From what I understand, what you are suggesting is the solution, was the solution ultimately applied. The certificates legally had to bear her name because she was the elected head of the dept. and she didn’t want them to go out with her signature. But she said she wouldn’t interfere with her deputies doing it once the signature was removed (I don’t know how the legalities were worked out with that).
Fair point, thank you. Though perhaps it isn’t hard to find another example that makes the point. We’d generally commend a clerk who broke miscegenation laws to license a mixed couple. The point is we all agree that there are rights and standards higher than law.
1 Like
I admire your optimism!
1 Like
#23-skidoo!
3 Likes
4 Likes
Is dank still on fleek? Am I using that right? I don’t think I’m using that right.
2 Likes
If I could Like this a dozen times, I would.
Conceding that there is a source of morality higher than the government is not quite the same thing as subverting the rule of law in a sovereign country.
No (if it’s a state hospital, no need to hire the guy if a private one). No. And No. I have no idea why you think you disagree with me.
Maybe I misunderstood you. It sounded like you were saying the U.S. Constitution overrides religious liberty, when in fact it supports it, just not in the way that people like this want.
1 Like
Yeah, I work at it…obviously, not very hard.
1 Like
We may just be talking past one another. Just because the conclusion here is that Kim Davis’ religious liberty doesn’t extend as far as she and her lawyer and maybe Pope Francis think it does doesn’t make it not a “religious liberty” question. The Constitution defends religious liberty very strongly, but only to a point. That point is not as far as Ms Davis thinks it is.
3 Likes
This is a good example of why more conversation is better. I think you’re right: we’re on the same page, just approaching it slightly differently.
2 Likes
Alright, that is a pretty awful thing, and I’m not going to defend it. I had kind of forgotten about it, sorry.
1 Like
It’s interesting to note that for many of the original supporters, the original intent of separation of church and state was not to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the state. I think today’s day and age shows that both are important (For example: imagine not only a government suffused with religious powers, but a church so inundated and corrupted by government as to render the holy catholic church pure in comparison).
Upon further reflection, maybe many of the issues with the catholic church are due exactly to it’s lack of separation.
What does my issue with ‘on fleek’ have anything to do with Kim Davis? Have you been taking crazy pills?
hah hah no you wont catch me putting those chem-tracking pills into my body theyve got RADIATIONS in them
1 Like
On reading this I had the novel idea of “Keep calm and take your meds”. One image search proved me wrong: Not exactly unheard-of : )
I like this one
1 Like
One nitpick: Religious liberty in the context of employment at a public enterprise and the execution of duties required therein.
Feel free to argue all you like about the existence, or lack thereof, of “moral standards higher than civil law”, but your argument better not limit my access to goods and services within the boundaries of America until it is codified in the civil law (which most assuredly does exist).
As for the government being God, it is God inasmuch as the citizens for which, and from which, it is founded. Oh, and that whole “checks & balances” shit, too.
4 Likes
