Yep ---- Lerner and Clinton get off free with pensions and presidential bids, and the Christian in Kentucky gets imprisoned because her faith gets in the way of a gay marriage license.

This country is sick.

QuakerOats;1748553 wrote:Yep ---- Lerner and Clinton get off free with pensions and presidential bids, and the Christian in Kentucky gets imprisoned because her faith gets in the way of a gay marriage license.

This country is sick.

Clinton didn't take the 5th. A gubmit employee shouldn't get to take the 5th to avoid prosecution and get to keep their pension.

QuakerOats;1748553 wrote:Yep ---- Lerner and Clinton get off free with pensions and presidential bids, and the Christian in Kentucky gets imprisoned because her faith gets in the way of a gay marriage license.

This country is sick.

Technically, she got imprisoned due to refusing to do her job to the standards of the law and continued refusing to even after being ordered to. For a person who's so adamantly against governmental wasting of taxpayer's money, I'd think you'd be outraged at a governmental employee collecting a paycheck for not fulfilling the duties of her occupation. But playing political cards constantly does get in the way of consistency, I guess.

The "Christian/her faith" stuff is unimportant fluff put in by people in an attempt to make her look like a victim; in much the same way that the commentary on how this "great" Christian happens to have been divorced three times (you know, divorce, another activity not endorsed by the Bible, as several verses say that if a divorced person bangs someone else, they're actually committing adultery, which is one of those "10 Commandments dealies") is unimportant fluff put in by people in an attempt to make her look like a complete hypocrite.

This whole bullsh*t illustrates why government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place.....and in the second place why using terminology other than "marriage" to describe gay unions would have been so much smarter and easier for Christians to live with.

HitsRus;1748577 wrote:This whole bullsh*t illustrates why government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place.....and in the second place why using terminology other than "marriage" to describe gay unions would have been so much smarter and easier for Christians to live with.

One ignorant person who claims she cares about the sanctity of marriage but has been divorced three times I think, if not four (she is probably is hoping to cash in like those pizza owners since being a faux christian and getting other faux christians to give you money over gay people is a cottage industry these days) leads you to conclude all of that, eh? News flash - the United States Constitution that you have indicated you care about is indifferent to the notion that ignorant hypocrites cannot deal with the thought of people of the same sex having their promises to love each other (and all the benefits that go with them) granted the equal protection of the law.

HitsRus;1748577 wrote:This whole bullsh*t illustrates why government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place.....and in the second place why using terminology other than "marriage" to describe gay unions would have been so much smarter and easier for Christians to live with.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first point of this and disagree just as wholeheartedly with the second part. Why should a group of people rename the exact same ceremony that a far larger group of people use just so that larger group, which has used their religion as a vehicle to condemn and exhibit prejudice against them, can live with it easier?

But this is this modern era of Christianity: to cry oppression against them the instant they're told not to use religion as an excuse to oppress others and to decry special treatment to other groups while demanding it for them.

Heretic;1748581 wrote: But this is this modern era of Christianity: to cry oppression against them the instant they're told not to use religion as an excuse to oppress others and to decry special treatment to other groups while demanding it for them.

I think that's also a big part of the reason the gay community insisted on "marriage" rather than "legal union". You'll notice how wrong and "outrageous" it is to make fun of gays, but it's open season on religion.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but why is it not as unacceptable to call someone a bible thumper as it is a "*ag"? Why do we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who is transgender, but a Christian can't refuse to cater a gay wedding?

Religion is a federally protected class, while sexual orientation is not. So maybe we can understand why many Christians DO feel their religion is under attack, when their rights/beliefs are ignored or trampled on.

Heretic;1748581 wrote:I agree wholeheartedly with the first point of this and disagree just as wholeheartedly with the second part. Why should a group of people rename the exact same ceremony that a far larger group of people use just so that larger group, which has used their religion as a vehicle to condemn and exhibit prejudice against them, can live with it easier?

But this is this modern era of Christianity: to cry oppression against them the instant they're told not to use religion as an excuse to oppress others and to decry special treatment to other groups while demanding it for them.

I agree with this. Marriage vs civil union? We (well at least me personally) can't expect the government to do the right thing, how should we expect them to use the right words to worry about feelz? STFU and grow up. Sick of the hurt feelz group regardless of whatever side you are on.

gut;1748583 wrote:I think that's also a big part of the reason the gay community insisted on "marriage" rather than "legal union". You'll notice how wrong and "outrageous" it is to make fun of gays, but it's open season on religion.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but why is it not as unacceptable to call someone a bible thumper as it is a "*ag"? Why do we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who is transgender, but a Christian can't refuse to cater a gay wedding?

