Clerk Jailed for Refusing to Give out Gay marriage licences

[Acker79]

Being religious and being part of the KKK are not comparable to a reasonable person.

People are saying that this woman is not being imprisoned for who she is or her beliefs, but for not doing her job or being in contempt of court or whatever. But when homosexuals were imprisoned it was often said that they were not being put in prison for being gay, but for the homosexual acts that they had committed - as though there was a difference.

It's somewhat contradictory that these positions both come from the same person.

Firstly, the comparison between being religious and being in the kkk wasn't what was being said. It was comparing homophobic bigotry being compared with racist bigotry (albeit both being masked by religion - this woman claiming religion as the basis of her homophobic bigotry, and the kkk using religion as the basis for their racist bigotry.

Essentially the point being made was "would you defend someone who refused to do the job they have chosen to do, in line with their employer's practices and policies, simply on the basis of the skin colour of their customer in the way you are defending this woman refusing to do her job on the basis of her customer's gender/sexuality?" (or arguing against the punishments given)

If anyone on this thread is making a poor comparison, it is you.

Your comparison of this woman to gay people being imprisoned is flawed. They were being imprisoned because they were gay. They didn't chose to be gay. Being gay wasn't a belief that stopped them doing their job as instructed by the courts. Whether the excuse given by courts were that they were imprisoned for who they were born, or the acts (that are part of being who they were born) that they did doesn't matter. It was still about who they were.

This woman has not been imprisoned simply for being who she was born to be, but about the choices she makes despite options that have zero impact on her ability to be who she was born, or her chosen religious beliefs.

 

[gregbrighton]

It's somewhat contradictory that these positions both come from the same person.

Firstly, the comparison between being religious and being in the kkk wasn't what was being said. It was comparing homophobic bigotry being compared with racist bigotry (albeit both being masked by religion - this woman claiming religion as the basis of her homophobic bigotry, and the kkk using religion as the basis for their racist bigotry.

Essentially the point being made was "would you defend someone who refused to do the job they have chosen to do, in line with their employer's practices and policies, simply on the basis of the skin colour of their customer in the way you are defending this woman refusing to do her job on the basis of her customer's gender/sexuality?" (or arguing against the punishments given)

If anyone on this thread is making a poor comparison, it is you.

Your comparison of this woman to gay people being imprisoned is flawed. They were being imprisoned because they were gay. They didn't chose to be gay. Being gay wasn't a belief that stopped them doing their job as instructed by the courts. Whether the excuse given by courts were that they were imprisoned for who they were born, or the acts (that are part of being who they were born) that they did doesn't matter. It was still about who they were.

This woman has not been imprisoned simply for being who she was born to be, but about the choices she makes despite options that have zero impact on her ability to be who she was born, or her chosen religious beliefs.

Thank-you for explaining this succinctly to dingodan. I think he is a bit confused....

 

[TonyW]

All nutters.

 

[Westdene Wonder]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...or-denying-same-sex-marriage-licenses/6748700

Anyone following this story?

Jailing her seems a bit harsh surely if her job has changed and her conscience/beliefs/religion won't let her carry out part of it. They could somehow find a way to relieve her of that particular role. A big decision has been taken over gay marriage but surely we need a little bit of consideration and flexibility for those who disagree?

When she commenced her career there was no question of same sex marriage so she should be excused of being concerned with a situation which is at odds with her beliefs

 

[daveinprague]

A country where, in some states, you can be jailed for smoking a joint, but its ok to openly carry an assault rifle. We must have some weird laws hanging about though?

 

[greyseagull]

All this and there's actually no God after all. Bit silly really. Carry on though.

 

[dingodan]

Firstly, the comparison between being religious and being in the kkk wasn't what was being said. It was comparing homophobic bigotry being compared with racist bigotry (albeit both being masked by religion - this woman claiming religion as the basis of her homophobic bigotry, and the kkk using religion as the basis for their racist bigotry.

-

Your comparison of this woman to gay people being imprisoned is flawed. They were being imprisoned because they were gay. They didn't chose to be gay. Being gay wasn't a belief that stopped them doing their job as instructed by the courts. Whether the excuse given by courts were that they were imprisoned for who they were born, or the acts (that are part of being who they were born) that they did doesn't matter. It was still about who they were.

