about the ramifications of political office and have often thought that the most noble of causes is that which is not for yourself or your type - fight for those who have nothing to do with you if they are being mistreated - and your cause will be true. You fight for your simple minded kind. I am not homosexual and have nothing to gain from frighting for homosexual rights. Please tell me how I am a tyrant with that being the case. You fight for and hide behind your religion because you are too simple minded to see beyond your existence - or those of your mindset.

Happily Married said...

Ishmael,
After further reflection it occurs to me that your definition of "live" is only as it applies to you or your religious faithful. Kim Davis can marry and divorce and mother children out of wedlock and proclaim that she is "saved" - and all is forgiven - but a wonderful gay couple who have done no harm in this world can ask for a marriage certificate and they are denied. What is "living" - happiness, marriage, family? Live and let live means just that - that even gay couples have the same opportunities to live as heterosexual couples. I am all for "live and let live" - are you?

Sarkazein said...

About the most dishonest way to describe the Gay Mafia is "live and let live".

Riley Martin said...

Please explain, dear people, how a gay marriage affects you personally? Is your marriage weakened? Are you denied a place in heaven? Must you be god's policeman and disallow those things that may offend god's sensibilities? Are you rewarded for providing that defense? Gay people, and all people for that matter, should have the right to go to hell without your intrusion.

Sarkazein said...

RileyRodhamMartin- I suggested you go back and read the hundreds of comments on scores of threads addressing the issue on mostly unrelated posts.

Sarkazein said...

HappilyMarried's personal attack on Kim Davis reminds me of the Clinton attacks on Paula Jones and even Monica Lewinsky (sp).

Riley Martin said...

My dear Sarkazein, I am addressing you(or anyone else), now, on this thread to clearly explain. No one has addressed the aforementioned points. Ironically, It is not possible to go backwards in time on this blog.

Sarkazein said...

RileyRodhamMartin you wrote- "Ironically, It is not possible to go backwards in time on this blog."

Click on "Older Posts". You can go all the back to HappilyMarried claiming to be a conservative.

Ishmael said...

My last comment because I have a life, a job and a family -- and I have to beat my wife.

My vision of "live and let live:" Gay couples can get married and live happily ever after. Christians do not object to this new "right." Gay couples respect the rights of religious person enough to not compel a person who politely and lovingly says that they do not wish to be compelled to participate in a gay wedding. There is actual mutual respect. The gay couples are allowed to live their lives together, and the Christian is left alone to live their life freely according to their religious conscious. In the world today, the gay couple has no trouble finding plenty of businesses willing and able to cater to their needs in relation to their wedding, and the Christian does not turn away every customer just for "being gay" -- in other words, the only thing the Christian can claim in regards to their religious conscious is not participating SPECIFICALLY in a gay wedding -- and gay people and their supporters understand and respect this narrow exception. Everyone finds a way to live together in tolerance and mutual respect that is actually backed up in peoples' actions and attitudes.

HM's vision of "live and let live:" Gay couples can marry. Gay couples can also walk into any business and compel another person, against their will, to participate in their gay wedding. Even if that person lovingly and respectfully and politely requests NOT to be FORCED to do this, the gay couple does not care. They file a lawsuit against the business or owner, and profit to the tune of over $100,000, bankrupting the business owners, causing them to lose their homes and livelihood. Gays are allowed to live, but they do not "let live" others who, through sincere religious beliefs, simply want to live their own lives in liberty of conscious. In many of these scenarios, the gay couples don't just "stumble" upon a Christian business; they have researched local providers, and video or audio record their interactions with the Christians in an undercover "sting" type operation (which is frowned upon if Planned Parenthood is the target, but Christians are absolutely fair game!). The religious rights of the Christian are now at the mercy of and subservient to the marriage rights of the gay couple, and even further, religious rights are now considered to be under "house arrest" as these rights are no longer allowed outside of the church or home. Rights are not attached to the individual -- they are confined to a location. Christians are now told that their religious rights do not follow them anywhere outside of their home or church, and to not accept these limitations risks "hate speech" or "discrimination" charges, with appropriate fines and imprisonment the consequence. Live and let live is not a mutual attitude -- it is an order directed from gay nazis and their supporters to and at Christians and other religious individuals (though no gay couple has had the courage yet to demand services from Muslim businesses -- they must have seen the video of the Femens activists getting kicked in the head and ribs by Muslims when they protested Islam in France).
(cont.)

Ishmael said...

(cont.)

This is the essential difference in our attitudes. You, at one time, stated that you would support such an exception as I referenced above, but now that gay marriage is here, you no longer believe that. I believe at one time you stated that you had changed your mind because "a$$&*&s" like me were being stubborn. I found that interesting. It belied an attitude of vengeance and payback. I also found enlightening your statement that you are fighting for something where you have nothing to gain. That's a typical liberal attitude, isn't it? You are doing it so you can say to yourself, "I'm a good person! I care about other people. Religious people are too stupid to understand 'love' and 'tolerance,' so I have to force them to act enlightened." It's really about stroking your own ego!

Be sure to comment again, so you get the last word! I will be working in the real world to unify Christians to stand up for their religious liberty. It truly is being threatened by people like you.