Pope Francis sides with county clerks who refuse to issue gay marriage licenses - Polidicks

[QUOTE=paul simon;48786438]Oh deary me! What's next, dog marriage?[/QUOTE] No but a bunch of sick fucks are trying to get pedophilia to be considered a sexual orientation which is complete bullshit. Gay people have nothing to do with that though.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;48787187]No but a bunch of sick fucks are trying to get pedophilia to be considered a sexual orientation which is complete bullshit. Gay people have nothing to do with that though.[/QUOTE] Wait, wait, I got this one. Is it the Catholic Church?

[QUOTE=woolio1;48787168]Bakery Owners was cut and dry discrimination, though. It'd be like not making a cake for a black person's wedding. All these gay marriage arguments really sound completely absurd if you replace gay with interracial. We can look back at what we saw happening in this country fifty years ago, and yet we still don't get it.[/QUOTE] Yes, cut and dry discrimination BUT isnt really impeding on anyones rights or livelihood like denying someones right to gay marriage. I mean, dont you think someone SHOULD be able to do that if its their faith? Im not saying its right or agreeing with it, but shouldn't that freedom exist in USA? We can all judge those people from their dumb actions anyways like we do already.(comparable stuff to the cake, not gay marriage tier) Still, hard question to ask because if you start throwing in stuff like "What if this happened at a grocery store and the only close one?" or a Doctor(im 100% sure thats illegal and will get your med licensed removed, but still could happen) then those peoples religion shouldnt be overstepping others.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;48787187]No but a bunch of sick fucks are trying to get pedophilia to be considered a sexual orientation which is complete bullshit. Gay people have nothing to do with that though.[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure i see the problem with that? Does it mean they'd get more rights or something?

[QUOTE=OvB;48786483]I can't believe there are people that side with this woman.[/QUOTE] Can you imagine the ego-explosion this ugly bigot had when the POPE of all people came to her aid? Please let this scandal end before she gets her own program on Fox like Huckabee.

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48787212]Yes, cut and dry discrimination BUT isnt really impeding on anyones rights or livelihood like denying someones right to gay marriage. I mean, dont you think someone SHOULD be able to do that if its their faith? Im not saying its right or agreeing with it, but shouldn't that freedom exist in USA? We can all judge those people from their dumb actions anyways like we do already.(comparable stuff to the cake, not gay marriage tier) Still, hard question to ask because if you start throwing in stuff like "What if this happened at a grocery store and the only close one?" or a Doctor(im 100% sure thats illegal and will get your med licensed removed, but still could happen) then those peoples religion shouldnt be overstepping others.[/QUOTE] No, actually, I really don't. If you run a business, and you refuse service to one of your customers because they have a different religion, or sexual orientation, or race, or hair color, or tribal affiliation, then maybe you shouldn't be running a business at all. There are reasons we have anti-discrimination laws to prevent things like this from happening to minorities. These laws should just extend to everyone. If you're going to run a business, serve everybody or serve nobody.

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48787145]I think people are taking this the wrong way, but even still its not the best thing to come out of the popes mouth. Hes saying this because its for religious freedom which should exist obviously, at the same time hes saying it in a country where that specific circumstance is now illegal since gay marriage is legal federally. It would also be fucking up peoples basic rights pretty hard, I dont think getting into that ladys field is the one you get into if you dislike homosexuals and gay marriage. Popes message probably would have come across better if it was something like those bakery owners refusing to make a cake for a homosexual couple. Also for people that arent aware for the Popes stance, he doesnt like homosexuality, but he doesnt condemn people for it and he tolerates it.[/QUOTE] Freedom of religion doesn't exist in any country and never has, and this is for very good reason.

Bet the pope wouldn't be siding with her if she was refusing interracial couples under the guise of her beliefs.

Generations down the line are going to read about this stupid fucking bigot with the same contempt that we had when learning about Prince Edward county schools shutting down over desegregation.

