Discussions

http://news.yahoo.com/clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-court-ruling-083217111.html  
 
Looks like Kim Davis and her staff is to appear infront of a Federal Judge to explain her actions counter to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US).  
 
While she says those couples can go over to others counties to get the licence, but should those taxpayers have to drive to another county? They are paying taxes for that service in that county.  
 
As a taxpayer, would you accept a civic paid clerk saying no because of their religious beliefs? Even though it's perfectly legal. I can understand a church saying no to a same-sex couple if they choose but they are not civic office or employees paid by taxpayers.  

she's an elected official to the county clerk position. So she just can't be fired. One one hand, she doesn't want things forced on her that go against her religious beliefs. And yet she is forcing her beliefs on others. She's forcing her religious definition a marriage on others.

Religion is not allowed in schools, it sure shouldn't be allowed in work places either.

to have religious beliefs, but leave them at your works door when you enter. Especially when your an elected official in a civic clerks office. As a civic clerk, it's your job to serve all taxpayers your clerk office covers. Is long as it's a legal marriage, which now covers same-sex marriages. You can't deny them.  
 
I believe that clerks office is not issuing any marriage licences currently. Straight marriage licences are also being denied.  
 
With the multitude of different religions and beliefs, places like civic offices and workplaces need to be free of personal religious interference.  
 
A quote from her.  
'“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience,” she said. “It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s word.”'  
 
Isn't it also against God's word to divorce and remarry?  
 
 
 
Edited by Trevor B, 2015-09-01 19:04:13

anti-gay Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation says the clerk is wrong. I also didn't realize that Kim Davis told her staff to also deny all marriage licences.  
 
http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-not-issuing-gay-marriage-licenses-causes-uproar-north-carolina-shows-better-way/  
 
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/09/01/3697638/even-the-heritage-foundation-thinks-that-anti-gay-kentucky-clerk-is-nuts/

Trevor, I think your question poses a number of issues for American society in general.  
 
What I think is most perplexing to the whole issue is that the United States has a Supreme Court consisting of 9 judges that made a decision which trumps the rights of the elected officials in 50 states that make up the country to decide on their own behalf whether to permit same sex marriages. Whereas previously it was up to the individual states to decide, now because of a Supreme Court decision that right to choose has been taken away from the people. Not only that but the vote in the supreme court was split by only 5 to 4, meaning 4 of the Supreme Court Judges voted against the proposition that same sex marriage is a right that must be imposed on every individual state.  
 
One Supreme Court appointed (not elected) judge decided for the entire country that same sex marriage is a right and therefore imposes a duty on each individual state to grant marriage licenses to same sex unions. It begs the question of what has happened to the notions of democracy the western world was built upon?  
 
So now the US has county clerks who strongly object (by reason of conscience) to the idea that they should have to uphold the will of these 5 Supreme Court Judges - well guess what? 4 of the other Supreme Court judges agreed that those clerks shouldn't have to. Prior to the time of the US Supreme Court ruling so did a number of the US States and their elected officials. Not only that, but also at the very least a significant minority of the United States population is against the idea of same sex marriage. Yet, because of the vote of only one appointed official, in a country of around 320 million decided that all must find same sex marriage to be a right, it has now become a law. Now every one who wants to work as a county clerk must officiate over these marriages which to many they find to be contrary to their morals and conscience.  
 
This is an affront to Christians and others of faith, absolutely. Not only that, but it's also an affront to democracy in general. What began as democracy has broken down into the tyranny of a few appointed members of the judiciary over the public will. In a way, it's five judges versus the large portion of the United States population who strongly disagree with that ruling, this number by any count must surely reach well over one hundred million.  
 
This is so contrary to the principles of democracy and freedom that the United States was built upon. Trevor, you have said that civic offices need to be free of personal religious interference, yet it is more than obvious that the Supreme Court judges brought to the table their own religious opinions and belief when they decided how they would rule on this case.  
 
Further, you must appreciate that a decision of this sort would bar many people of faith from being able to work in civic positions where granting marriage licenses is only a small part of their actual work. At the very least it would bar the portion of the 70 million Catholics that believe in their faith from doing so. All because of one Supreme Court Justices opinion that has now trumped their religious beliefs and rights.  
 
You side with that one deciding judge Trevor, but in so doing you also side with imposing your will upon the minority who disagree with you. You may not notice it, but you side with stomping on the rights of minorities to work in government positions because they believe in a Christian faith that formed the United States.  
 

