John 3:16

[rsc2a]

With that said, it's a bit ironic that someone with three divorces is lecturing others on God's design for marriage.

You and CNN have a lot in common.  Nevermind the context of her divorces was pre-conversion.

It doesn't matter to him. "Mocker" thinks he's better than she is. It wouldn't have happened to him because he's so "smart"!

NUT talks of forgiveness but he selective applies to whomever he agrees with at the time. In other words... your "typical" liberal nut.

What are you raving about now?

Its telling how you don't even recognize the hypocrisy of your statement.

So I've said I'm better than her? I said she doesn't deserve forgiveness?

As far as three divorces: no, it wouldn't happen to me. Doesn't mean I don't have my own issues.

Have you now added mind-reading to your infallibility? That's a problem since you're so bad at it. Kinda hurts the whole "smartest person ever" cred.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Her Lawyer made the case that the marriage license could be issued without her and that her name could be removed from the certificates. The judge refused to even consider it. They could have had what they wanted without throwing her in jail or forcing her to violate her conscience.

You need to look at the case again.

And this is the issue with the Judge. Judges don't like being stood against. I know. I watched My Cousin Vinny just last week!  ;D

Yeah. They call that ego. Too many judges basing their opinions on ego and not the best interest of all parties involved.

 

[praise_yeshua]

With that said, it's a bit ironic that someone with three divorces is lecturing others on God's design for marriage.

You and CNN have a lot in common.  Nevermind the context of her divorces was pre-conversion.

It doesn't matter to him. "Mocker" thinks he's better than she is. It wouldn't have happened to him because he's so "smart"!

NUT talks of forgiveness but he selective applies to whomever he agrees with at the time. In other words... your "typical" liberal nut.

What are you raving about now?

Its telling how you don't even recognize the hypocrisy of your statement.

So I've said I'm better than her? I said she doesn't deserve forgiveness?

Have you now added mind-reading to your infallibility? That's a problem since you're so bad at it. Kinda hurts the whole "smartest person ever" cred.

You didn't take forgiveness into consideration before you made such a statement.

I'm not the one that used her "three marriages"...... as an excuse to forget about her current relationship with Christ.

 

[rsc2a]

I haven't forgotten anything, just pointed out she's got a bit of a credibility issue on this particular topic.

With that said, are you going to show a quote where I said what you claimed or are you going to admit to shoving weird in my mouth?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Her Lawyer made the case that the marriage license could be issued without her and that her name could be removed from the certificates. The judge refused to even consider it. They could have had what they wanted without throwing her in jail or forcing her to violate her conscience.

You need to look at the case again.

And this is the issue with the Judge. Judges don't like being stood against. I know. I watched My Cousin Vinny just last week!  ;D

Yeah. They call that ego. Too many judges basing their opinions on ego and not the best interest of all parties involved.

And yes, I agree with you.

Both parties could have resolved it differently without jail time so it is a clash of egos at this point.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I haven't forgotten anything, just pointed out she's got a bit of a credibility issue on this particular topic.

With that said, are you going to show a quote where I said what you claimed or are you going to admit to shoving weird in my mouth?

Yep. Why has she processed divorce papers for others as a clerk when God clearly says He hates divorce, not to mention what Jesus said about it. Nary a peep from her then.

This whole thing is agenda-driven, not true conviction based on the teachings of Jesus or the Bible, IMHO.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I haven't forgotten anything, just pointed out she's got a bit of a credibility issue on this particular topic.

With that said, are you going to show a quote where I said what you claimed or are you going to admit to shoving weird in my mouth?

"Weird" in  your mouth. If I could do that.... .I might would try.

I bet IOS is getting you in trouble again. I HATE... IOS and its auto correct. Android isn't as bad.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I haven't forgotten anything, just pointed out she's got a bit of a credibility issue on this particular topic.

With that said, are you going to show a quote where I said what you claimed or are you going to admit to shoving weird in my mouth?

Yep. Why has she processed divorce papers for others as a clerk when God clearly says He hates divorce, not to mention what Jesus said about it. Nary a peep from her then.

This whole thing is agenda-driven, not true conviction based on the teachings of Jesus or the Bible, IMHO.

You didn't think this through.....

Even Moses suffered "divorce". Moses, didn't "suffer" homos to get a marriage license.

We've had the discussion before. Jesus didn't approve of gay marriage. Jesus was very clear in how He created humanity. A sperm to "turd" combination was never on the radar.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Her Lawyer made the case that the marriage license could be issued without her and that her name could be removed from the certificates. The judge refused to even consider it. They could have had what they wanted without throwing her in jail or forcing her to violate her conscience.