I also agree with this. It is quite the double standard. The gay population and liberals have run away with it though. I defended Indiana's religious freedom law (as I was also supporting gay marriage or at least taking government out of marriage) and some of my liberal friends here tried to paint me as some bigot asshole. It brought the lulz. I can deal with being called an asshole, but GTFO with bigot.

like_that;1748585 wrote:It brought the lulz. I can deal with being called an asshole, but GTFO with bigot.

You could always go to a BLM or Gay Pride rally and post pictures on Facebook to show everyone what a good, compassionate person you are :RpS_razz:

gut;1748588 wrote:You could always go to a BLM or Gay Pride rally and post pictures on Facebook to show everyone what a good, compassionate person you are :RpS_razz:

That seems to be the only approach that would be acceptable for them.

gut;1748583 wrote:I think that's also a big part of the reason the gay community insisted on "marriage" rather than "legal union". You'll notice how wrong and "outrageous" it is to make fun of gays, but it's open season on religion.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but why is it not as unacceptable to call someone a bible thumper as it is a "*ag"? Why do we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who is transgender, but a Christian can't refuse to cater a gay wedding?

Religion is a federally protected class, while sexual orientation is not. So maybe we can understand why many Christians DO feel their religion is under attack, when their rights/beliefs are ignored or trampled on.

I agree with much of this. Personally, I prefer keeping things simple. In the case of the woman in this situation, as a representative of the tax-paying public, her job is to do her job without allowing her personal feelings to get involved. In the case of a private business such as a caterer or cake-maker, your job is to do what you want in order to make money. If your beliefs and those of the people who wish service are incompatible, that is that. If that decision hurts business in the short/long run, that's your problem; if it helps, that's your benefit.

It's simple and logical, which means it'll never happen because on one side you have the over-the-top SJWs who treat any disagreement with them as you essentially saying you're a baby-sacrificing Nazi Commie and other the other side you have the religious right version of SJWs who do the exact same thing, but on the other side. With the sad thing being that, unless we'd endure a plague that only kills stupid people, both groups will be around forever.

The only part I'd question is the very last sentence, as there is a thing called "separation of church and state". While there always is disagreement on what that does or should mean, it should at least be obvious that it entails that governmental entities shouldn't have to cater to religion or ask a church's permission to enact a policy. If people want that, move to Iran or wherever, where the religious types have more of a stranglehold on things. I mean, if you're religious, I don't think anyone has a problem with you believing or partaking in church activities -- just the concept that you should be allowed to make rules for others based on your beliefs (regardless of whether they share or even care about them). If a person feels that makes them "oppressed", they probably need a refresher course on what religious oppression for Christians was during the days of the Holy Roman Empire to give them a bit of perspective on that matter.

Heretic;1748604 wrote:The only part I'd question is the very last sentence, as there is a thing called "separation of church and state".

But that doesn't mean the state can interfere with your beliefs or the practice of your religion. Gay marriage isn't particularly relevant to that, but forcing someone to cater a gay wedding goes into a gray area (only because they are licensed to serve the public). A business can refuse service with anyone, so long as it doesn't discriminate against a protected class, which in more than a few states homosexuality is not.

Also, I think you're confusing persecution with oppression. Otherwise that argument can be made for pretty much any aggrieved class in the US, be it gay, poor, black, Christian, and so on.

gut;1748605 wrote:But that doesn't mean the state can interfere with your beliefs or the practice of your religion. Gay marriage isn't particularly relevant to that, but forcing someone to cater a gay wedding goes into a gray area (only because they are licensed to serve the public). A business can refuse service with anyone, so long as it doesn't discriminate against a protected class, which in more than a few states homosexuality is not.

Also, I think you're confusing persecution with oppression. Otherwise that argument can be made for pretty much any aggrieved class in the US, be it gay, poor, black, Christian, and so on.

Lol, yeah, used the wrong word there -- general point simply was that once upon a time, Christians had to deal with things like torture and inhumane death (like fighting lions for the amusement of nobles) for following their faith. Nowadays, they cry like it's the end of the world because people are telling them they have to treat people of differing beliefs as equal. The oppressed rising and becoming the tyrant. Which seems to be growing to repeat itself nowadays with recently oppressed groups taking an "If you're not cool with us 100% in your face all the time and disagree with anything we say or stand for, YOU ARE FUCKING EVILLLLL!!!!" line of talk.

