North Carolina Magistrate refuses to marry interracial couple.

[Revoltingest]

We've had some serious problems in this country over the years,. You're lucky if you've never had to deal with anything like this. These latest attempts at protecting "religious liberty" are just another in a long line of anti-rational political movements by the moral majority.

AHHHH, the good ol' days...

But how could this have been?
We had the 10 Commandments in schools & courthouses back then.

 

[jonathan180iq]

But how could this have been?
We had the 10 Commandments in schools & courthouses back then.

I know, right?!?

You'd think with all those quotes from God himself flying around that we would have been a much more egalitarian, socially prosperous, equality-focused society...
It was probably the devil, corrupting our youth with that dreadful Rock 'n Roll music (and the Jews writing all our most beloved TV programs) that set us apart from the LAWRD.

 

[Sonofason]

I hope this is sarcastic. People have to stop being so self-centered. Just because you find something to be "wrong" subjectively, doesn't give you the right to make the lives of others harder. If you are a Magistrate, grow-up and do your job. If part of your job requires you to go against your conscience, resign.

People should do what they believe is right, regardless what others believe. When we do what we believe is right, we ought to first consider the possible consequences of what we do. If after weighing those consequences, even if there are negative consequences to ourselves and others, if we still believe in what we are considering to do, and are willing to pay the consequences for our actions, we should do it. I don't mind the idea of cutting the head off a rapist, even if he doesn't like the idea. If I should engage in some action that I believe is right, and you or others should suffer for it, so be it.

 

[Sonofason]

The OP was confusing, as it didn't accurately give the time frame.
What made it relevant to the Kim Davis episode was this. The law had been in place for awhile and the government officials waited until it came before them to create a problem. If they found the law against their religious beliefs they were free to step down when it was passed in an orderly way. Instead they waited until they caused a problem for law abiding citizens, then got all self righteous.

That's the problem. Keeping a government position when you are not willing to do the job, not the religious beliefs themselves.
Tom

Wrong, if the people who put you in office don't like your decisions, and feel you are not doing your job correctly, then they have every right to go through what ever legal channels there are available to them to remove you from your position. If they do not remove you from your official position, you have every right to fulfill your position as you see fit.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Wrong, if the people who put you in office don't like your decisions, and feel you are not doing your job correctly, then they have every right to go through what ever legal channels there are available to them to remove you from your position. If they do not remove you from your official position, you have every right to fulfill your position as you see fit.

Even if that means violating the Oath you took to uphold the Constitution?

Denying marriage to people on the grounds of being homosexual was deemed unconstitutional.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

People should do what they believe is right, regardless what others believe. When we do what we believe is right, we ought to first consider the possible consequences of what we do. If after weighing those consequences, even if there are negative consequences to ourselves and others, if we still believe in what we are considering to do, and are willing to pay the consequences for our actions, we should do it. I don't mind the idea of cutting the head off a rapist, even if he doesn't like the idea. If I should engage in some action that I believe is right, and you or others should suffer for it, so be it.

And this post, if applied to real life, would lead to anarchy & chaos.

Regarding the sentence I emphasised: what's your religious justification for this? Doesn't your holy book say that a rapist should not only not be killed, he should be made to marry his victim as punishment?

 

[Sonofason]

Even if that means violating the Oath you took to uphold the Constitution?

Denying marriage to people on the grounds of being homosexual was deemed unconstitutional.

You have the freedom to do what ever you want to do. I do not object to denying homosexuals rights of marriage.
Their interpretation and your interpretation of the constitution was wrong, and still is wrong.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Religion was actually the most common argument made against interracial marriages, and the argument was made by people of the Christian religion. Creative interpretation I don't know, I am not going to start debating how to interpret scripture. But creative or not I can tell you it was a very common interpretation.

