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.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Kentucky Judge Says Officials Can't Pick and Choose What Laws They Enforce, Oh Really?

  A Kentucky judge sent Kim Davis to jail yesterday for refusing to issue same-sex couples a marriage license. The Judge said public officials can’t just pick and choose the laws they will enforce. Oh really?

One attorney reminded us that in sanctuary cities, officials pick and choose what laws they will enforce every day, as one example. Even the DOJ does. Why is there no one in jail?

Where does all the energy come from demanding punishment for one little obscure Kentucky lady? Something does not pass the smell test here.

37 comments:

Blogger said...

Huckabee and Santorum are supporting her. Perhaps they also see the hypocrisy. On the very days that sanctuary cities are in the news, everyone including Lindsey Graham and others are proclaiming "Officials can't pick and choose." Oh really?

Ishmael said...

Part of this issue that often goes unmentioned - the clerk's attorney asked the court to allow marriage licences to be issued WITHOUT the clerk's signature. That has been part of the issue -- that the clerk, as a Christian, didn't want her signature on the licenses. The judge refused and ordered her to issue the licences with her signature. What say you? Would allowing licenses to be issued without the clerk's signature be a way to accommodate religious beliefs and gay marriage? After all, the licenses are now being issued without her signature, she just had to be jailed first. This is a no compromise issue for the radical homosexual lobby. Gay marriage has ALWAYS been about using the force of government to persecute people who believe homosexuality to be a sin -- to FORCE a change in beliefs. Homosexuals are intentionally seeking out Christians and forcing them to make a choice between their personal beliefs and gay marriage. There can be no compromise. You will bow down to the altar of the homosexual or you will be punished.

Sarkazein said...

Political prisoners will increase in Obama's final days. What country will bargain for their release?

Anonymous said...

Blogger

How many Conservatives would be okay with a Islamic Clerk of Court exercising his religious beliefs by denying services to fellow citizens he felt were not following the Koran as HE interrupted God as saying?

Ishmael said...

I would be fine -- I would respect his diversity and go to another clerk (as the gay mafia couples in KY could easily have done) and get my marriage license from them. They had options. They don't care about options. They only care about FORCING people to change their beliefs or submit their beliefs to the tyranny of homosexuality and sexual perversion. Same goes with the bakers, photographers and florists that are being assaulted and persecuted for their beliefs. Gay couples have myriad options, but they are dedicated in their assault upon specifically Christian businesses and individuals. They have yet to demand services from a Muslim baker and then sue. They intentionally seek out Christians, demand a service WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY WILL BE DENIED, then sue to drive them out of business, fine, them, jail them, level death threats at them, knowing full well that the media and liberal idiots like you will back them up without critical thought or any willingness to compromise. The evidence is piling up, day after day.

Ishmael said...

And I notice there has been no answer to my question - if the Kentucky clerk gets jailed for not following the law, re issuing marriage licenses, why aren't sanctuary city council members jailed for not enforcing federal immigration laws? Why wasn't Gavin Newsome jailed for issuing marriage licenses to gay couples when that was illegal? Must have something to do with the views and issues, rather than a "following the law" issue. Certain views (Religious ones) are out of vogue, and those who proscribe to them are being persecuted, First Amendment rights be damned.

Ishmael said...

And I would love to see a Muslim clerk of court refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. THAT would be ironic!

Anonymous, do Muslims "interrupt" their god? You must be an idiot.

Ishmael said...

And what about Hillary Clinton? Federal officials are REQUIRED BY LAW to use ONLY government email to conduct ALL government business. She has very obviously broken the law. As an official, she has not upheld the law and should be jailed.

Ishmael said...

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2015/09/06/needed-a-million-more-like-kim-davis-n2048447

"Even as I write, a kind, soft-spoken and well respected civil servant of 27 years sits languishing, like some violent criminal, in a Kentucky prison. She is confined, indefinitely and without benefit of a trial, to a tiny cell. She is a political prisoner in a spiritual war. Like so many accidental civil-rights heroes that came before her, Davis, a Democrat who was overwhelmingly elected as Rowan County clerk, has peacefully and graciously refused to violate her Christian conscience. She has declined to sign her name to marriage certificates that defy God’s natural design for the timeless institution and has requested, as a simple accommodation, that either her name be removed from the marriage licenses, thus eliminating her personalized acquiescence to the Supreme Court’s novel attempt to usurp God’s authority and redefine this cornerstone institution, or, alternatively, “to allow licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County or [by] developing a statewide, online marriage license process.”

