jerome1232 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) She was married, fathered twins with some other guy, got divorced, remarried, new guy adopted kids, they divorced, she married the baby daddy.Yeah, sounds like she *really* treats marriage as sacred there. She needs to do her job and issue licenses. I'm not on her side. Edited September 3, 2015 by jerome1232 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 She's not asking for sympathy. She's quite willing to go to jail if it comes to that. But think about it... this is the first time in the history of the USA that somebody is jailed for refusing to do something that is against one's deeply held religious belief. Sure, getting jailed for DOING something for one's religious belief - lots of those... but NOT DOING something is new. Especially since she has made no move - none at all - to prevent other clerks from signing the darned paper. It's like a Mormon going to jail for refusing to drink alcohol or something. Maybe she is asking for sympathy maybe she isn't... But I the whole "story" is being played up as her "suffering" for her belief. She could "suffer" just as much in the unemployment line. Instead she is in jail and this whole thing reeks of a setup on both sides. And you analogy fails because you do not provide a job for the mormon where drinking alcohol might resonable morph in to job requirement. Like a Mormon who takes a job as a drink taste tester... When they took the job alcohol, tea and coffee were not the products tested but those were added later. The Mormon then has the choice of keeping the job or doing what they feel is the right thing. Jail would only come in to play if the Mormon could not be fired and refused to quit and would not do the Job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Maybe she is asking for sympathy maybe she isn't... But I the whole "story" is being played up as her "suffering" for her belief. She could "suffer" just as much in the unemployment line. Instead she is in jail and this whole thing reeks of a setup on both sides. And you analogy fails because you do not provide a job for the mormon where drinking alcohol might resonable morph in to job requirement. Like a Mormon who takes a job as a drink taste tester... When they took the job alcohol, tea and coffee were not the products tested but those were added later. The Mormon then has the choice of keeping the job or doing what they feel is the right thing. Jail would only come in to play if the Mormon could not be fired and refused to quit and would not do the Job. Exactly... if you were the taste tester and you couldn't afford to lose your job, will you taste the alcohol? I won't. I'll try to keep doing my job without the alcohol and wait until they fire me or I find another job. Even if I have to go to jail for it. Of course, that's assuming that I'd rather go to jail and eat 3 squares than quitting my job and eating none. Edited September 3, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 She was married, fathered twins with some other guy, got divorced, remarried, new guy adopted kids, they divorced, she married the baby daddy.Yeah, sounds like she *really* treats marriage as sacred there. She needs to do her job and issue licenses. I'm not on her side. Yeah, because it is really awesome to bemoan a person's principles due to his inability to keep her covenants perfectly. So yeah, if you're a dude who watches porn, you should just go ahead and marry another dude... you don't keep your marital covenants already anyway. Smh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 You know what's sad to me? What's sad is that the Gay Marriage proponents have won the hearts of Mormons so much so that they (or at least those who joined in this conversation against somebody standing up for Christian principles) don't even recognize that as noble anymore. There was a time in America not too long ago when going to jail for good moral principles was seen as a noble thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome1232 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Yeah, because it is really awesome to bemoan a person's principles due to his inability to keep her covenants perfectly. So yeah, if you're a dude who watches porn, you should just go ahead and marry another dude... you don't keep your marital covenants already anyway. Smh.Perfectly!? Adultery is right up there on things you don't do. Ever. That's not failing to perfectly keep a covenant. That's blatantly disregarding it entirely. It's like a pacifest saying he won't go to war but really he's been a serial killer for the past decade. *That's* a more appropriate comparison. Edited September 3, 2015 by jerome1232 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 I love Joseph Smith, but lets not pretend that he was a Martyr to the last and an innocent victim in everything. This is exactly what I believe. He went to carthage jail because he violated the 1st amendment and destroyed a printing press. Bull crap. Try studying the history of what happened in context. The false and libelous statements from those who ran the Nauvoo Expositor were sufficient, according to the practices of the day, to merit shutting it down. Carthage Conspiracy is a good place to start. Events that occurred after that were religiously based and unfortunate. He was also a fugitive from justice most of adult life. 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. You misspelled "injustice". Jedi_Nephite, NightSG, Just_A_Guy and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome1232 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 She should simply resign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Perfectly!? Adultery is right up there on things you don't do. Ever. That's not failing to perfectly keep a covenant. That's blatantly disregarding it entirely. It's like a pacifest saying he won't go to war but really he's been a serial killer for the past decade. *That's* a more appropriate comparison. Okay, let's take that. This serial killer says he won't go to an immoral war... so you are going to force him to go to an immoral war because he's a serial killer? Really? Now, of course, if it was a moral war, it's a different story... that would be you saying Gay Marriage is moral. Woops, there it is! The emperor is naked! Edited September 3, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 You know what's sad to me? What's sad is that the Gay Marriage proponents have won the hearts of Mormons so much so that they (or at least those who joined in this conversation against somebody standing up for Christian principles) don't even recognize that as noble anymore. There was a time in America not too long ago when going to jail for good moral principles was seen as a noble thing. I agree with this as a general statement, but not in this context. As an elected official, the woman is bound to uphold the law. If she feels she can no longer in good conscience do that, she should resign. Her deplorable personal life is not immediately material, but does indicate that any stand she might take on "Christian principle" is bogus. No one (no reasonable person, at least) expects her to be perfect, but with a history like hers, her actions cannot be justified on that basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) She should simply resign. She simply shouldn't. There are tons of other options rather than losing her job (which by what you say of her story she desperately needs). As a matter of fact, the County gave her a viable option - they asked the deputy clerks to do it for her so she won't have to. She has no problem with it. So, she was in jail for like... 10 minutes... And now... guess what happened... Many states are now figuring out some law to make it so clerks with religious objections to performing/signing/getting involved with gay marriage won't have to