I, for one, think that county clerks who don't do their jobs should be impeached or imprisoned, and I am certainly for gay marriage. However, it is silly to think that the Pope would disagree with a standpoint that the church has held for thousands of years. We need to remember that Catholicism is not a society whose values are dynamic, or a political system that can evolve with time, but a very carefully studied, well-documented, [b]concrete[/b] religion. The tenants of Catholicism are very clearly defined, and whether or not they're stupid or go against what society today values, those tenants ought to not be changed. Otherwise, you risk a destabilization of the entire faith. It's dumb, it's irrational, and it's inhumane, but it's dogma, and it's his job to uphold it. That's just my two cents, though.

[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;48787673]I, for one, think that county clerks who don't do their jobs should be impeached or imprisoned, and I am certainly for gay marriage. However, it is silly to think that the Pope would disagree with a standpoint that the church has held for thousands of years. We need to remember that Catholicism is not a society whose values are dynamic, or a political system that can evolve with time, but a very carefully studied, well-documented, [b]concrete[/b] religion. The tenants of Catholicism are very clearly defined, and whether or not they're stupid or go against what society today values, those tenants ought to not be changed. Otherwise, you risk a destabilization of the entire faith. It's dumb, it's irrational, and it's inhumane, but it's dogma, and it's his job to uphold it. That's just my two cents, though.[/QUOTE] Right, which is why it's ridiculous to treat Francis like he's some progressive paragon like many people seem to do.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48787294]I'm not entirely sure i see the problem with that? Does it mean they'd get more rights or something?[/QUOTE] Typical the predators have more rights than the children being molested and raped. They can't help it let them molest and rape children.

[QUOTE=woolio1;48787313]No, actually, I really don't. If you run a business, and you refuse service to one of your customers because they have a different religion, or sexual orientation, or race, or hair color, or tribal affiliation, then maybe you shouldn't be running a business at all. There are reasons we have anti-discrimination laws to prevent things like this from happening to minorities. These laws should just extend to everyone. If you're going to run a business, serve everybody or serve nobody.[/QUOTE] You shouldnt be running a business if you pull that type of shit, but its not like you cant already deny someone service or kick them out. I guess it comes down to being able to run the business you own the way you want vs losing the freedom to not be such an asshole. I guess im for the fact im fine with someone denying service(depending) over petty shit like race since we can just judge those assholes anyways and not give them business, on the other hand that freedom would create a lot of problems and those discriminatory laws are their for a purpose.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48786348]Not a fan of this guy.[/QUOTE] He's still got some stuff backwards but otherwise the sheer amount of progress he's bringing to the church is amazing. Hating the guy because he's still stuck up about that one thing Christianity has historically disliked for thousands of years is a bit stupid.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48786369]Because he's supposed to be a religious leader, not a politician.[/QUOTE] historically religious leaders, especially the position of pope have been always been heavily involved in politics. Furthermore the line between "politics" and "morality" is pretty much nonexistant in modern times, people base their politics off whatever brand of morality they subscribe to, especially in the US. Even if often their religion contradicts their politics, they pick and choose pieces that justify the politics. Perfect example is the extremely religious majority christian south "bibble belt" US that also just happens to have the majority support a party that wants to decrease social welfare programs funding, which is a direct contradiction of the teachings of christ in the bible.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48786998][url]http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_do_catholics_pray_to_her.php[/url] Read this, it's a Catholic site.[/QUOTE] [quote]In the Rosary we ask Mary to "Pray for us sinners."[/quote] Catholics don't worship Mary or other saints directly, think of it as more of using them as a conduit to God. Once again you display a basic lack of knowledge of Christian theology.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;48787880]historically religious leaders, especially the position of pope have been always been heavily involved in politics. Furthermore the line between "politics" and "morality" is pretty much nonexistant in modern times, people base their politics off whatever brand of morality they subscribe to, especially in the US. Even if often their religion contradicts their politics, they pick and choose pieces that justify the politics. Perfect example is the extremely religious majority christian south "bibble belt" US that also just happens to have the majority support a party that wants to decrease social welfare programs funding, which is a direct contradiction of the teachings of christ in the bible.[/QUOTE] Where does the bible speak of social welfare?