That’s it. Simple, reasonable and fair. Our nation has a rich history of respecting the rights of conscientious objectors, and Kim Davis, like tens-of-millions of her brothers and sisters in Christ, is exactly that.

“There is absolutely no reason that this case has gone so far without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis’ First Amendment rights,” said Mat Staver, Davis’ attorney and head of Liberty Counsel, a Christian civil rights organization."

Where is HM? Doesn't the request by Davis sound like a decent COMPROMISE? HM has disappeared and will not defend the rights of Christians or any religious persons because he has always lied about his position. He and others like him lied when they claimed that gay marriage is ONLY about equal rights for gay couples. It is, and is daily being proven, about assaulting traditional religious views on homosexuality. There can and will be NO compromise on this issue for homosexuals. Christians will relent and submit, or they will be destroyed.

Ishmael said...

And to claim, in simple-minded fashion, that one cannot discriminate against homosexuals because homosexual marriage is now legal does not respect the fact that many people entered a particular profession LONG before gay marriage was even a consideration. A photographer or baker that has been in business for 20 or 30 years most likely entered the profession never even considering that 20 or 30 years in the future, they may be forced into a position of abandoning a lifelong career over the gay marriage issue. HM and homosexual tyrants don't care. You are told, "Well, if you don't like it, you can change careers." Why should a person who has practiced a certain trade for their entire lives be forced to give up that career, simply because homosexual tyrants say they have to? No compromise. And HM is and always has been a liar.

Happliy Married said...

Ishmael,

Not sure about name calling - but I certainly don't appreciate it - but in the spirit of your posts - here goes. You, as usual only spew one side of the conversation. You better pick a more representative poster child for "deeply held religious beliefs". This Jerry Springer wanna be (Kim Carter)has a long way to go (if she could ever get there at this point)to being a Mother Teresa runner up. The reason I have been silent on this woman is because the system is working these things out - in the fashion it probably should. I read how this woman's supporters were in the office when gay couples actually received their marriage licenses shouting "perverts" and disparaging these citizens on what should be the happiest day of their lives. Tell me that this is not about discrimination and you will be the liar. Kim Carter has defiled the idea of marriage so far beyond Godliness with her actions that she has no business judging others. I don't care if she claims a few years as a "born again". She decided to demonstrate hate - plain and simple. Curious how the most religious have to have an outlet for their hate. The Republican poster boy for hate is way up in the polls - for that very reason. He name calls and crowds love him. He disparages Latinos - and the crowds love him. Kim Carter refuses to issue marriage licenses to perverts - and the crowds love her. This country has a hate problem. People are frustrated that the country is too politically correct - because their outlets for hate have been minimized. Cant hate blacks - cant hate gays - who can we morally justify hating? Why not illegal immigarnts - we know they have done SOMETHING illegal just by showing up here so it is morally justified. As religious people, you and the Kim Carter's of the world suck - because you have no f**cking idea what the love of Jesus Christ is all about. You just want to hate. Kim Carter has no sincerely held religious beliefs - she just wants to hate - or have some "go fund me" account set up for her retirement - and the idiots like you are going to fund it - just to let a little bit of that hate flow.

Happily Married said...

Now Ishmael, if you want to talk about the practicalities of the law, lets have that conversation. Kim Carter is the person identified and responsible for issuing marriage licenses for the people of her county. She was elected for the specific purpose of providing that service and is the only person authorized by law to provide that service in her county. The judge has simply said - do your job. She has that option just as well as people trying to get marriage licenses have options. The option of removing her particular name is not an option - unless you want to change a law for her specific purpose. Just like everyone else in this county - her religious freedom ends when she steps into her office - unless her job has something to do with religion (a State issued marriage license does not meet that criteria). She has freedom to think and pray whatever she wants - on her own time - in her own house or in her own church. Her religion only counts for one person - herself. God has NO authority when it comes to laws. She is simply mistaken. I will protect her ability to pray in whatever manner she sees fit at home or church. If she has decided that marriage in the name of God is what she wants to be professionally - I will protect her right to enter some priest hood and perform religious ceremonies exclusively - where she can proclaim that - in her church - God actually has some authority and she will not be compelled to marry perverts. We'll see how long that church lasts. The point is - above all else - this is an issue of law - and has nothing to do with religion.

