The people she is denying rights to care. She isn't issuing licenses to anyone and hasnt. Many things could've happened in that time tha would necessitate that paper.

pacino wrote:The people she is denying rights to care. She isn't issuing licenses to anyone and hasnt. Many things could've happened in that time tha would necessitate that paper.

And no offense to slugs, this is not over. Davis' attorney said today that any license issued by her deputy clerks without her signature will be voided. So this now goes beyond her conscience.

slugsrbad wrote:Who cares. She's on the wrong side of history; we all know that. The law won and she was put in jail and held in contempt. There is no need to bring out all of her personal details... it just seems wrong to me. I feel like our side the argument should be better than that.

Yes, "we" all know that. But unfortunately there's a large number of people out there who don't. Exposing the hypocrisy may help them see the light.

Making it seem like THIS is Christianity is really messed up, too. That's why it's important to highlight the hypocrisy. Most Christians are great people.

My friends got married when PA finally turned this crap over. What if they couldnt because this lady was in Berks? The one couldn't have put the other on his work insurance and then the heart scare thy had would've been a MUCH bigger deal.

Doll Is Mine wrote:

So going by this, she has a pretty easy defense against the hypocrisy charge since she apparently converted to Christianity AFTER all of her marriages and infidelities.

Its not duggar territory. She may be despocable and a hypocrite bit there's no indication she's a pedophile.

YET

so why can't Bernie be President, exactly?

TenuredVulture wrote:Its not duggar territory. She may be despocable and a hypocrite bit there's no indication she's a pedophile.

That I agree with but she's a hypocrite which is what I was talking about. And I was mostly referring to Duggar having an account on Ashley Madison while he's preaching to people that gay marriage is a threat to, well, marriage.

Youseff wrote:so why can't Bernie be President, exactly?

Mostly that he has literally 0 support from the party and partly because he's a socialist.

SK790 wrote:

Youseff wrote:so why can't Bernie be President, exactly?

Mostly that he has literally 0 support from the party and partly because he's a socialist.

Recently, Chris Matthews interviewed Debbie WS and he asked her if Bernie has a place on stage at the Democratic convention and although I was a bit annoyed by the question, I noticed it made her very uncomfortable.

He has not had a single Democrat on the national level publicly support him. HRC has a ridiculous amount of pledged support, including the Governor and other Senator from VT. Elizabeth fucking Warren endorsed HRC! Everything indicates that the DNC doesn't want anything to do with Bernie, which is fair enough since he's not really a Democrat.

Interesting take on people's reactions to Kim Davis. I agree with the article's main thrust, certainly, although, and bear with me here, I'd hesitate to call Davis a "bigot," for two interlocking reasons. First, the word "bigot" suggests bias motivated by hatred, and I really doubt that what Davis is doing comes from hatred so much as it comes from certain ideological forces to which she has probably been exposed and with which she has agreed. One obviously is her religion: and while many versions of Christianity (and many other perfectly valid religions) teach that homosexuality is a sin, Christianity, at least, most often recommends to its believers a policy of separating sin from sinner: love the sinner, hate the sin. I may know someone is a thief, and that makes them a sinner, but it doesn't mean I "hate" them. Much the same attitude might be brought to bear on this issue.

The other less obvious ideological influence, and this may be counter-intuitive, is libertarianism, or at least the streak of libertarian ideology that has been co-opted by certain populist elements of American conservative ideological construction (yes, I know she is a "Democrat," but... come on). To call this woman a "bigot" - and this is the second reason I reject this characterization of her behavior - is to locate the fault entirely within her and to pretend as though this entire incident has been about one woman's flawed character: in fact, her stance here is, in many ways, the logical reductio ad absurdum of the libertarian concept made plain. While the committed libertarian will tell you theirs is an ideology about freedom so long as one does not hurt someone else or limit someone else - and therefore I expect many committed libertarians are indeed appalled by this woman's behavior - the problematic underlying concept underwriting all libertarian thought is visible in this woman's actions: the libertarian disdain for any limits to individual freedom of action except where absolutely necessary has been transmogrified by the Right - and not unreasonably so - as a disdain for the will of society as it is expressed, as all societies have more or less always expressed such will, through the state.