be involved in it. Other people who are just fine with it can do it. So yeah - not resigning was the better choice. Edited September 3, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 You know what's sad to me? What's sad is that the Gay Marriage proponents have won the hearts of Mormons so much so that they (or at least those who joined in this conversation against somebody standing up for Christian principles) don't even recognize that as noble anymore. There was a time in America not too long ago when going to jail for good moral principles was seen as a noble thing. Way to push anyone that doesn't toe "your" line and "your" ideas into the completely opposite camp... It total bullcrap she has gone to jail. But it is also total bullcrap that when her job became offensive to her sensabilities she didn't walk away from it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 I agree with this as a general statement, but not in this context. As an elected official, the woman is bound to uphold the law. If she feels she can no longer in good conscience do that, she should resign. Her deplorable personal life is not immediately material, but does indicate that any stand she might take on "Christian principle" is bogus. No one (no reasonable person, at least) expects her to be perfect, but with a history like hers, her actions cannot be justified on that basis. See my post above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 Exactly... if you were the taste tester and you couldn't afford to lose your job, will you taste the alcohol? I won't. I'll try to keep doing my job without the alcohol and wait until they fire me or I find another job. Even if I have to go to jail for it. Of course, that's assuming that I'd rather go to jail and eat 3 squares than quitting my job and eating none.Your analogy doesn't work because she KNEW that there might be rulings she would have uphold. If you took a job as a taste tester and you KNEW alcohol tea or coffee would be things you have to taste test you would be fired if you refused to do so and rightly so. If it was outside of your job description ok then "maybe" you can argue it No one got over on her, and its not like she didn't know this might happen. She ran as a democrat for cripes sake!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 See my post above. That her actions may have resulted in a good outcome does not justify her actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 Your analogy doesn't work because she KNEW that there might be rulings she would have uphold. If you took a job as a taste tester and you KNEW alcohol tea or coffee would be things you have to taste test you would be fired if you refused to do so and rightly so. If it was outside of your job description ok then "maybe" you can argue it No one got over on her, and its not like she didn't know this might happen. She ran as a democrat for cripes sake!!! You didn't read my post about "superpowers of prediction"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 You know what's sad to me? What's sad is that the Gay Marriage proponents have won the hearts of Mormons so much so that they (or at least those who joined in this conversation against somebody standing up for Christian principles) don't even recognize that as noble anymore. There was a time in America not too long ago when going to jail for good moral principles was seen as a noble thing.12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Is it the law of the land or isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 That her actions may have resulted in a good outcome does not justify her actions. Her actions are justified. She didn't "not follow the law". The law was - if you don't do it, you go to jail. She peacefully went to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome1232 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Okay, let's take that.This serial killer says he won't go to an immoral war... so you are going to force him to go to an immoral war because he's a serial killer? Really?Now, of course, if it was a moral war, it's a different story... that would be you saying Gay Marriage is moral. Woops, there it is! The emperor is naked!That pacifest lays claim to not serve in war because of a believe that all killing is immoral. There can be no moral war in that viewpoint. But it's clear he doesn't have a moral leg to stand on as he violates his claimed idealogy in a way that calls into question his believe in the idealogy. If he were merely imperfect he might have gotten into a fist fight or two and that wouldn't call into question his believe in the idealogy.Just like our clerk. Besides there's an avenue she is not taking. Resignation. That isn't really translatable into the pacifest comparison. Edited September 3, 2015 by jerome1232 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) This is exactly what I believe. Bull crap. Try studying the history of what happened in context. The false and libelous statements from those who ran the Nauvoo Expositor were sufficient, according to the practices of the day, to merit shutting it down. Carthage Conspiracy is a good place to start. You misspelled "injustice". Keep drinking the cool aid Vort. I know my church history, and the laws of the land during JS time. You can pull your covers up over your head all you want. Edited September 3, 2015 by omegaseamaster75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 That pacifest lays claim to not serve in war because if a believe that all killing is immoral. There can be no moral ear in that viewpoint. But it's clear he doesn't have a moral leg to stand on as he violates his claimed idealogy in a way that calls into question his believe in the idealogy. If he were merely imperfect he might have gotten into a fist fight or two and that wouldn't call into question his believe in the idealogy.Just like our clerk. Besides there's an avenue she is not taking. Resignation. That isn't really translatable into the pacifest comparison. She didn't say divorces are immoral. Only gay marriages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Is it the law of the land or isn't it? It wasn't when she got elected. But, that's beside the point. Let me ask you something. Say tomorrow the SCOTUS will declare that LDS Bishops will have to perform gay marriages. Say you're a bishop. Are you going to perform the marriage or would you rather go to jail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 Keep drinking the cool aid Vort. Glug, glug. I know my church history, and the laws of the land during JS time. You can pull your covers up over your head all you want. If you knew your Church history and the laws of the land, you would not make the outrageous claims you made. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) She simply shouldn't. There are tons of other options rather than losing her job (which by what you say of her story she desperately needs). As a matter of fact, the County gave her a viable option - they asked the deputy clerks to do it for her so she won't have to. She has no problem with it. So, she was in jail for like... 10 minutes... There is the reeking setup I was sensing... The headline should read... "Woman had disagreement with her bosses about her new job duities... They worked it out an came to an agreeable balance between them." Except that doesn't sale or rally up the base does it? Not like the idea of a christan martyer being held in jail on prinicaples does... But hey if you can't find one let make one up. Edited September 3, 2015 by estradling75 EarlJibbs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 You didn't read my post about "superpowers of prediction"?I saw it and it doesn't correlate, She ran as a democrat, she knew their polocies and stances on these types of things and to say she didn't is silly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.