Sarkazein said...

"Kim Carter has no sincerely held religious beliefs..." - The Thought Police have spoken.

Happily Married said...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/04/1418403/-This-is-how-you-challenge-people-who-use-the-Bible-to-defend-discrimination?detail=facebook

Happily Married said...

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-33695-religious_exemptions_how_the_world_would_look_if_k.html

Sark - Intended to write Kim Davis - Carter County clerk of court - had nothing to do with thought police has to do with her actions. She has been married four times to three different men and fathered children out of wedlock. She states that she is not perfect - but no one is. She has made plenty of mistakes - but refuses to let others make legal "mistakes" according to her definition. She claims religion based on a traumatic experience 4 years ago. No - she has "flash in the pan" religious beliefs - most likely fearing perpetuity in hell based on her decades of sin. But hey - at least she is saved now. Give me a break. Much like you - she just needs to have a group of people to put down to make her feel better about her screwed up life. Its called hate and bigotry - not "sincerely held religious beliefs". Call it though police if you want - but it does not take Columbo to figure this one out.

Ishmael said...

HM,
Now answer the questions about:

-City council members in sanctuary cities (should or should not be jailed?);
-Gavin Newsome issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in violation of law (should or should not have been jailed?);
-Hillary Clinton (should or should not be jailed?).

If you don't agree that they should all be sent to jail, then you are being hypocritical and favoring certain issues over laws, proving my point.

All of that, and you don't respond, also, to whether or not any compromise should be reached. Should people like you be WILLING to compromise, or will you continue to take the uncompromising position of, "It's your job and the only place you can actually live by your belief is in your church and house." I personally thought the requests by the clerk were reasonable, but to you and the homosexual fanatics, reasonable is not acceptable. Maybe you would be happy if all religious people withdrew completely from society and set up independent autonomous communities? Drive everyone out? Not very tolerant. A backlash is coming....more and more Christians will stand against this onslaught against religious freedom and Christianity, specifically. The United States is becoming more and more like the Roman Empire during the times of the persecution of Christians, and you're leading the way.

Ishmael said...

HM's true self demonstrates itself in this quote, more than any other:

As religious people, you and the Kim Carter's of the world suck - because you have no f**cking idea what the love of Jesus Christ is all about.

Let me be clear, and you can do all the research on every one of my posts here -- I have never "hated" gay people. It is my job to love them, but preach a message of the need of repentance -- turning FROM sin, not condoning it or assisting it. I have never confronted any gay person and yelled at them, or told them that they are going to hell. Not my job. I hate the tactics of the Westboro Church and others who think they are furthering their cause by telling "fags" that they are "going to hell." I HAVE strenuously and ardently opposed gay marriage because I have seen it for what it is and always has been - a front behind which liberal secularists and homosexual tyrants in particular will assault religious persons - you seem unable to understand the difference. I have always said that I cannot tell people what relationships they enter into, who they have sex with or anything else. They can do as they please. But once gay marriage is legalized, homosexuals (and you) will use that legal recognition to attack Christians. What is happening now? I believe exactly what I've predicted. I am right and you are a liar (again).

As far as name-calling goes, the only thing I have called you is a liar and a tyrant. Thanks for dropping the f-bomb on me. Just goes to show that I'm getting to you because I'm right, you're wrong and I'm pointing it out. This is about attacking Christianity, and you're doing a fine job of that, in spite of all your promises that this was not about religion, just "equal rights."

You said, " The point is - above all else - this is an issue of law - and has nothing to do with religion." So should Gavin Newsome have been jailed when he issued marriage licenses to gay couples in San Francisco when it was illegal to do so? You can't answer this one, can you?

Ishmael said...

And HM, do you consider yourself a Christian? I would really be interested in your answer, since you seem to believe you know more about "the love of Jesus" than I do. Since you seem to acknowledge Jesus in some way, I would LOVE to have THAT conversation with you - Christian theology. I'll bet blogger would like that one as well....

Sarkazein said...

" She has been married four times to three different men and fathered children out of wedlock."

The Thought Police pass judgement.

Happily Married said...