It was more the case that they interpreted the Bible in such a way to justify the already-existing status quo. They didn't practice slavery, segregation, prohibit (consensual and public) interracial relationships because the Bible told them to. They were already doing it and just started using the Bible in distorted and twisted ways to justify it. There isn't anything in the Bible that supports racism, racial segregation and being against interracial relationships, especially as we would understand those things.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You have the freedom to do what ever you want to do. I do not object to denying homosexuals rights of marriage.
Their interpretation and your interpretation of the constitution was wrong, and still is wrong.

What part of the Equal Protections clause was interpreted wrongly to you? What part of the First Amendment was interpreted wrongly to you?

 

[Sonofason]

And this post, if applied to real life, would lead to anarchy & chaos.

Regarding the sentence I emphasised: what's your religious justification for this? Doesn't your holy book say that a rapist should not only not be killed, he should be made to marry his victim as punishment?

I do not owe you anything. I do not owe this nation anything. I do not owe the constitution anything.
I do not need religious justification for anything I do. If I desire religious justification, and I can find it, I will employ it. If it doesn't exist, and I am determined to engage in some particular action, I will do it regardless what the good book says, and regardless what the constitution says I should do.

 

[Sonofason]

What part of the Equal Protections clause was interpreted wrongly to you? What part of the First Amendment was interpreted wrongly to you?

Prior to new legislation, a gay man just as a heterosexual man had the right to marry a woman. They had the same rights, and equal protection under the law. There is no law or right that says you get to marry the person you love.

However, a perverse culture has perverted the law, and created a problem under the Equal Protections clause. Change the law back to what it ought to be, and we shall again have equal protection under the law.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Prior to new legislation, a gay man just as a heterosexual man had the right to marry a woman. They had the same rights, and equal protection under the law. There is no law or right that says you get to marry the person you love.

Actually the issue was whether same-sex marriages should receive legal recognition and protections from Government the way opposite-sex marriages were. Gay marriages did not have those protections. Straight marriages did. That was the imbalance.

However, a perverse culture has perverted the law, and created a problem under the Equal Protections clause. Change the law back to what it ought to be, and we shall again have equal protection under the law.

You have a very strange perception of what constitutes an 'equal protection' under the law. I suspect we had people in the 50's displaying attitudes such as this regarding the legal recognition of inter-racial marriages.


I'm curious: are you a Dominionist? Have you gone down the line of thinking that because your particular religion is no longer being allowed to monopolise the definition of a concept it didn't create, that all sense of morality can be thrown out the window and you can do whatever you want?

 

[Sonofason]

Actually the issue was whether same-sex marriages should receive legal recognition and protections from Government the way opposite-sex marriages were. Gay marriages did not have those protections. Straight marriages did. That was the imbalance.

I disagree. Gay marriages were illegal, and deserve no protection under the law. Pervert the laws, and you can just about do anything you want. Have at it.

You have a very strange perception of what constitutes an 'equal protection' under the law. I suspect we had people in the 50's displaying attitudes such as this regarding the legal recognition of inter-racial marriages.

Are we now discussing interracial marriages? Or did you run out of anything useful to your argument.

I'm curious: are you a Dominionist? Have you gone down the line of thinking that because your particular religion is no longer being allowed to monopolise the definition of a concept it didn't create, that all sense of morality can be thrown out the window and you can do whatever you want?

What I consider myself is not your business.

 

[fantome profane]

It was more the case that they interpreted the Bible in such a way to justify the already-existing status quo. They didn't practice slavery, segregation, prohibit (consensual and public) interracial relationships because the Bible told them to. They were already doing it and just started using the Bible in distorted and twisted ways to justify it. There isn't anything in the Bible that supports racism, racial segregation and being against interracial relationships, especially as we would understand those things.

I understand what you are saying and I think I agree. But I absolutely refuse to get into that kind of argument. Whether or not this or that position is "Biblically correct" is irrelevant. It is not only wrong to impose a "Biblically incorrect" position on a free society it is equally wrong to impose a "Biblically correct" position on a free society. That is what freedom of religion should mean, we don't need to follow the dictates of your scripture. Whatever they are.