Maybe now everyone can actually remember what the pope is, a crazy who believes he speaks to god and gets a response back. If anything, it's the warp that replies back.

Seriously I don't understand why people can't grasp this, when you work for the government you must abide by the law no matter what your religion agrees or disagrees with. This bitch doesn't get to pick and choose who she issues licenses to

[QUOTE=Explosions;48787949]Where does the bible speak of social welfare?[/QUOTE] It doesn't in any political sense. The catholic church's opinions on political welfare are extrapolations from the personal commands given to Christians. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48787921]Catholics don't worship Mary or other saints directly, think of it as more of using them as a conduit to God. Once again you display a basic lack of knowledge of Christian theology.[/QUOTE] You mean Catholic theology. Protestants hold to the Bible, which says: "5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5) Also, Catholics are slippery on this issue because they play a weird semantics game when defining words like 'worship,' 'veneration,' 'adoration,' etc. Their arguments aren't so much based on Biblical scripture, but on the results of synods and councils. The Bible clearly uses the term "latria," but it never uses the other two terms for worship that the Catholic church describes. Those words were created in order to allow saint worship while also trying to separate it from God worship. Based on the Catholic usage of these words, they do in fact 'worship' the saints, but they don't give the saints 'adoration.' Here's a quote directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "There are several degrees of this worship: -if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry. -When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia , a term denoting servitude, and implying, [B]when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God[/B], that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis , I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.). -As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus , 1728). In accordance with these principles it will readily be understood that a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or even the statue or picture of a saint." ([URL]http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12449[/URL])

[QUOTE=darth-veger;48787086]Pope Francis did a ton of really cool things which makes me think he is one of the better popes for the younger generation but this decision is a ugly smudge on his otherwise clean slate..[/QUOTE] i like to look at it the other way around for popes, their slate starts off all dirty and they clean it off, and anything that's left over is more excusable considering their position

[QUOTE=Explosions;48787752]Right, which is why it's ridiculous to treat Francis like he's some progressive paragon like many people seem to do.[/QUOTE] i think most people just think of him as progressive [I]for a pope[/I] not in general

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;48786453]She doesn't have the right to refuse to do what her job entails as a public servant without resigning and expecting zero reprimand, nor should she.[/QUOTE] You know, with that logic, we should enforce other religions to follow suite, e.g. muslims being forced to sell alcohol, bacon etc or a hindu selling beef burgers. They are being paid for the job, which should over-rule their beliefs. Then again, i doubt either of those religions would have a follower issuing gay marriage licenses either. But hey, Christianity bashing is the latest trend.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48786365]rofl and why not? Gays can get married but if people want the right to have nothing to do with gay marriage but like their otherwise acceptable job they're horrible and stupid, right?[/QUOTE] Yes, because people who refuse to do their job and follow the law are good people right?