Ishamel,

You do not realize that the "sanctuary city" movement is a fight against discrimination. You don't understand that by saying - "the Federal Government's immigration laws are so messed up that we do not need to deal with them" does not deny anyone their rights. Refusing to issue marriage licenses does. Hillary Clinton using a secure server that want actually a government server being a punishable crime by jail - maybe in the country you want a procedural violation is worthy of jail - how many of your republican buddies have had procedural lapses?. I also bet that she wont do it again. Kim Davis is in jail because she refused REFUSED to simply do her job. She had the option of doing her job. She was told it was wrong to discriminate - and she still refused to do her job. That is why she is in jail and the other examples are completely irrelevant. It would be hypocritical if it were the same thing - it is not.

How do you compromise on equal rights? Currently the legality of the larrige licenses issued is in question. The couples have the equal right to those licenses. If she has a conscientious objection to the new law - then she can make a statement - hand over her job to someone that will do her job. Then the documents will all be legal and her "sincerely held religious beliefs" will not be compromised.

Personal beliefs should be restricted to your house or your church. That is not uncompromising - that is the only way society will function without these stupid debates. Religion has no place in government or business - unless religion is your business. I happen to love religious people. I especially love the religious people who say - "God is love" and accept gay people and their choices without judgement. I dont want to drive anyone out - just like I dont want the gays driven out of society. If you force me to choose gays over Christian haters I will choose the gays that choose love over hate.

The backlash you speak of is the last dying breath of hatred as more an more young people do not understand the concept of hate. gays are not perverts and are not violating any of God's laws. Hatred is serving to provide the scared and huddled masses to look down upon others so that they might be risen up and maybe - just maybe not spend eternity in Hell.

Many christian groups are supporting gay marriage these days = who is right? you or them? I will hold those Christina groups that accept everyone on high and celebrate the love that they spread. The government is not persecuting Christians - the Christians that are being persecuted are bring it on themselves. Society is growing intolerant of the hate - and I am leading the way.

Ishmael said...

"Many christian groups are supporting gay marriage these days = who is right? you or them? I will hold those Christina groups that accept everyone on high and celebrate the love that they spread. The government is not persecuting Christians - the Christians that are being persecuted are bring it on themselves. Society is growing intolerant of the hate - and I am leading the way."

Thank you for proving me right. If a person holds to the biblical attitude regarding homosexuality, you are out to change them, or at the least, suppress and punish them for their view. Exactly what I've claimed from the beginning -- and you are and were a liar when you said that the gay marriage movement would have NO, repeat, NO impact on religious views.

To me, the BOTTOM LINE is, will homosexuals and their supporters (you) be willing to respect the religious beliefs of others and not seek them out to COMPEL them to choose between their faith and their livelihood. I think you've given your answer in many ways -- you will support those that hound, persecute, seek out and destroy, issue death threats to religious persons all in the name of "tolerance." How ironic. No live and let live attitude for the Christians. Throw them to the lions!
Calling you a liar isn't calling you a name, it's pointing out that you are a liar.


"You do not realize that the "sanctuary city" movement is a fight against discrimination."

That does not matter. If sanctuary cities are in violation of city laws, those city council members should be jailed. You prove me correct with every post. Liberals such as yourself don't REALLY believe in equal application of laws -- you pick certain issues as favored and enforce laws only on those people that differ from you. You need a basic civics class. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. You claimed that argument when arguing FOR gay marriage. Now, you toss it aside when defending sanctuary city officials, and give some mealy-mouthed response regarding Hillary Clinton (who DID violate federal law SIMPLY by using a non-government email as secretary of state -- I don't care if she never does it again -- SHE DID IT!!! -- Jail her!)

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I have no problem with Kim Clark's many marriages. I don't care. It is NOT right for her (or you) to pass judgement on anyone's idea of marriage - period.

Ishmael, as stated, I do not have a problem with Christianity as some Christian groups have proven to be loving and compassionate and don't care if you are gay or not. I have been to these Christian churches for their services and find their love of fellow man uplifting and inspiring. Once again, the war is not against Christians, the war is against hate.

Gavin Newsome did not violate anyone rights - he simply did not follow his rules or procedures. He should have been fired if he refused to stop - if a judge had ordered him to stop. Do you see the difference yet?

You say you do not hate gay people - yet it is OK to discriminate against gay people because you believe they are committing a sin and are not worthy of a basic right provided to men and woman - marriage. You do not see that that separation and indicating that they "are not worthy" provides ammunition for those that would take that "lower class" distinction and turn it into hate -such as bullying, intimidation, and violence. Yous say that you do not hate, but your words and your actions inspire hate. Forgive me for not seeing much of a difference.

Abraham Lincoln said...