To get on the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS), you have to be appointed by the President that is elected by the people to make this decision. The appointment must also pass (be confirmed?) by the other two houses of elected representatives.  
 
To be selected by the President requires an extensive education in the field of Law, experience on both sides of the various court cases, and often be an elected judge from a lower court. It is not just the President's golfing buddy or major supporter that buys a seat on the bench.  
 
The problem with elected judges is that they have to follow the people's opinion rather than the educated and experienced knowledge that they have built up over decades of working in the field. This is when the majority thinks it is okay to oppress the minority like they did with the blacks and aboriginals. The majority voted in favor of slavery, but that did not make it right. The majority voted against interracial marriages, but that did not make it right. The judges that have the education and experience in constitutional law determined that these majority opinions contravened the Constitution ... which all laws must agree with. If a law disagrees with the Constitution, the law must be changed.  
 
This elected (but uneducated in Constitutional law) clerk does not understand that SCOTUS overrules her bible as per the Constitution. She swore to uphold the Constitution but is not refusing to uphold the Constitution. Not doing what you swore to do justifies the election of the clerk to no longer apply. If I was elected as Chief Animal Control Officer but decided that all cats could run free, I would be removed from my position.  

these clerks are doing is signing a marriage licence, it's not like they are actually marrying the couples. The clerks should not be the ones who decide who marries and who doesn't.  
 
These clerk offices can hire someone who doesn't base their decisions on religious beliefs if someone don't want to put their name on the licence. But Kim Davis has said no one in her office can issue any marriage licences. I think there is one in her office that has no issues with same-sex marriages. The problem could be solved right there.  
 
With all of the varying religions and beliefs in the US, someone has to make a non-religion based decision. I'm glad the US Supreme Court has members that can look beyond religion.  
 
The US just isn't solely Christian, but a mix of many religions, beliefs and non-beliefs.

Committed2Brandon, please do not speak for all Christians when you call this an 'affront'. Many Christian faiths and people fully agree with and support the right of any two adult people who love each other, to be able to get married.  
In my understanding, people at higher levels of government (ie- SCOTUS in the USA) are tasked with deciding what is a right and what is not, and this is done by majority vote. I am not 'up' on my US history, but what kind of margins where there when other rights were decided in the States - like when women or people of color or Native Americans were considered persons under the law, or when slavery was abolished, or other rights that are now taken for granted? If something is decided and declared as a right (in any country), then people whose job it is to uphold those rights need to do just that. If they don't agree with it, perhaps they should find a job where they don't have to do that.

I would say That the USA and Canada were both founded or settled by people that were fleeing religious persecution. I believe It is wrong to force anyone to do anything that violates and goes against faith.  
It is a double standard, once rights are sacrificed for someone else rights. Is that right?  
A while ago there was a post about what the effects the supreme courts decisions effect would mean. Someone posted a list on what it does not mean, wasn't this one of them on the list.  
Muslims are now able to pray in school, but Christians can't. double standard.  
This Country and the USA used to be Countries with religious freedom. freedom to deny a service that goes against ones religion or conscience. I believe that freedom should be upheld.  
Reading the story I got the impression that they were only interested in forcing their views on everyone else. Why not Respect her views and go down the road and try someone else.  
 
WE need to be able to respect all peoples views and conscience.

she's also forcing her views on others. She's saying the her religious rights are more important than others. Those that are wanting the same-sex licences may also be church goers and are religious. So are her rights more important than others?  
 
She's made it office policy of not giving out marriage licences since the same-sex marriages came law.

'As county clerk I am responsible for providing many services to the people of Rowan county. These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting election duties and tax duties.  
 
Our office is here to serve the public in a friendly, professional and efficient manner. We are constantly striving to upgrade our services in order to better serve you. This website is our most recent attempt to better serve the people of Rowan county. Here you will find contact information, important forms and documents, land and legal records, and much more. Feel free to contact us via phone or fax during business hours, or use our convenient contact form and someone will get back to you as soon as possible.'  
 
http://rowancountyclerk.com/  
 
So as long as your not seeking same-sex marriages or regular marriages, they will help you.  
 
Also it has been said many times that they can go to other counties to get the licences. But as a taxpayer and a voter in that county, why should you? They are suppose to be there for you as a resident in that county.

also cries that her rights and freedoms are being stepped on, but has no problem walking all over other peoples rights and freedoms.  
 
I'm starting to think this is all for her 15 min of fame as well. Especially when one of her other clerks has no problems with same-sex marriages and could sign the licence without being on their religious conscience.