This woman has not been imprisoned simply for being who she was born to be, but about the choices she makes despite options that have zero impact on her ability to be who she was born, or her chosen religious beliefs.

You are still making the same argument. "You are entitled to your religion, just don't practice it." Which is what was said about sexuality in the past.

By the way, Bigotry is defined as being, intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Homophobia and racism are forms of prejudice, not bigotry. Locking up this woman - that is bigotry.

 

[Guerrero]

All this and there's actually no God after all. Bit silly really. Carry on though.

So you know that?

 

[looney]

A good example how Religion, law, democracy and personalchoice can become entangled.Beyond thatidont give a damn about some backwoods hich not doing her job etcetc.

Agree with Dingo Dan here which is strange, Christianity has nothing to do with the KKK, thats just dumb.

 

[drew]

A good example how Religion, law, democracy and personalchoice can become entangled.Beyond thatidont give a damn about some backwoods hich not doing her job etcetc.

Agree with Dingo Dan here which is strange, Christianity has nothing to do with the KKK, thats just dumb.

To be fair, it doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks. Surely it is more relevant what the members of KKK believe. To quote from Wiki, 'Though most members of the KKK saw themselves as holding to American values and Christian morality, virtually every christian denomination officially denounced the Ku Klux Klan.'

A comparison could be that IS consider themselves Muslims whereas numerous Muslim groups around the world denounce their brand of Islam.

 

[gregbrighton]

A good example how Religion, law, democracy and personalchoice can become entangled.Beyond thatidont give a damn about some backwoods hich not doing her job etcetc.

Agree with Dingo Dan here which is strange, Christianity has nothing to do with the KKK, thats just dumb.

 

[Acker79]

You are still making the same argument. "You are entitled to your religion, just don't practice it." Which is what was said about sexuality in the past.

No, we're not.

Her job is not her religion. Her job is completely separate to her religion.

She can continue to practice her religion and do another job.

She can continue to practice her religion, keep doing her job and let her deputies sign the marriage licence for gay couples - a licence that simply says they have, in the eyes of the state, met all the legal requirements to go ahead and get married, not one that actually marries them.

No one is saying she can't practice her religion. No one is saying she can't, in her own mind, oppose gay marriage. What they are saying is that she chose to do a job, and is now choosing not to do it properly. She may have religious reasons for not doing her job properly, but alternatives have been offered, and she has chosen to refuse them - not because it interferes with her practising her religion, but because she disagrees with the life two other people want to live and she wants to force her way of life on them.


You are continuing to confuse people being punished for who they are (i.e. something they had no choice over) despite having no impact on anyone else, with someone being punished because of a choice she is making in an attempt to impact on other people's lives. It is not comparable.

 

[gregbrighton]

Spot on Acker79.

Her job is a secular job in a civic governmental building. She is not representing an ecclesiastical institution carrying out the sacraments of a religious order.

 

[dingodan]

No, we're not.

Her job is not her religion. Her job is completely separate to her religion.

She can continue to practice her religion and do another job.

She can continue to practice her religion, keep doing her job and let her deputies sign the marriage licence for gay couples - a licence that simply says they have, in the eyes of the state, met all the legal requirements to go ahead and get married, not one that actually marries them.

No one is saying she can't practice her religion. No one is saying she can't, in her own mind, oppose gay marriage. What they are saying is that she chose to do a job, and is now choosing not to do it properly. She may have religious reasons for not doing her job properly, but alternatives have been offered, and she has chosen to refuse them - not because it interferes with her practising her religion, but because she disagrees with the life two other people want to live and she wants to force her way of life on them.


You are continuing to confuse people being punished for who they are (i.e. something they had no choice over) despite having no impact on anyone else, with someone being punished because of a choice she is making in an attempt to impact on other people's lives. It is not comparable.

I think she should be fired and they should get on with it. Should have been a non-issue. What I object to is people saying she deserves to be in prison. I didn't pay much attention to the specifics of this case, it sounds like she is being deliberately obstructive rather than just refusing to do something herself. But I still think that could have been sorted out another way, with the marriage being signed off and nobody going to prison. The point I was making was that tolerance means tolerating the intolerant.