But like I said before, I agree with the first part. If your governmental job is to give people permission to get married, you do that and don't make exceptions based on your personal beliefs. Marriage shouldn't be a governmental thing, but until it isn't, that's how it is. If your company's job is to cater weddings, you should be able to choose which ones to cater to. If doing it your way is bad business, well, shit happens. If doing it your way leads to booming business, you succeeded. With those being the only definitions of failure and success -- not people rallying for or against you based on those choices.

Heretic;1748607 wrote: But like I said before, I agree with the first part. If your governmental job is to give people permission to get married, you do that and don't make exceptions based on your personal beliefs.

But why is she in jail instead of simply being fired? Why did this go to the courts at all? I realize the judge gave her a choice, but if I'm her supervisor the minute I find out you're not doing your job, you're fired. Same day. Either that or she's transferred to a job where this can't be an issue.

gut;1748616 wrote:But why is she in jail instead of simply being fired? Why did this go to the courts at all? I realize the judge gave her a choice, but if I'm her supervisor the minute I find out you're not doing your job, you're fired. Same day. Either that or she's transferred to a job where this can't be an issue.

Elected official. Can't be fired. Had to be impeached.

gut;1748583 wrote:I think that's also a big part of the reason the gay community insisted on "marriage" rather than "legal union". You'll notice how wrong and "outrageous" it is to make fun of gays, but it's open season on religion.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but why is it not as unacceptable to call someone a bible thumper as it is a "*ag"? Why do we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who is transgender, but a Christian can't refuse to cater a gay wedding?

Religion is a federally protected class, while sexual orientation is not. So maybe we can understand why many Christians DO feel their religion is under attack, when their rights/beliefs are ignored or trampled on.

First, Christianity - even the luke warm kind - is the oppressive majority that was behind the persecution of gays; people who have an immutable characteristic through no fault of their own. Calling homosexuals "***" reinforces persecution whereas when people say "Bible Thumper!" it is an expression fighting back against an oppressive majority.

Second, I think the problem is that the average Christian-by-default-because-they-were-born-in-America-instead-of-Saudi-Arabia-but-not-super-religious-American sees the all too common insincerity and hypocrisy exhibited by the super religious like Josh Duggar - a guy who was an open protester against gay marriage but cheated on his wife on Ashley Madison. And then, people like Mike Huckabee don't even condemn their "sins" while they rail and rail and rail against gay marriage.

Maybe if Christians seemed to care about other sinful/un-Christ-like behavior (otherwise known as the modern American Lifestyle) besides gay marriage people might take them seriously. When was the last time you heard of a Christian bakery refusing to cater a wedding by people who were previously divorced or who openly fornicated before marriage? You don't. Rather you get people who have been divorced 3 times refusing to issue marriage licenses to defend the sanctity of marriage.

(FWIW I think it is silly when people file lawsuits against christian businesses for not catering gay weddings)

like_that;1748585 wrote:
I also agree with this. It is quite the double standard. The gay population and liberals have run away with it though. I defended Indiana's religious freedom law (as I was also supporting gay marriage or at least taking government out of marriage) and some of my liberal friends here tried to paint me as some bigot asshole. It brought the lulz. I can deal with being called an asshole, but GTFO with bigot.

I would be fine with some kind of religious freedom law if the citizen could show that they consistently applied their creed i.e. they refused to cater to gay people, divorced people and the 90% of Americans who have premarital "sinful" sex. Really these people just don't like teh gayz and are eager to "forgive" straight sinners like Josh Duggar who molested his sister and cheated on his docile christian wife with impunity.

F

First, Christianity - even the luke warm kind - is the oppressive majority that was behind the persecution of gays; people who have an immutable characteristic through no fault of their own. Calling homosexuals "***" reinforces persecution whereas when people say "Bible Thumper!" it is an expression fighting back against an oppressive majority.

Ugh.... This is the kind of gobbledygook that some liberal college professor sold to you, ....and you bought, in "Diversity class" freshman year in college.
It really is just an excuse for " the oppressed" to behave badly, without being held to the same laws and standards as everyone else. How incredibly convenient to be part of the self defined persecuted class.

BoatShoes;1748647 wrote:Calling homosexuals "***" reinforces persecution whereas when people say "Bible Thumper!" it is an expression fighting back against an oppressive majority.

Bullshit. Sounds like someone else needs to look up "persecution". Offensive is still offensive, obviously when it's intended to offend like you said with "Bible Thumper". It's still derogatory, it's still an attack, and it's still oppression of many people's religious choice who have done NOTHING to actively oppress GLBA. It's a pure double standard (first world problems), the typical liberal BS that offends people who don't otherwise give a damn about the issue.

And most people when they're getting a cake don't say "oh, I've been divorced" or "oh, I've had premarital sex". Besides being rather obvious when two men or two women get married, many activist GLBA tend to make a point of letting you know it, either because they enjoy being offended or because they're looking for a bigoted reaction to post and share to score points with their activist friends.