Trevor B said "she's also forcing her views on others. She's saying the her religious rights are more important than others. Those that are wanting the same-sex licences may also be church goers and are religious. So are her rights more important than others?     She's made it office policy of not giving out marriage licences since the same-sex marriages came law. "

The same sex couple has other options. The option laid before the clerk is to go against her faith and against her conscience. For people of faith that is a really big thing because going against once faith and conscience goes against everything they believe in.. People of no faith... Well for them it doesn't matter if people of faith are forced against their faith.  
My ancestors were burned at the stake, they were stretched to death, had rags forced down there mouths, had limbs chopped off, yet they did not recant their faith. not much was required for them to save themselves, just deny their faith, but they didn't.  
It cost them their life.  
Think about it, what will it cost the clerk to stand up for her faith? her Job? Court Costs? stress? death treats? phone threats? will it effect her physically or mentally? Would you trade places with her to stand up for her faith?  
Faith is really important and there should not be a requirement of people holding a civil job to go against their faith.  
Have you ever heard the statement "History repeats itself." well it seems that in the name of tolerance we are becoming more intolerant of some groups and slowly creeping towards the middle ages.  
I would say "never again" but i think that might be wrong.

Committed2Brandon said "Trevor, I think your question poses a number of issues for American society in general.     What I think is most perplexing to the whole issue is that the United States has a Supreme Court consisting of 9 judges that made a decision which trumps the rights of the elected officials in 50 states that make up the country to decide on their own behalf whether to permit same sex marriages. Whereas previously it was up to the individual states to decide, now because of a Supreme Court decision that right to choose has been taken away from the people. Not only that but the vote in the supreme court was split by only 5 to 4, meaning 4 of the Supreme Court Judges voted against the proposition that same sex marriage is a right that must be imposed on every individual state.     One Supreme Court appointed (not elected) judge decided for the entire country that same sex marriage is a right and therefore imposes a duty on each individual state to grant marriage licenses to same sex unions. It begs the question of what has happened to the notions of democracy the western world was built upon?     So now the US has county clerks who strongly object (by reason of conscience) to the idea that they should have to uphold the will of these 5 Supreme Court Judges - well guess what? 4 of the other Supreme Court judges agreed that those clerks shouldn't have to. Prior to the time of the US Supreme Court ruling so did a number of the US States and their elected officials. Not only that, but also at the very least a significant minority of the United States population is against the idea of same sex marriage. Yet, because of the vote of only one appointed official, in a country of around 320 million decided that all must find same sex marriage to be a right, it has now become a law. Now every one who wants to work as a county clerk must officiate over these marriages which to many they find to be contrary to their morals and conscience.     This is an affront to Christians and others of faith, absolutely. Not only that, but it's also an affront to democracy in general. What began as democracy has broken down into the tyranny of a few appointed members of the judiciary over the public will. In a way, it's five judges versus the large portion of the United States population who strongly disagree with that ruling, this number by any count must surely reach well over one hundred million.     This is so contrary to the principles of democracy and freedom that the United States was built upon. Trevor, you have said that civic offices need to be free of personal religious interference, yet it is more than obvious that the Supreme Court judges brought to the table their own religious opinions and belief when they decided how they would rule on this case.     Further, you must appreciate that a decision of this sort would bar many people of faith from being able to work in civic positions where granting marriage licenses is only a small part of their actual work. At the very least it would bar the portion of the 70 million Catholics that believe in their faith from doing so. All because of one Supreme Court Justices opinion that has now trumped their religious beliefs and rights.     You side with that one deciding judge Trevor, but in so doing you also side with imposing your will upon the minority who disagree with you. You may not notice it, but you side with stomping on the rights of minorities to work in government positions because they believe in a Christian faith that formed the United States.     "

their ruling was, its against the constitution to deny gay marriage they didn't just decide to legalize it because it was politically correct or something.Its not an affront to democracy to side with the constitution.even if the majority disagrees  
This is the same bull Christians pulled during desegregation in the 60s it was an affront to their beliefs to mix the races and the supreme court ruled on that too against the majority they decided it was against the constitution to segregate.  
 
you must watch too much Foxs news or Glenn Beck, what you said is almost word for word their position  
 
The constitution is the supreme law in the US it starts "we the people" not according to gods law gods,gods law doesn't trump the constitution  
 