& to be clear I wasn't defending this woman because I like her or agree with her views, I was defending her despite the fact that I don't.

 

[Woodchip]

You are still making the same argument. "You are entitled to your religion, just don't practice it." Which is what was said about sexuality in the past.

By the way, Bigotry is defined as being, intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Homophobia and racism are forms of prejudice, not bigotry. Locking up this woman - that is bigotry.

No, what's being said is "You're entitled to be religious, but don't force it on other people".

To compare the forcing of religion onto other with sexuality would be to compare what this bigot has done with walking into Kemp Town and then being bent over and f***ed up the ass. Both are forcing one's lifestyle on someone that really doesn't want it.

How can you say she's not being intolerant towards those that hold the opinion that same sex marriage is on an equal with different sex marriage? Therefore she meets your definition of bigotry.


Come on dingodan, you can still dig yourself into a deeper hole if you want.

 

[MattBackHome]

No, we're not.

Her job is not her religion. Her job is completely separate to her religion.

She can continue to practice her religion and do another job.

She can continue to practice her religion, keep doing her job and let her deputies sign the marriage licence for gay couples - a licence that simply says they have, in the eyes of the state, met all the legal requirements to go ahead and get married, not one that actually marries them.

No one is saying she can't practice her religion. No one is saying she can't, in her own mind, oppose gay marriage. What they are saying is that she chose to do a job, and is now choosing not to do it properly. She may have religious reasons for not doing her job properly, but alternatives have been offered, and she has chosen to refuse them - not because it interferes with her practising her religion, but because she disagrees with the life two other people want to live and she wants to force her way of life on them.


You are continuing to confuse people being punished for who they are (i.e. something they had no choice over) despite having no impact on anyone else, with someone being punished because of a choice she is making in an attempt to impact on other people's lives. It is not comparable.

Perfectly put.

 

[BadFish]

I think she should be fired and they should get on with it. Should have been a non-issue. What I object to is people saying she deserves to be in prison. I didn't pay much attention to the specifics of this case, it sounds like she is being deliberately obstructive rather than just refusing to do something herself. But I still think that could have been sorted out another way, with the marriage being signed off and nobody going to prison. The point I was making was that tolerance means tolerating the intolerant.

& to be clear I wasn't defending this woman because I like her or agree with her views, I was defending her despite the fact that I don't.

I agree.

The whole thing appears to have got massively out of hand (she has obviously played her part in this). The whole gay marriage thing was about tolerance and acceptance of others. I can't help but feel that someone ending up in prison goes against the ideal of something so recently won. I don't agree with her stance on this but surely in the interests of tolerance and acceptance a less drastic solution to this problem could be found?

 

[BadFish]

I don't think the KKK are representative of Christianilty any more than ISIS are representative of Islam. They have both taken a religion and *******ised it for their own ends.

 

[El Presidente]

Don't you think you are conflating being religious with being racist?

I also think you are confusing someone who wishes to outlaw/ban/forcably stop gay marriage, with someone who does not want to personally sign a marriage certificate for a gay couple.

All the people who are saying that this woman should be in prison are no different to those people who used to say that gays should be in prison.

How about we stop putting people in prison for who they are and what they believe ffs.

I don't think there was any necessity for her to go to prison, but she wanted to be a martyr.

She had a number of deputies to whom she regularly delegated work, and they were allowed to licence marriages when she was on other business, holiday, Ill etc.

She could easily have asked them (and six out of seven of them were happy to licence gay marriages) but refused to do so.

She was therefore imposing her own views on other people.

 

[El Presidente]

I agree.

The whole thing appears to have got massively out of hand (she has obviously played her part in this). The whole gay marriage thing was about tolerance and acceptance of others. I can't help but feel that someone ending up in prison goes against the ideal of something so recently won. I don't agree with her stance on this but surely in the interests of tolerance and acceptance a less drastic solution to this problem could be found?

There were a number of non custodial solutions to the problem, but she refused to take them on each occasion.

The crux of the issue is that her role as an elected one, and this meant that she could not be dismissed under usual means.

It then became a game of shouting ping-pong between the American religious right and gay supporting liberals, with no one being prepared to listen or give ground.