I understand the impulse to defend your religion and your scripture when someone makes it look bad like this. But it is not necessary, no one is attacking it (at least I am not). But it shouldn't apply in situations like this where someone is trying to get service from a government official.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I understand what you are saying and I think I agree. But I absolutely refuse to get into that kind of argument. Whether or not this or that position is "Biblically correct" is irrelevant. It is not only wrong to impose a "Biblically incorrect" position on a free society it is equally wrong to impose a "Biblically correct" position on a free society. That is what freedom of religion should mean, we don't need to follow the dictates of your scripture. Whatever they are.

I understand the impulse to defend your religion and your scripture when someone makes it look bad like this. But it is not necessary, no one is attacking it (at least I am not). But it shouldn't apply in situations like this where someone is trying to get service from a government official.

I agree, but I was mostly pointing out that the Biblical arguments came after the white supremacist system already existed.

 

[JustWondering]

I disagree. Gay marriages were illegal, and deserve no protection under the law. Pervert the laws, and you can just about do anything you want. Have at it.

If you are so very threatened by people living in a manner not condoned by YOUR version of religion there are plenty of third world cesspool countries that might suit you better, that jail or execute people for being gay. The rest of us don't want to live in a barbaric country that longs for the good old days of the dark ages and inquisitions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People should do what they believe is right, regardless what others believe. When we do what we believe is right, we ought to first consider the possible consequences of what we do. If after weighing those consequences, even if there are negative consequences to ourselves and others, if we still believe in what we are considering to do, and are willing to pay the consequences for our actions, we should do it. I don't mind the idea of cutting the head off a rapist, even if he doesn't like the idea. If I should engage in some action that I believe is right, and you or others should suffer for it, so be it.

That is pretty much what Hitler said. Stalin believed he was doing right. Mussonlini, as well, thought he was doing right by bringing fascism to Italy. Osama Bin Laden believed he was on a righteous crusade, the Crusade Popes always aligned themselves with god, and even ISIS believes they are right.
We should consider what we believe to be right, but we must also consider others. If our actions would cause actual harm to another, and not just "shock" harm because they can't handle differences, then we probably shouldn't do them. But if there is no harm, and this "shock" is the only offense, in a sort of a Kantian way, then we should proceed.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I disagree. Gay marriages were illegal, and deserve no protection under the law.

Well fortunately your religion no longer has an undeserved monopoly over the matter. Love wins! Ooh, that second sentence is an appeal to tradition fallacy. Haven't seen one of those in a while.

Pervert the laws, and you can just about do anything you want. Have at it.

I thought as much. Good luck applying that to reality. Trying saying that if you're ever in court for one of the more serious crimes - sexual assault, murder etc - see how far you get.

Are we now discussing interracial marriages? Or did you run out of anything useful to your argument.

It's called drawing an analogy, Son. People once argued (like you're doing now) that inter-racial marriages should be illegal and were a perversion (just like you're doing now) thus they were undeserving of legal protection.

What I consider myself is not your business.

Fair enough. Although you did already answer that question with this sentence: "Pervert the laws, and you can just about do anything you want.".

 

[MARCELLO]

Did something like this really happen of the country whose citizens walked on the moon in 1967 ??????

Americas are really too far away from us to understand.

 

[JoStories]

People should do what they believe is right, regardless what others believe. When we do what we believe is right, we ought to first consider the possible consequences of what we do. If after weighing those consequences, even if there are negative consequences to ourselves and others, if we still believe in what we are considering to do, and are willing to pay the consequences for our actions, we should do it. I don't mind the idea of cutting the head off a rapist, even if he doesn't like the idea. If I should engage in some action that I believe is right, and you or others should suffer for it, so be it.

So if you believe it is proper to murder someone, and do that, its perfectly fine with you? The moral structure of society as a whole would, if all peoples adopted this cavalier attitude of yours, result in anarchy. It would be chaos. And you truly believe that is the right thing to do?