Jump to content

Judge to state clerks: Obey the Constitution!


quietfan

Recommended Posts

If a person's morality conflicts with the law and, that person is responsible for upholding that law, if they truly feel that strongly about regulating the morality of others through their office, then yes. I expect them to resign. Your "gun to the head" analogy is ridiculous and, you know that. You are arguing ideology and emotion against what is fair and logical. You aren't doing it very well, either.

And I've already pointed out that we make accommodations for when a person's morality conflicts with the law. We do it with the "conscientious objector" status given to military members in times of war. The law and a person's morality conflict and we find a way to allow them to serve without violating their conscience. I'm suggesting that we could do something similar here and to do so would be the liberal, tolerant, democratic thing to do. It is illiberal and intolerant to force people to choose between their livelihood and their conscience.

I used an extreme example for a reason. There's always technically a "choice." The question is whether such a choice should be forced upon someone when accommodation is possible...especially considering we've enshrined the free exercise of religion into our Constitution.

Clerk feels they can't morally issue licenses in accordance with the law? Resign from the job.

Problem solved.

Why do people who typically consider themselves liberal become suddenly illiberal when it comes to people being able to live out their faith beyond the four walls of a church?

I think something akin to a "conscientious objector" status for things of this nature would be more appropriate than simply telling people that anytime their faith and the shifting winds of culture and society conflict to quit their jobs.

Maybe because "living your faith" and, imposing your will on others, are two different things. Does Christ impose his will on us?

And you don't think forcing someone to choose between violating their conscience and keeping their job isn't imposing someone else's will on them? This sounds curiously close to the same upside down logic that said if you don't force an employer (including various Christian organizations) to pay for someone's birth control that the employer has imposed religion on the person. Yet no birth control has been made illegal, been removed from the market or been rendered inaccessible to the person in question. All that is being debated is whether you can force another to provide it or if the person should have to procure that on their own.

It would seem that an accommodation could be made for those who cannot in good conscience provide something they believe to be objectively wrong while still allowing the people seeking it to obtain it from another person for instance. The kneejerk "just quit your job" or violate your beliefs line is fairly inflexible, intolerant and is Exhibit A for imposing one's will on another.

A private business paying for birth control and a public servant merely issuing a license a citizen is legally entitled to is hardly the same thing, is it? A better analogy would be requiring a minister to marry a same sex couple in a church that opposes it.

I guess that depends on who you talk to. There are many, including the people that matter at HHS and the Obama Administration, that felt there was virtually no difference. They should all be forced to comply with the new "normal." That's the debate I'm putting forth...should we be able to continually place more impositions on people's consciences like this? I don't think a blanket approach will work.

Yes, they do . But I'm talking about the strength and basis of YOUR argument and you're evading the question.

What question am I evading? The distinction you're making is not even one our government is really trying to make. I'm suggesting a way to accommodate freedom of conscience within the framework of a society that has concocted a new 'right' that conflicts with it.

Really Titan? You don't see what I'm saying? Smh

Spell it out for me then.

I have. Just forget it. It's clear you don't want a real discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Clerk feels they can't morally issue licenses in accordance with the law? Resign from the job.

Problem solved.

Why do people who typically consider themselves liberal become suddenly illiberal when it comes to people being able to live out their faith beyond the four walls of a church?

I think something akin to a "conscientious objector" status for things of this nature would be more appropriate than simply telling people that anytime their faith and the shifting winds of culture and society conflict to quit their jobs.

I think you are confusing liberalism with anarchy.

Anyway, I don't see how complying with the law of the land in this case prevents one from living within their faith. But if it does, they have every right to protest it, but not the right to ignore it, at least if their very job is to administrate it.

In such a situation, resignation seems to the be obvious first step. That's not liberalism, that's just common logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clerk feels they can't morally issue licenses in accordance with the law? Resign from the job.

Problem solved.

Why do people who typically consider themselves liberal become suddenly illiberal when it comes to people being able to live out their faith beyond the four walls of a church?

I think something akin to a "conscientious objector" status for things of this nature would be more appropriate than simply telling people that anytime their faith and the shifting winds of culture and society conflict to quit their jobs.

Maybe because "living your faith" and, imposing your will on others, are two different things. Does Christ impose his will on us?

And you don't think forcing someone to choose between violating their conscience and keeping their job isn't imposing someone else's will on them? This sounds curiously close to the same upside down logic that said if you don't force an employer (including various Christian organizations) to pay for someone's birth control that the employer has imposed religion on the person. Yet no birth control has been made illegal, been removed from the market or been rendered inaccessible to the person in question. All that is being debated is whether you can force another to provide it or if the person should have to procure that on their own.

It would seem that an accommodation could be made for those who cannot in good conscience provide something they believe to be objectively wrong while still allowing the people seeking it to obtain it from another person for instance. The kneejerk "just quit your job" or violate your beliefs line is fairly inflexible, intolerant and is Exhibit A for imposing one's will on another.

First, that's a more complicated situation because the aggrieved party is go-between the state and the individual who is entitled to state-specified benefits. (This would be avoided with with a single payer system.)