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made, then in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having to that extent having practically resigned their government into the hands of this eminent tribunal."

Sarkazein said...

Amen Abe!

Sarkazein said...

"I have no problem with Kim Clark's many marriages. I don't care."- HM
Typical Liberal dishonesty. You used it to trash the individual for her beliefs.

Ishmael said...

The only difference I see is that you believe in upholding the law if it supports your view, but do NOT believe the law should be upheld if you personally think it is "unjust." That's what I've been saying, dunderhead! The law is the law. If you believe, in the case of this clerk, that it is right that she be jailed for not following the law, then the same should go for ANYONE who is a public official and makes a conscious choice not to follow/uphold the law! That's what the concept of rule of law means. But liberals such as yourself don't care about the law, you care about your pet issues. And you will choose which ones to enforce/follow based on your opinions. Why can't everyone do that?

And you think this is going away? Yeah, Roe v. Wade settled the abortion issue -- we don't talk about that anymore. And Brown v. Board absolutely ended racism, so we don't talk about that anymore, right?

You still don't see the HUGE shift in your own attitude here on this blog. You once argued that gay marriage would have NO impact on religious beliefs in this country. Now, you are proudly leading the way to CHANGE religious beliefs in this country by harassing, threatening, jailing, fining and belittling people of a religious belief that does not have your personal approval. This is why I will mention in every post I make -- you are a liar! You pretend to be moderate and fair-minded and tolerant -- like many liberals -- but at heart, you are a tyrant who believes that the only acceptable beliefs are yours. The first amendment rights regarding religion were meant to protect religion from the very tyranny that you represent. It is why the founding fathers included them -- they knew that certain people -- YOU -- desired, more than anything else, to control other people. At what point will you acknowledge that, now, the people who are TRULY being discriminated against in this country today are religious persons and that it is YOU doing the discriminating?

Ishmael said...

Allow me to sum up your position in short, clear, concise statements for the casual reader:

Not all laws need be followed or enforced; if a law is in conflict with a liberal attitude, it can be ignored, and the person ignoring it is a hero (Newsome, Clinton, etc.); if a law is in agreement with a liberal attitude, the person ignoring it is a hate-filled bigot and can be carted off to jail (Davis);

Religious persons MUST choose between the career or their faith if they sincerely believe their faith prevents them from condoning or participating in a gay "marriage" in any way;

There can be no compromise on the issue of gay marriage. Even if a reasonable compromise is suggested by a religious person, such as allowing marriage certificates to be issued without the signature of the clerk, that compromise MUST be rejected and the clerk MUST sign the certificate or resign or be jailed;

Because a few Christian denominations have abandoned the Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality, theirs is now the legitimate view regarding homosexuality and anyone who believes in the Biblical view is now just filled with hate, bigotry and not a "true" Christian (religious beliefs now subject to approval of HM) because they "have no F*&^ing idea what the love a Jesus is all about" (this coming from a person hostile to and very obviously ignorant of Christianity; using the F-bomb in the same sentence as Jesus?);

Any person who has sinned is not a "true" Christian (demonstrating an ASTOUNDING ignorance of Christian doctrine -- oops, not HM approved Christian doctrine);

Yeah, I think that about sums it up...

Jesus loves you, too, but he calls everyone to turn FROM their sin; Jesus preached a message of repentance; Christians are not to judge sin, but neither are they to condone it or willingly participate in its celebration -- that would not be showing love for the sinner as it would only deceive them into thinking there is no consequence for their sin; the true Christian loves others so much they don't want to see them condemned to hell, but not being able to explain any of this will only help the sinner on their way to hell; you talk about "God is love" and the "Love of Jesus" but seem totally ignorant of the fact that Jesus talked quite a bit about hell and judgement and the need to repent. There are a lot of churches and ministers that fall into this trap as well and they are not doing the sinner any favors. If at the very least, the Christian is no longer able to freely preach and share their view in public, the LEAST you could do is support a spirit of compromise and mutual respect by not FORCING Christians to support and condone a celebration of sin. This attitude of TOLERANCE is too much to ask from a liberal.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I did not use it to trash her beliefs - I used it to indicate that the pot should not be calling the kettle black - she has no business or right judging anyone else s marriages given how much damage she has caused to her family and to the institution of marriage with her bad choices.