You need to look at the case again.

And this is the issue with the Judge. Judges don't like being stood against. I know. I watched My Cousin Vinny just last week!  ;D

Yeah. They call that ego. Too many judges basing their opinions on ego and not the best interest of all parties involved.

And yes, I agree with you.

Both parties could have resolved it differently without jail time so it is a clash of egos at this point.

So you're saying her decision was based on "ego"?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Her Lawyer made the case that the marriage license could be issued without her and that her name could be removed from the certificates. The judge refused to even consider it. They could have had what they wanted without throwing her in jail or forcing her to violate her conscience.

You need to look at the case again.

And this is the issue with the Judge. Judges don't like being stood against. I know. I watched My Cousin Vinny just last week!  ;D

Yeah. They call that ego. Too many judges basing their opinions on ego and not the best interest of all parties involved.

And yes, I agree with you.

Both parties could have resolved it differently without jail time so it is a clash of egos at this point.

So you're saying her decision was based on "ego"?

No. I would have respect for her had she chose to resign instead of making it a legal battle. But creating additional headlines are many times that of a need for notoriety. The choice to make it a legal issue instead of resigning seems to indicate a need or desire for a stroked ego. I have no issue that she took the stand.

 

[Ransom]

What would you do in this situation?

If I could not, in good conscience, do the job that I was hired to do (or, in this case, elected to do), then I believe my integrity would require me to either delegate that part of my job to someone else, or if that was not possible, to resign.

In the former case, I could protest an unjust or immoral policy from within the system, and in the latter, from without.

 

[FSSL]

In the former case, I could protest an unjust or immoral policy from within the system, and in the latter, from without.

Yes. Advocate for a new law. Get the government out of the marriage licensing business.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This has probably already been said (I don't want to go back and read every post, sorry), but Ted Cruz raised an excellent point.

The mayor of SF is disobeying federal law by making SF a sanctuary city.

Obama has disobeyed federal laws left and right, including his own Obamacare (and immigration law, etc.).  And there is even a court order for the Obama administration to stop, which Obama has disobeyed.

I could go on, but those two are enough.

Why aren't these people in jail?  Why aren't the same politicians calling for them to resign if they don't want to do their jobs? 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Her Lawyer made the case that the marriage license could be issued without her and that her name could be removed from the certificates. The judge refused to even consider it. They could have had what they wanted without throwing her in jail or forcing her to violate her conscience.

You need to look at the case again.

And this is the issue with the Judge. Judges don't like being stood against. I know. I watched My Cousin Vinny just last week!  ;D

Yeah. They call that ego. Too many judges basing their opinions on ego and not the best interest of all parties involved.

And yes, I agree with you.

Both parties could have resolved it differently without jail time so it is a clash of egos at this point.

So you're saying her decision was based on "ego"?

No. I would have respect for her had she chose to resign instead of making it a legal battle. But creating additional headlines are many times that of a need for noterierty. The choice to make it a legal issue instead of resigning seems to indicate a need or desire for a stroked ego. I have no issue that she took the stand.

She doesn't have to resign. They can remove her from office.

Justice Scalia said this would happen in his descent.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This has probably already been said (I don't want to go back and read every post, sorry), but Ted Cruz raised an excellent point.

The mayor of SF is disobeying federal law by making SF a sanctuary city.

Obama has disobeyed federal laws left and right, including his own Obamacare (and immigration law, etc.).  And there is even a court order for the Obama administration to stop, which Obama has disobeyed.

I could go on, but those two are enough.

Why aren't these people in jail?  Why aren't the same politicians calling for them to resign if they don't want to do their jobs?

Because judges are politically driven. They legislate from the bench. They can ignore any law they want to ignore and place an overly onerous punishment on those they disagree with.

 

[ALAYMAN]

What are you raving about now?

No raving here.  Just pointing out the similarity to your tactics of the left-leaning media.  You conflated the issue of her convictions which are based on a Christian worldview with her lifestyle before coming to Christ.  I'm truly not surprised when sleazy profit-driven TV outlets employ such tactics, but when people claiming to be informed Christians do the same thing it indicates the slippery slope that leads evangelicals to embrace hogwash argumentation.  Next thing ya know they advocate for things like gender-neutral bathrooms and cite Paul being all things to all people. :

 

[ALAYMAN]

No. I would have respect for her had she chose to resign instead of making it a legal battle. But creating additional headlines are many times that of a need for noterierty. The choice to make it a legal issue instead of resigning seems to indicate a need or desire for a stroked ego. I have no issue that she took the stand.