And the other argument is also weak. I'd stop short of calling people hypocrites who strive to be better but fail - that's why there's confession/forgiveness/support groups. Just because people are weak or make mistakes doesn't mean they can't demand more of themselves and others. And divorce is something in the past, whereas gay marriage is commitment to an ongoing sin (and if they're marrying in a Catholic church, then the marriage was annulled or they've been forgiven). You may disagree with that, but all the false equivalences in the world aren't going to make it a contradiction of faith.

BoatShoes;1748649 wrote:I would be fine with some kind of religious freedom law if the citizen could show that they consistently applied their creed i.e. they refused to cater to gay people, divorced people and the 90% of Americans who have premarital "sinful" sex. Really these people just don't like teh gayz and are eager to "forgive" straight sinners like Josh Duggar who molested his sister and cheated on his docile christian wife with impunity.

Be careful not to generalize here... No Doubt there are some assholes that are as you say, but that would be an incorrect interpretation. Many Christian sects openly accept gays... Even the pope.
While "gayness" is a sin in the eyes of Christians, we are ALL sinners in the eyes of The Lord. Their sin should not be construed to be worse than anyone else's. The difference here, concerning Josh Duggar, is that Josh Duggar is not trying to institutionalize his sin.
Many Christians would be okay with Gay civil unions, recognizing that we live in a secular society with a constitution that guarantees the practice of many religions or non religions. What they object to is the co-opting and equivocating of the term "marriage", which they view to be a union between a man and a woman accordingly, an affront to their religion.
So much wiser it would have been, to have just called it a civil union, and sidestepped the issue with Christians.... But that's not how politics works with the left, does it?

HitsRus;1748656 wrote:Be careful not to generalize here... No Doubt there are some assholes that are as you say, but that would be an incorrect interpretation. Many Christian sects openly accept gays... Even the pope.

I was just about to say something like. Liberals are always saying "don't generalize" or "that GROUP of violent protestors" aren't representative, but then they're always talking about INDIVIDUALS like Duggar or that KY County Clerk to demagogue Christians.

It's hard to take anything they say as serious and well-thought out. The more desperate they get, the more absurd the arguments become. I realize only the radicals tend to get heard, but that doesn't make them any less extreme or ridiculous.

HitsRus;1748656 wrote:So much wiser it would have been, to have just called it a civil union, and sidestepped the issue with Christians.... But that's not how politics works with the left, does it?

Yesterday's new. Time to find something new to get passionately offended by.

POTUS ignores court order, chooses to not "do his job." = crickets

Some fucking clerk from Kentucky does the same thing = Global Meltdown

This country is seriously flirting with Full Retard.

I am so tired of all the "we can't offend anyone" in this world right now. I am so sick of transgender being "courageous" and now fighting for them to be able to use whatever bathroom they want in schools. The world we live in is a world of pansies. Our politicians our a joke and I would bet that 85 percent on this chatter could do better than all of the elected officials. If you ran the schools or the government as a business all "upper management" would be fired.


Forgot to mention it is fine for blacks to shoot blacks or whites but don't be a cop that has to shoot a thug!

Poor black moms now have to worry about their kid getting shot when they rob a store. How about obey the damn law. There is no protest when a cop get shot while he is filling up his car with gas. WTF is wrong with people!

Heretic;1748562 wrote:Technically, she got imprisoned due to refusing to do her job to the standards of the law and continued refusing to even after being ordered to. For a person who's so adamantly against governmental wasting of taxpayer's money, I'd think you'd be outraged at a governmental employee collecting a paycheck for not fulfilling the duties of her occupation. But playing political cards constantly does get in the way of consistency, I guess.

The "Christian/her faith" stuff is unimportant fluff put in by people in an attempt to make her look like a victim; in much the same way that the commentary on how this "great" Christian happens to have been divorced three times (you know, divorce, another activity not endorsed by the Bible, as several verses say that if a divorced person bangs someone else, they're actually committing adultery, which is one of those "10 Commandments dealies") is unimportant fluff put in by people in an attempt to make her look like a complete hypocrite.

Yes, that is what the judge said; of course this judge (appointed by Bush) has turned out to be a radical liberal and obviously wants to be viewed as a hero by the progressives.

There have been no incremental taxpayer dollars spent; the same paychecks were issued regardless of who did what.

She is not a victim per se, but her religion is definitely under assault in a country where one would think otherwise.

We go overboard to 'accommodate' a plethora of groups, yet simultaneously trample the beliefs of many others.