In the marriage case, the clerk is being paid to represent the state. It's a basic job requirement.

Second, wasn't that case adjudicated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clerk feels they can't morally issue licenses in accordance with the law? Resign from the job.

Problem solved.

Why do people who typically consider themselves liberal become suddenly illiberal when it comes to people being able to live out their faith beyond the four walls of a church?

I think something akin to a "conscientious objector" status for things of this nature would be more appropriate than simply telling people that anytime their faith and the shifting winds of culture and society conflict to quit their jobs.

Maybe because "living your faith" and, imposing your will on others, are two different things. Does Christ impose his will on us?

And you don't think forcing someone to choose between violating their conscience and keeping their job isn't imposing someone else's will on them? This sounds curiously close to the same upside down logic that said if you don't force an employer (including various Christian organizations) to pay for someone's birth control that the employer has imposed religion on the person. Yet no birth control has been made illegal, been removed from the market or been rendered inaccessible to the person in question. All that is being debated is whether you can force another to provide it or if the person should have to procure that on their own.

It would seem that an accommodation could be made for those who cannot in good conscience provide something they believe to be objectively wrong while still allowing the people seeking it to obtain it from another person for instance. The kneejerk "just quit your job" or violate your beliefs line is fairly inflexible, intolerant and is Exhibit A for imposing one's will on another.

When you can stay on topic, get back to me.

I'm perfectly on topic. When you're ready to stop being evasive and deal with objections to your points, get back to me.

No, you seem to want to debate separation of church and state. You want to talk about birth control.

Your basic point, your "upside down logic", represents no logic at all. The court clerk has an option, a choice. He/she can obey the law or, resign. Refusing to allow gay people to have the rights of government sanctioned marriage, denies them a choice, denies them equality and, a basic right. You understand. You realize you want to impose your will, your values, your religious principles on others. Inside the walls of a church, fine. Inside your home, fine. Out in the world, no. Whether it is the direct hate of Westboro Baptist or the subtle persecution of phony Christians, no. The love of Christ does not call us to employ government, to impose our will, and our beliefs on our fellow man.

Have to correct a minor but important point here: The Westboro church has every legal right to hate as long as they don't break the law in expressing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clerk feels they can't morally issue licenses in accordance with the law? Resign from the job.

Problem solved.

Why do people who typically consider themselves liberal become suddenly illiberal when it comes to people being able to live out their faith beyond the four walls of a church?

I think something akin to a "conscientious objector" status for things of this nature would be more appropriate than simply telling people that anytime their faith and the shifting winds of culture and society conflict to quit their jobs.

Maybe because "living your faith" and, imposing your will on others, are two different things. Does Christ impose his will on us?

And you don't think forcing someone to choose between violating their conscience and keeping their job isn't imposing someone else's will on them? This sounds curiously close to the same upside down logic that said if you don't force an employer (including various Christian organizations) to pay for someone's birth control that the employer has imposed religion on the person. Yet no birth control has been made illegal, been removed from the market or been rendered inaccessible to the person in question. All that is being debated is whether you can force another to provide it or if the person should have to procure that on their own.

It would seem that an accommodation could be made for those who cannot in good conscience provide something they believe to be objectively wrong while still allowing the people seeking it to obtain it from another person for instance. The kneejerk "just quit your job" or violate your beliefs line is fairly inflexible, intolerant and is Exhibit A for imposing one's will on another.

When you can stay on topic, get back to me.

I'm perfectly on topic. When you're ready to stop being evasive and deal with objections to your points, get back to me.

No, you seem to want to debate separation of church and state. You want to talk about birth control.

Then I'd suggest you read up on the words "analogous" and "analogy."

Your basic point, your "upside down logic", represents no logic at all. The court clerk has an option, a choice. He/she can obey the law or, resign.

You are assuming the point I am asking you to prove. I realize they have a choice. Technically, if a person puts a gun to your head and tells you to recant your faith or die, you have a choice. The question is, in a democracy, and one with explicit protections from the government being able to impose itself on one's free exercise of religion, is this a reasonable choice to force someone to make?

Refusing to allow gay people to have the rights of government sanctioned marriage, denies them a choice, denies them equality and, a basic right.

Allowing a person to opt out of performing or materially participating in an act they believe to be morally wrong is not denying them a choice so long as another path can be provided to the person.

You understand. You realize you want to impose your will, your values, your religious principles on others. Inside the walls of a church, fine. Inside your home, fine. Out in the world, no. Whether it is the direct hate of Westboro Baptist or the subtle persecution of phony Christians, no. The love of Christ does not call us to employ government, to impose our will, and our beliefs on our fellow man.

The Constitution does not confine the practice of one's religion to the four walls of a church. It's not the "freedom to worship", it's the free exercise of one's religion, which transcends a house of worship or one's private residence.

In asking for the ability to opt out of participating in a morally wrong act, one is not imposing their will on anyone...not anymore than refusing to personally perform an abortion, provide birth control or perform a same-sex wedding imposes one's will on the another. However, should you force a person to do any of these things or lose their livelihood, you are indeed imposing YOUR will on someone. Strange that you don't see that.

VERY well stated. Nailed it !! Thank You.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...