Ishmael,

I did not address what a true Christian was or not - I asked that question of you. I asked which approach was right - theirs or yours. Please tell me you are arrogant enough to think that your God has told you the correct interpretation and that your view is the "right" view. Please tell me that you watched the video I posted that basically slammed the inconsistent approach to biblical teachings that is currently the norm. I'll even put in another way :

"Not all biblical teachings (laws) need be followed or enforced; if a biblical teaching (law) is in conflict with a Christian (liberal)attitude, it can be ignored, and the person ignoring it is a modern Christian [hero (Newsome, Clinton, etc.)]; if a biblical teaching (law) is in agreement with a Christian (liberal) attitude, the person ignoring it - homosexuals - is a pervert and not subject to the same basic rights as all others [hate-filled bigot and can be carted off to jail (Davis)]"

Please notice I left the original text in place for the simple minded. Thus ends the lesson in hypocrisy. Please come back when you are no longer capable of throwing the first stone. According to the Bible divorce is just as much a sin as homosexuality. Please tell me again how Kim Davis has "deeply held spiritual beliefs"

I did not call you a hate filled bigot. I pointed out that making homosexuals a second class citizen provides a hate filled environment for them to have to live in. You conveniently did not address that point. BTW - I dont recall ever saying that any person who has sinned is not a "true Christian". 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.

Sarkazein said...

HappilyMarried- You are a faithful warrior in The War on Conservative Christian Women.

Sarkazein said...

At least in your last comment you displayed your natural belief that homosexual "marriage" is in your mind comparable to something also bad in your mind... multiple marriages, multiple baby daddies..

Sarkazein said...

Also HM, you are saying that "she damaged the institution of marriage" through her actions. Aside from the point that you do not know the circumstances of her marriage history, you are saying others actions can "damage the institution of marriage". Why is that? If you don't like to divorce, then don't get a divorce. If you don't like having multiple Step-parents, then don't have multiple Step-parents (re-marry). You are OK with polygamy as a form of marriage, why should multiple divorces be frowned on by you?
Liberal dishonesty... it is you in spades.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I have clearly indicated previously that I believe marriage should be a life long commitment. I should have clarified the "damage" part. I was referring to the common Christian response that gay marriage would somehow damage the institution of marriage. I fail to see how this woman's marriage history is any less damaging from a Christian's perspective. Again, I do not care and not in a position to judge - Christina seem to be the one's in the position to judge. I guess you are cherry picking your judgement here - what say you? Gay marriage is BAD - multiple divorces is OK? I guess as long as you can still morally justify oppressing one group of people than it must be OK.

Happily Married said...

Ishmael,

Funny how you say you "love" gays and show it by trying to convince them of their evil ways in order to not go to hell. Why cant you love them by providing them with the same rights as others and not providing an environment that separates them as "less than" or "evil"? It is your kind of "Love" that has caused endless suffering throughout the world. Kind of like the spousal abuser who claims that they "Love" the other and that it is the "Love" that makes them hit the other. I'll take my version of love over your any day of the week. And you want to preach to me about your knowledge of "love" - I think not.

Anonymous said...

"I have no problem with Kim Clark's many marriages. I don't care."- HM
"Typical Liberal dishonesty. You used it to trash the individual for her beliefs." -Sarkazein

Pointing out hypocrisy is not trashing someone for their beliefs. I believe Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrites.

Ishmael said...

"Kind of like the spousal abuser who claims that they "Love" the other and that it is the "Love" that makes them hit the other."

You are a vile and despicable person for stooping so low with that particular comparison. You must realize how badly you are losing this debate to feel the need to hit with such a pathetic and dirty statement. To address some of your erroneous statements as quickly and concisely as I can -- I need to head back out and hurl epithets at "fags" and beat my wife some more:

You are obviously ignorant of Christian theology. Not surprising. Most people that are hostile to Christianity and hate Christians the way you do can't be expected to actually understand it beyond the "God is Love" and "Jesus is Love" statements. If that was all we needed to know, the Bible would only be six words long. No, I don't judge gays for being homosexual, just like I don't judge Davis for her divorces. The key point is that Christians believe that once a person is saved, THEIR SINS ARE FORGIVEN and only Satan and his agents will attempt to use a person's past to discredit or discourage them. Gays don't fit into this category regarding gay marriage. They want to compel the Christian to join with them in a celebration of their sinful lifestyle. If Davis had asked me to join her in a celebration of her divorces, I would have refused for religious reasons. You are simply dense for not understanding this difference.