Edited by Midway55, 2015-09-01 23:46:28

rum said "    Trevor B said "she's also forcing her views on others. She's saying the her religious rights are more important than others. Those that are wanting the same-sex licences may also be church goers and are religious. So are her rights more important than others?     She's made it office policy of not giving out marriage licences since the same-sex marriages came law. " The same sex couple has other options. The option laid before the clerk is to go against her faith and against her conscience. For people of faith that is a really big thing because going against once faith and conscience goes against everything they believe in.. People of no faith... Well for them it doesn't matter if people of faith are forced against their faith.   My ancestors were burned at the stake, they were stretched to death, had rags forced down there mouths, had limbs chopped off, yet they did not recant their faith. not much was required for them to save themselves, just deny their faith, but they didn't.   It cost them their life.   Think about it, what will it cost the clerk to stand up for her faith? her Job? Court Costs? stress? death treats? phone threats? will it effect her physically or mentally? Would you trade places with her to stand up for her faith?   Faith is really important and there should not be a requirement of people holding a civil job to go against their faith.   Have you ever heard the statement "History repeats itself." well it seems that in the name of tolerance we are becoming more intolerant of some groups and slowly creeping towards the middle ages.   I would say "never again" but i think that might be wrong. "

What if a faith required someone to deny marriage licences to a certain racial group, because their faith doesn't support that race getting married.  
 
Would you agree that that's a faith to be respected in this civilized world? Yes or No.  
 
If the answer is no then explain how your faith requiring denial of marriage to homosexuals is any different.  
 
I would argue that supporting such a faith is a step backwards to the barbaric ages.  
 
The civilized world has no place or tolerance for racism and homophobia or any faiths that support that, directly or indirectly.  
 
 
 
 
 

this:  
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence)  
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by , 2015-09-02 01:24:17

Trevor, you may not realize how many of your own posts are stating what you believe is morally right and the judgment you are presenting overa person you've never meet in a country you're not a tax payer of.  
 
You feel authoritative to determine what Americans can and can't do morally in their jobs and are working to force your views on others here.  
 
We all have different views on morality. Therefore each person needs to decide what they can or can't morally accept. We can't fire or fine our jail others for having beliefs different than our own.  
 
Legal and moral are two totally different things and that's the real conflict which government had neverbeen able to deal with. Same sex marriage was illegal in Canada. Paul Martin made it legal. However, it was and is still immoral. Paul Martin doesn't determine my morality for me.  
 
O  
I should be allowed to hold that beliefwithout being called an oppressor when i don't opress anyone, and to compare todays homosexual lobbyists to African American slaves is obscene. It belittles slaves suffering by comparing to an entitled generation riding a wave of My Rights and self expression

Midway55 said "    Committed2Brandon said "Trevor, I think your question poses a number of issues for American society in general.     What I think is most perplexing to the whole issue is that the United States has a Supreme Court consisting of 9 judges that made a decision which trumps the rights of the elected officials in 50 states that make up the country to decide on their own behalf whether to permit same sex marriages. Whereas previously it was up to the individual states to decide, now because of a Supreme Court decision that right to choose has been taken away from the people. Not only that but the vote in the supreme court was split by only 5 to 4, meaning 4 of the Supreme Court Judges voted against the proposition that same sex marriage is a right that must be imposed on every individual state.     One Supreme Court appointed (not elected) judge decided for the entire country that same sex marriage is a right and therefore imposes a duty on each individual state to grant marriage licenses to same sex unions. It begs the question of what has happened to the notions of democracy the western world was built upon?     So now the US has county clerks who strongly object (by reason of conscience) to the idea that they should have to uphold the will of these 5 Supreme Court Judges - well guess what? 4 of the other Supreme Court judges agreed that those clerks shouldn't have to. Prior to the time of the US Supreme Court ruling so did a number of the US States and their elected officials. Not only that, but also at the very least a significant minority of the United States population is against the idea of same sex marriage. Yet, because of the vote of only one appointed official, in a country of around 320 million decided that all must find same sex marriage to be a right, it has now become a law. Now every one who wants to work as a county clerk must officiate over these marriages which to many they find to be contrary to their morals and conscience.     This is an affront to Christians and others of faith, absolutely. Not only that, but it's also an affront to democracy in general. What began as democracy has broken down into the tyranny of a few appointed members of the judiciary over the public will. In a way, it's five judges versus the large portion of the United States population who strongly disagree with that ruling, this number by any count must surely reach well over one hundred million.     This is so contrary to the principles of democracy and freedom that the United States was built upon. Trevor, you have said that civic offices need to be free of personal religious interference, yet it is more than obvious that the Supreme Court judges brought to the table their own religious opinions and belief when they decided how they would rule on this case.     Further, you must appreciate that a decision of this sort would bar many people of faith from being able to work in civic positions where granting marriage licenses is only a small part of their actual work. At the very least it would bar the portion of the 70 million Catholics that believe in their faith from doing so. All because of one Supreme Court Justices opinion that has now trumped their religious beliefs and rights.     You side with that one deciding judge Trevor, but in so doing you also side with imposing your will upon the minority who disagree with you. You may not notice it, but you side with stomping on the rights of minorities to work in government positions because they believe in a Christian faith that formed the United States.     " their ruling was, its against the constitution to deny gay marriage they didn't just decide to legalize it because it was politically correct or something.Its not an affront to democracy to side with the constitution.even if the majority disagrees   This is the same bull Christians pulled during desegregation in the 60s it was an affront to their beliefs to mix the races and the supreme court ruled on that too against the majority they decided it was against the constitution to segregate.     you must watch too much Foxs news or Glenn Beck, what you said is almost word for word their position     The constitution is the supreme law in the US it starts "we the people" not according to gods law gods,gods law doesn't trump the constitution     Edited by Midway55, 2015-09-01 23:46:28"