Lots of people/Christians take stands based on their convictions, which is what Ms. Davis has maintained all along.  She's an Apostolic Christian, which brings up a number of doctrinal issues I'd take exception to, but on point to as to her particular brand of faith she believes she can lose her salvation if she does or does not do certain things.  In conducting her job, she believes that to endorse homo marriage would be to sign her own eternal death warrant.  Sounds like a pretty compelling reason of conscience to accept a few days in jail.  Better to fear God than man (even if her lack of understanding regarding eternal security is woefully lacking).

 

[Smellin Coffee]

No. I would have respect for her had she chose to resign instead of making it a legal battle. But creating additional headlines are many times that of a need for noterierty. The choice to make it a legal issue instead of resigning seems to indicate a need or desire for a stroked ego. I have no issue that she took the stand.

Lots of people/Christians take stands based on their convictions, which is what Ms. Davis has maintained all along.  She's an Apostolic Christian, which brings up a number of doctrinal issues I'd take exception to, but on point to as to her particular brand of faith she believes she can lose her salvation if she does or does not do certain things.  In conducting her job, she believes that to endorse homo marriage would be to sign her own eternal death warrant.  Sounds like a pretty compelling reason of conscience to accept a few days in jail.  Better to fear God than man (even if her lack of understanding regarding eternal security is woefully lacking).

I've no problem with her having such a conviction or even in taking a stand for her belief. That isn't my point. But as an arm of the government, by law she cannot force her religious beliefs on others while in her position. Denial of distributing the licenses IS discrimination based on religious belief and the government should not discriminate against others on someone else's religious belief.

If for whatever reason she feels she cannot do her duties, the noble thing would be to resign rather than occupy court time, money, etc. to fight for her "personal rights". In fact, she would probably garner more respect from some people than fighting for her 'personal rights'. But I still wonder why, since God hates divorce, does she have no issue with putting her name on divorce documents that others file through her office?

FWIW, I understand her attorney offered a solution where she would allow other clerks to do the processing but the judge refused to allow that. In that case, I believe the judge is wrong as it seems to be a reasonable solution.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've no problem with her having such a conviction or even in taking a stand for her belief. That isn't my point. But as an arm of the government, by law she cannot force her religious beliefs on others while in her position. Denial of distributing the licenses IS discrimination based on religious belief and the government should not discriminate against others on someone else's religious belief.

If for whatever reason she feels she cannot do her duties, the noble thing would be to resign rather than occupy court time, money, etc. to fight for her "personal rights". In fact, she would probably garner more respect from some people than fighting for her 'personal rights'. But I still wonder why, since God hates divorce, does she have no issue with putting her name on divorce documents that others file through her office?

FWIW, I understand her attorney offered a solution where she would allow other clerks to do the processing but the judge refused to allow that. In that case, I believe the judge is wrong as it seems to be a reasonable solution.

3 simple points of rebuttal:

1) I was merely taking exception to your speculation as to her motive, that of one seeking attention rather than following her conscience.  Preliminary facts seem to point otherwise.

2) What you call "personal rights" should not be taken so dismissively, as religious liberty is one of the cornerstones of our republic, and the inherent assumption you (and others) passively or tacitly are endorsing is that religion should be kept within the confines of the 4 walls of the church house, out of the public/secular sphere.  Plenty of prior American case law says otherwise.  The Apostle Paul resorted to his own "personal rights" as a Roman citizen in the matter of religious trifles.

3)  As you already acknowledged, Ms Davis has offered a compromise some time ago, allowing the state to exercise its prerogatives to grant marriage licenses without having her name on them.  Instead of accepting an amicable compromise, the judge, who happens to be in a VERY conservative region about an hours drive from me, threw the book at her for contempt.  He could have fined her, but in the vein of the sexual revolution that is engulfing the country, he is making an example of her.  Mater has already pointed out the hypocrisy of imposing such a stiff sentence.  She will be incarcerated until she agrees to tow the liberal line, which could be indefinitely.  Real criminals do less time for worse.  Sounds a bit harsh to me, and odd that professed Christians would be in the corner of such rogue and hostile actions.

 

[rsc2a]

Let's see how her defenders would scream if a postal clerk refused to deliver mail from the SBC, Focus on the Family, or Samaritan's Purse on religious grounds.