You either are too stupid to understand what I'm saying, or you are purposely being obtuse because you realize the rightness of my position when I say the following: under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do I support wholesale discrimination of gays. I only strenuously object to the power gays are claiming to COMPEL Christians to participate IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER in a gay wedding. If a gay person walks into a bakery and wants a birthday cake, NO PROBLEM. Wedding cake, different story. If a gay person walks into a photographer's studio and wants a portrait, NO PROBLEM. Photograph a gay wedding, different story. To be honest, AND HEAR ME WHEN I SAY THIS, I would IMMEDIATELY DROP all opposition to gay marriage if I witnessed one iota of willingness by you and the gay radicals to respect the rights of religious persons to opt out of GAY MARRIAGES. But what do I get in response from you? "Well, you can't discriminate." THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!!! The gay marriage issue is a front to use the power of government, and the charge of discrimination specifically, to hound and persecute Christians. I ONLY stand for the rights of Christians NOT to be compelled to participate in gay weddings. You? You ONLY stand for absolutely NO COMPROMISE on this issue. What say you? Willing to say, "Yes, I believe our society should abide by a "live and let live" philosophy, because I am. I will not say another word about gay marriage, if you would support the idea that if a gay couple has a choice between a Christian baker that doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding and another baker that is just fine with it, the gay couple respect the Christians beliefs and just patronize the other baker. I still don't understand the mindset behind someone who says to themselves, "That Christian baker that doesn't want to bake my cake....THAT'S the one I WANT to FORCE make my cake! Who thinks like that? Someone who has an ulterior motive, obviously.

Ishmael said...

(cont)
It has occurred to me that you actually ARE the person you claim to oppose -- you are a hate-filled, intolerant bigot! The people you hate are Christians who hold to traditional Christian teachings. You want to marginalize them; push them out of the public sphere. You are telling them that the are second-rate citizens and an undesirable element who deserves to be harassed and fined and imprisoned for what they believe. You are doing to Christians EXACTLY what you claim Christians are doing to gays, you intolerant, hate-filled bigot!

I would love to school you some more, but to be honest, I've made my points over and over, you are simply refusing to see the fine difference between being compelled, against one's will, to participate in a very specific event, and wholesale discrimination against gays, which I oppose. You seem to be perfectly fine with wholesale discrimination against Christians, saying that the constitution only protects their rights in their homes and churches and nowhere else. I must have missed that phrasing in the First Amendment.

Back to beating my wife...

Happliy Married said...

Ishmael,

Seems like I met be getting to you a little bit. Instead of addressing my statements and questions - you go back to beating the same old drum. Are the traditional Christian views the right ones? Traditional Christians objected to mix race marriages - was that the right interpretation of the good book?

I don't hate Christians - just like you don't hate gays. Your frustration has got to stem from your lack of a very basic understanding of discrimination and of practicing personal religious beliefs. Two couples walk into a bakery and ask for a wedding cake - the first heterosexual couple gets one - but the gay couple behind them asks for the very same cake at the very same price and they are denied because they are gay. This is blatant discrimination - the reasons become irrelevant. If the couple were mix race heterosexual, it would be a crime to deny them. The gay couple is discriminated against for the very simple reason that they are gay. They have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. They simply want to legally bind themselves together just like everyone else gets to. Kim Davis gets to practice her personal religious belief and marry member(s) of the opposite sex. No one told her that she had to deviate from that personal religious practice. Would it have been right for a judge to deny any of her divorces because he was an even more traditional Christian and believed that divorce is (as the bible says) actually a sin? If everyone was allowed to impart their own particular religious views into their work, society would be chaos. By denying ANYONE a marriage permit, she is discriminating and IMPOSING her personal religious views on that couple. This is where she is wrong. I don't hate her for her views. I hate the fact that she shamed perfectly fine couples just for being who they are. Kim Davis did not go to jail BECAUSE she is a Christian - she went to jail for violating a direct court order. The court order did not violate her beliefs because it did not tell her to marry someone of the same sex - it simply said do your job. No one is forcing her to change her religion or believe any differently. Her publicly shaming gay couples is simply wrong - Christians who publicly shame gays by proclaiming that homosexuality is a sin are wrong. They can believe it in their own house and church - but dont marginalize an entire class of people because you misinterpret a 2000 year old book. I dont discriminate against Christians - I offer the same services to anyone of any faith or denomination. I also dont discriminate in that no one has the right to discriminate in your business - no one.