 
 
Edited by Midway55, 2015-09-02 02:03:53

Heritage said "Trevor, you may not realize how many of your own posts are stating what you believe is morally right and the judgment you are presenting overa person you've never meet in a country you're not a tax payer of.     You feel authoritative to determine what Americans can and can't do morally in their jobs and are working to force your views on others here.     We all have different views on morality. Therefore each person needs to decide what they can or can't morally accept. We can't fire or fine our jail others for having beliefs different than our own.     Legal and moral are two totally different things and that's the real conflict which government had neverbeen able to deal with. Same sex marriage was illegal in Canada. Paul Martin made it legal. However, it was and is still immoral. Paul Martin doesn't determine my morality for me.     O   I should be allowed to hold that beliefwithout being called an oppressor when i don't opress anyone, and to compare todays homosexual lobbyists to African American slaves is obscene. It belittles slaves suffering by comparing to an entitled generation riding a wave of My Rights and self expression "

It's not an obscene comparison, 10-25,000 homosexuals were murdered at the hands of nazis.  
 
In the 15 month period between January 1/13 and March 1/14, 594 homosexuals were murdered just in the americas, including an 8 year old boy because his father was unable to accept his homosexuality.  
 
It's worse elsewhere in the world, just in Iran alone since 1979 over 4000 homosexuals have been executed, never mind all the other hardline Arab countries, I just don't have time look.  
 
Then africa where the murdering and beating of homosexuals has reach epidemic proportions, all based on Christian values.  
 
It's safe to say that over the decades hundreds of thousands of homosexuals have been murdered from homophobia.  
 
All homophobia has its roots in religious conditioning, and then those attitudes passed from one generation to the next.  
 
In countries where religion never took hold, homophobia doesn't exist, like just one example being Papua new Guinea.  
 
But back to the point, its fair to compare your homophobic attitudes to racial attitudes of the past.  
 
A racist can oppress people simply by making their racist views public, and banding together with other racists, but without actually physically doing anything to anyone.  
 
It's called psychological oppression  
 
And the same can be said about homophobes.

In my opinion this woman does not get to decide which laws she gets to uphold or not in her government position. Just like police officers don't get to decide which laws they're going to enforce.  
 
If the law changes such that she has some personal conflict with it, then it's her duty to step down. Period.  
 
If the government allows her to continue doing what' she's doing, it is effectively violating the separation of church and state because the government would then be indirectly promoting the christian faith.  
 
Think about the can of worms this is going to open if she's allowed to continue denying licences. Now, any religious person with an axe to grind in any position of power in government is going to be able to do whatever they want, follow whatever laws they want, omit whatever other laws they want. And these people may not be necessarily of the Judeo Christian pursuasion, so Christians like this woman better be carefull what they wish for.  
 
 
 
Had she been flipping burgers noone would give a damn what her "faith" is, but she's in position that affects other peoples lives drastically. Is anyone under the impression that had she worked at Mcdonalds and refused to serve gay people shed still keep her job? Come on.  
 
"It's my Faith"!! I love that. Making a virtue out of believing something for no good reason. But I digress.  
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2015-09-02 07:47:20

She's a hypocrite, and should be fined every single time she denies a license.  
 
