U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates

[Mitspa]

If you are a public official then the people you are dealing with are tax paying citizens who pay your salary. Denying them service is stealing from them.

Did you know the very year this lady was elected that 70% of the people in her state voted against gay marriage? I think she was serving the people and the moral good of her society.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

God says to obey the law. Signing a paper is a simple job and legal requirement. It doesn't mean you are consenting to their behavior. Do your job, obey the law and let them answer to God for what they are doing..... it's kind of like if I don't believe in playing the lottery, would that give me the right to refuse to sell someone a lottery ticket?

Does that apply if following the law goes against Gods word? Are not even the rulers of the earth held under the word of God?
And I would strongly disagree with that statement about signing the paper not being consent. You willingly make yourself a participant by signing the papers.


And no, its not like the lottery. Homosexuality puts you against God.

 

[Dude653]

Did you know the very year this lady was elected that 70% of the people in her state voted against gay marriage? I think she was serving the people and the moral good of her society.

That 30% still pays taxes and are entitled to services just like everyone else.

 

[Mitspa]

That 30% still pays taxes and are entitled to services just like everyone else.

No that's called the people in a representative democracy expressing their will... which this lady had the moral courage to uphold as she upheld her own constitutional rights to resist this unlawful court ruling. She was 100% right

 

[breno785au]

The Bible instructs us on how to conduct OURSELVES... not others. Show me in the Bible where it says we are to force others to as we believe..... you can't because its not in there

She said it would violate her conscience, if it is sin for her to do so, then it is sin.

 

[crossnote]

Obama, DOJ and their henchmen to be investigating domestic terror groups like Libert Counsel the ones representing Kim...

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

According to the Obama administration, Liberty Counsel and other Christian organizations may be fostering "domestic extremism," which could warrant an investigation by the Department of Justice. This is outrageous!

Please see my very important message below – Mat.



Investigating the real and present threat of domestic terrorism is what the government should be doing. But now the Obama administration has ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to expand their investigative efforts to include "domestic extremism." Among the DOJ's sources for rooting out these "extremist" organizations is the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC), "hate group" list.

Liberty Counsel and other Christian organizations are on that so-called "hate group" list.

As reported by CNSNews:

"John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security, announced Wednesday that the Justice Department is creating the new position of domestic terrorism counsel to combat the "real and present threat" of domestic extremism.

Carlin praised groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center "that dedicate themselves to examining what the threat is, observing it, and reporting on it," adding that the work of the SPLC was "very important."

The SPLC says it places groups — including conservative, Christian groups — on its "Hate List" based on their beliefs, not their propensity for violence. "Homegrown violent extremists can be motivated by any viewpoint on the full spectrum of hate — anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs," Carlin told a gathering at George Washington University. The discussion was co-hosted by SPLC.

The radical group SPLC attributes three reasons for labeling Liberty Counsel as a hate group.

• First, Liberty Counsel has defended marriage and has a sincerely held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
• Second, Liberty Counsel criticized hate crime legislation for punishing a defendant's thoughts rather than centering criminal justice on the actual injury suffered by a victim.
• Finally, Liberty Counsel recognizes the human dignity of those who have changed their unwanted same-sex sexual attractions or behavior. Unlike the SPLC, Liberty Counsel does not marginalize their experience or demean the sincerity of their testimony.

By falsely and recklessly labeling many mainstream Christian ministries as hate groups, the SPLC is directly responsible for fanning the flames of violence against Christian organizations. Back in 2012, Floyd Corkins, a part-time worker for an LGBT group, attempted to commit mass murder — targeting the Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington, D.C. Corkins said he chose the FRC because they were labeled a hate group by the SPLC.

+ + We are being targeted by radical organizations and the Obama administration.

In all of our years of service, we have never experienced the level of threats and depth of hatred we have received from so-called "tolerant activists" since defending Kim Davis and our Push For Liberty national campaign.

Anita and I have been personally threatened. And, as I have shared with you, America's civil servants, business leaders, and ministry workers are being barraged with unprecedented assaults on their religious liberties. Intimidation, death threats, assaults on their character, and malicious lies are becoming commonplace, negatively affecting reputations and ruining businesses.

 

[Lis45]

When she sees the names and genders on those certificates, that's all she knows. She would not have detailed information on their lives. But when she sees two men and women requesting marriage, the sin is obvious. The example you provided is poor at best, why should she resign and get another job? Clearly she doesn't want to do that

Her ignorance does not excuse her. She could've asked, but she didn't. Besides, her giving marriage certificates out as part of her job as a government employee doesn't mean she's giving her personal agreement to what their doing. It means that she's giving authority to marry under U.S. law, which has deemed these marriages legal. So she doesn't want to do it. O.k...then give it to someone else to do it.

 

[Lis45]

Does that apply if following the law goes against Gods word? Are not even the rulers of the earth held under the word of God?
And I would strongly disagree with that statement about signing the paper not being consent. You willingly make yourself a participant by signing the papers.


And no, its not like the lottery. Homosexuality puts you against God.