[QUOTE=Arrows;48789135]You know, with that logic, we should enforce other religions to follow suite, e.g. muslims being forced to sell alcohol, bacon etc or a hindu selling beef burgers. They are being paid for the job, which should over-rule their beliefs. Then again, i doubt either of those religions would have a follower issuing gay marriage licenses either. But hey, Christianity bashing is the latest trend.[/QUOTE] If a Davis was a Muslim I'm sure everyone would still feel the same.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48786399]So you can expect society to change for a minority (homosexuals) but not a majority (the religious). I'm not even religious and I'm supporting her. It's not like she took the job after the ruling and was like "by the way I'm not doing this." The job changed and required her to do something she found morally unacceptable. Don't know why gays deserve all these special privileges and ordinary people don't.[/QUOTE] I find it very hard to believe that you could support this woman honestly and not be a bigot of some kind, either a religious bigot or someone who just hates gays. Because there's nothing unreasonable about wanting the right to get married like everyone else can. They're not asking for special privileges, they're asking for equal rights; it's actually a basic matter of human rights. And what Kim Davis is doing is wrong, not just on those moral and ethical grounds of equal rights but on legal grounds as well because of her unlawful defiance of government and policy in the United States today. Either way, you're still wrong. The fact of the matter is that this woman is a public servant who was elected to office to serve. Part of public service requires you to comply with law and government; you're a part (albeit a very small part as a county clerk) of all that now. Your personal opinions, your beliefs, your conscience? Sorry, none of that matters anymore. You now have a job to do: you serve the people. As part of that job, you obey the law and the government. If you don't, there are consequences-- because we can't live in a society of people who have meaningful roles to fulfill and aren't living up to them because of personal biases and interests. Pope Francis is wrong too. He's an alright human being, and I don't feel any hatred or animosity towards him because he honestly has encouraged and done a lot of good in the world and has been a pretty significant deviation from his recent predecessors, but sorry, this is a matter of basic human rights which ordinary people should have-- and now they do have them in this country. The Catholic Church is just going to have to learn to bite the bullet and deal with that fact. Gays can get married now and will receive equal treatment under the law here, as they will too in many other places in the civilized world. This debate is over, and all people like Davis are doing are dragging their feet (futilely) to stop progress that is inevitable. Davis has already gone to jail once for what she's been doing. She and anyone else like her will be sent to jail in the future. It's very simple: either you do your job and comply as you're required to, or you'll be punished. And that's exactly how things should be. If you have a problem with this, then I strongly advise you to leave your office and let someone else who will, you know, actually carry out its duties (like they're supposed to) have it instead. It will make your life a lot easier, it will make everyone else's lives a lot easier.

The thing that gets me about this is still the general stigma and attitude around lgbt individuals, rights, and marriage. It needs to fucking change, because there are tons of young lgbt kids who feel rejected and less than their straight counterparts - and parts of society treat them as such. Suicide rates and depression rates are way WAY too damn high for them, and especially for transgender individuals. It's unfair and that, more than people not understanding why equal marriage rights are so important, drives me up the damn wall. These kids all deserve better and people in positions of cultural influence need to do, and be, better. Endorsing people like Kim Davis doesn't help. Separation of church and state works against her here, she's a federal employee and as such her religious views have ZERO place interfering with her work. If they do, she needs to find a new job outside of federal or state work. She's not a valiant defender or awesome individual, she's a petty hypocritical federal employee and needs to act better.

[QUOTE=Arrows;48789135]You know, with that logic, we should enforce other religions to follow suite, e.g. muslims being forced to sell alcohol, bacon etc or a hindu selling beef burgers. They are being paid for the job, which should over-rule their beliefs. Then again, i doubt either of those religions would have a follower issuing gay marriage licenses either. But hey, Christianity bashing is the latest trend.[/QUOTE] What christianity bashing? Did you miss the "public servant" part of his post? It's pretty important. She's an elected government employee, it's a completely different situation than someone working at some random company. She is refusing to do her government mandated job based on her religious beliefs. By doing so she is literally breaking the law. Public servants are obligated to do their jobs no matter what their personal feelings or religious beliefs are. If you're not ok with those restrictions, then don't work in the government.

The part that bothers me with this whole thing is that the government doesn't enforce everyone doing their job. They pick and choose what to enforce and what not to enforce. For example, we have the so called "sanctuary cities" in California that the federal government refuses to prosecute.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48786425]She refused to do her very important job, and thus broke the law. The only stupid part was her refusing to do what she had signed up for.[/QUOTE] Iirc though, gay marriage wasn't federally legalized prior to her signing up for the job. I think, like others have said before, that she should be allowed to refuse doing what stands against her beliefs, but in doing so, she should fortfeit her position.