She won't issue the licenses because he wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, yet she's been divorced three times!! It's ridiculous for her to get on a moral pedestal when she's obviously got issues of her own.  
 
And to those saying those wanting a marriage license should just go elsewhere, bull! The argument that the ones being denied are the ones who should be considerate is absolutely ridiculous. Can they stop paying taxes since they can't use the services in their own community? This hateful religious n it can continue to refuse to issue marriage licenses herself while still allowing her staff who don't mind to issue them, but no, apparently it's ok to force her hateful views on an entire office of people by not allowing them to issue the licenses either.  
 
There is nothing moral about this woman's stance, anymore than there was with the teachers who walked out of the school that allowed the first black child many many years ago.

Her president doesn't follow the laws he doesn't like so why should this clerk be forced to after all she has a phone and a pen also.

tafeel said "Her president doesn't follow the laws he doesn't like so why should this clerk be forced to after all she has a phone and a pen also. "

Weather or not that's true. Pointing at another violation of the law to justify a violation of the law is just dumb.  
 
I can't go out and steal a car and then point at someone else who's stolen a car and expect special treatment.  
 
And shes an elected government official yet.  
 

What is obscene is your "opinion" on this subject. Many, many homosexuals in the U.S. have been beaten, killed, forced from their homes, and they continue to be discriminated against and treated poorly by people with your attitude daily. The fact that you appear to be denying this and are offended by the comparison to what blacks have gone through shows you are either ignorant and uninformed to their plight, or you're in denial of it.  
 
It's so tiring hearing people use religion to discriminate and judge others. This woman claims morality while heading into her third marriage? That's three divorces for this woman....I didn't think God approved of divorce?  
 
Just say "I'm a homophobe" and stop using religion as your reason for it. if there is a God, I'm confident he isn't the hateful discriminating God some of you try to make him out to be.  
 
And since she doesn't have to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court while doing her job, that means nobody else has to either, right? People should just walk right in to that office and start filling out their own marriage licenses. No need to follow rules or laws, they can just use their morals as an excuse for anarchy.

They only banned forced prayer in school back in the day, every morning the whole school stood at their desks and led by usually the principal over the loud speaker in every class room there was a mandatory reciting of the lord prayer, to try and opt out was a trip through hell you would be hauled in front of the principal lectured then harassed by your class mates, that is what is banned not a total ban as some would have you believe.  
 
Kids can pray read the bible in school when ever they want they can even have christian clubs on school property  
 
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm  
 
Edited by Midway55, 2015-09-02 09:42:30

I hope all you Christians sticking up for this woman's right to discriminate and break the law because of religious beliefs, realize there is freedom of religion for all religions, by your standards if this woman was Muslim she could deny you something perfectly legal based on the Koran, she could insist on conducting business in that office according to Sharia law, because to do other wise would compromise her relationship with Ala, you couldn't deny her deeply held beliefs could you I'm sure you would stand quietly by her decision.LOL like hell you would.

Midway55 said "I hope all you Christians sticking up for this woman's right to discriminate and break the law because of religious beliefs, realize there is freedom of religion for all religions, by your standards if this woman was Muslim she could deny you something perfectly legal based on the Koran, she could insist on conducting business in that office according to Sharia law, because to do other wise would compromise her relationship with Ala, you couldn't deny her deeply held beliefs could you I'm sure you would stand quietly by her decision.LOL like hell you would. "

I believe that any person of any religion should have the freedom deny a service because of Faith. And no I would not have a problem If service was denied to me because of Faith. It might spark my interest, where I would want to ask the person about their faith. I admire people that stand up for their convictions and faith. If I don't agree with them i would not frequent their business and if it is a public service, I would find someone else who will provide that service. but I would not force them to go against their faith and provide me a service that violates their faith. Why can't we tolerate one another and respect one another including their faith.

Midway55 said "They only banned forced prayer in school back in the day, every morning the whole school stood at their desks and led by usually the principal over the loud speaker in every class room there was a mandatory reciting of the lord prayer, to try and opt out was a trip through hell you would be hauled in front of the principal lectured then harassed by your class mates, that is what is banned not a total ban as some would have you believe.     Kids can pray read the bible in school when ever they want they can even have christian clubs on school property     http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm     Edited by Midway55, 2015-09-02 09:42:30"

why do we see stories like that every month or so.. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/05/teacher-tells-student-cant-read-bible-in-my-classroom.html

If your religious beliefs are stopping you from doing what the job description is you shouldn't be doing it. Just like any other job, if you aren't doing it properly you get fired.