She's not the one who is homosexual. So I don't see how it's putting her against God.

 

[Lis45]

But clerks have been affixing their names to marriage certificates in violation of God's word regarding adultery FOR YEARS!!! Why is this a "sudden" moral conviction... that homosexuality is MORE sinful than adultery... please show me the scriptures that support that? Anyone???

So true. This is what isn't getting through to people.

 

[Lis45]

actually, the ruling was lawful. The supreme court decided, end of story. While she may have thought she was "upholding"her own constitutional rights, she had no problem claiming to do so at the expense of another's very same rights.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

She's not the one who is homosexual. So I don't see how it's putting her against God.

She would be signing the papers for two people of the same gender to be married, something Christ Himself spoke out against. It would make her a participant.

Also, as mentioned just a few posts above, she said it wwould negatively affect her conscious. The bible tells you not to engage in things that lead to this, as God wants us to have a clear conscious. It would have been wrong for her to sign those papers, and I can guarantee that God is more pleased by her standing in His word over those who "are just doing their job".

 

[Mitspa]

Her ignorance does not excuse her. She could've asked, but she didn't. Besides, her giving marriage certificates out as part of her job as a government employee doesn't mean she's giving her personal agreement to what their doing. It means that she's giving authority to marry under U.S. law, which has deemed these marriages legal. So she doesn't want to do it. O.k...then give it to someone else to do it.

She was elected by the people that voted to reject this perversion..she nor anyone else has any obligation to obey a unconstitutional ruling by a court ... The people elected her and they seem very happy with her.

 

[Mitspa]

actually, the ruling was lawful. The supreme court decided, end of story. While she may have thought she was "upholding"her own constitutional rights, she had no problem claiming to do so at the expense of another's very same rights.

It was clearly unconstitutional, even as the other SC judges called it the most unconstitutional act the supreme court has ever taken.

 

[Lis45]

Did you know the very year this lady was elected that 70% of the people in her state voted against gay marriage? I think she was serving the people and the moral good of her society.

Still a taxpayer contributing to her salary. She had a lawful duty to serve these citizens, whether they were in the minority or not.

 

[Lis45]

No that's called the people in a representative democracy expressing their will... which this lady had the moral courage to uphold as she upheld her own constitutional rights to resist this unlawful court ruling. She was 100% right

This was an excuse often used to keep African-Americans from achieving equality. This does not mean I think homosexuality is equivalent to "race". This does mean that homosexuals are a minority group in numbers. Also, I don't get why you are calling this an unlawful ruling? Had it been a ruling for a certain religious freedom you were fighting for in the same manner, you would be proclaiming just the opposite. The fact is, the supreme court ruled, making the initial consequences of her decision based on a "matter of law". You don't have to like that law. Neither do I. It doesn't change the fact that it just is.

 

[Mitspa]

This was an excuse often used to keep African-Americans from achieving equality. This does not mean I think homosexuality is equivalent to "race". This does mean that homosexuals are a minority group in numbers. Also, I don't get why you are calling this an unlawful ruling? Had it been a ruling for a certain religious freedom you were fighting for in the same manner, you would be proclaiming just the opposite. The fact is, the supreme court ruled, making the initial consequences of her decision based on a "matter of law". You don't have to like that law. Neither do I. It doesn't change the fact that it just is.

If you cant see the difference between being black and being a sexual deviant? Then I doubt you will understand why many of us refuse to accept this perversion as a civil right?

 

[Mitspa]

Still a taxpayer contributing to her salary. She had a lawful duty to serve these citizens, whether they were in the minority or not.

Again being a pervert does not classify someone as a minority in the civil sense of what our society has determined as good for our society. We as a society have seen the equality of races as a moral good...which is in perfect agreement with Christ.

No to somehow relate the equality of races to sexual deviants is just nonsense ...where is the rights of the other sexual deviants? No we shame these people as we should this group as well.

 

[breno785au]

Her ignorance does not excuse her. She could've asked, but she didn't. Besides, her giving marriage certificates out as part of her job as a government employee doesn't mean she's giving her personal agreement to what their doing. It means that she's giving authority to marry under U.S. law, which has deemed these marriages legal. So she doesn't want to do it. O.k...then give it to someone else to do it.

So..she was supposed to ask the personal details of every couple getting married before signing the certificates?

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

So she doesn't want to do it. O.k...then give it to someone else to do it.

Actually, I would have been mostly okay with this. I mean, it would be a bad sign for Christians, but at least its better than being imprisioned for following Christ. She could find a new job if they needed someone else to do it, or even just give her a different job and gave someone willing to follow the law of the earth, but prison, it really shows what the world thinks of Christ and His followers.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

Actually, I would have been mostly okay with this. I mean, it would be a bad sign for Christians, but at least its better than being imprisioned for following Christ. She could find a new job if they needed someone else to do it, or even just give her a different job and gave someone willing to follow the law of the earth, but prison, it really shows what the world thinks of Christ and His followers.

conpletely off topic here. I just had to say.....everytime I see your avatar all I can think is "move it football head"