The state, the way the libertarian narrative usuaally tells it, is at best an inconvenient truth, an annoying limit on the individual to be avoided where possible, and held at bay where it must be encountered. But to a certain degree the state is identical with society, in that the state is, at least in theory in a democratic construction, the mode through which society expresses itself and its desires. The libertarian streak present in American conservatism turns this scorn for "the state" up three or four notches extra, and the result is what we see here: she has somehow separated, in her mind, the "state" from "society," so that she can legitimately, in her own mind, assert her individual right against encroachment by the state in her personal beliefs, and perform her job according to her personal beliefs without state interference... Even though her job is working for the state. Her range for personal freedom of belief and action is not only sacrosanct, it is functionally infinite: it must be permitted to operate without restriction between the state and itself. This is libertarian anti-state rhetoric brought to its logical vanishing point.

But this forgets entirely that, in a republic at least, "the state" is not some arbitrary rule-making authority in existence only to curb "our freedoms" but instead society's own, elected and constituted method of expressing the common will. Indeed, if one goes by the strict letter of libertarian thought - that one should have freedom of action unless and until one's freedom limits someone else's freedom - then the state should ALWAYS take precedence over the individual, because the state, as the vehicle of the people's will, is a priori the aggrieved party in any conflict between the two. If an individual wants to do something society has deemed undesirable, and has therefore elected representatives to enact laws to identify and punish this undesirable behavior (a collection of practices we refer to as "the state"), then the individual must have his rights curbed because his/her freedom has encroached on everyone else's, by definition.

I think the problem with libertarian thought is present in this contradiction - that it can simultaneously suggest an unlimited space for individual action, and the permanent primacy of the state. In practice, in American conservative circles, libertarianism has come to mean little more than a bizarre kind of self-selected nationalism: I do what I want without regard to the state, and I choose at every opportunity to make the state, and thus society, identical with my particular set of beliefs. This woman's actions have really exposed this fracture. She has responsibility for her actions, yes, but her attitudes have been shaped by ideologies, and those ideologies deserve a lion's share of the blame for the chaos they have produced.

I am exhausted while writing this, so forgive me if it makes no sense.

mozartpc27 wrote:Interesting take on people's reactions to Kim Davis. I agree with the article's main thrust, certainly, although, and bear with me here, I'd hesitate to call Davis a "bigot," for two interlocking reasons. First, the word "bigot" suggests bias motivated by hatred, and I really doubt that what Davis is doing comes from hatred so much as it comes from certain ideological forces to which she has probably been exposed and with which she has agreed. One obviously is her religion: and while many versions of Christianity (and many other perfectly valid religions) teach that homosexuality is a sin, Christianity, at least, most often recommends to its believers a policy of separating sin from sinner: love the sinner, hate the sin. I may know someone is a thief, and that makes them a sinner, but it doesn't mean I "hate" them. Much the same attitude might be brought to bear on this issue.

Her actions caused people emotional pain and were, therefore, hateful. No offense, but this line of rationalization is not becoming of the rest of your really good post, moz.

It's a tough one for me because we really don't know her so it's hard to know what motivated her actions. I do however think there's some resentment involved (due to the SC ruling) and it caused her to deny licenses to same-sex couples so I think at least part of her motivation was a desire to stick to the gays.

She's also slick because she started denying licenses to straight couples too when the media started snooping around in order to cover her ass.

My gut tells me this isn't only about religious freedom and Kim Davis is using her position to impose her beliefs on others when her "boss" already told her that she can't do that.

SK790 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Interesting take on people's reactions to Kim Davis. I agree with the article's main thrust, certainly, although, and bear with me here, I'd hesitate to call Davis a "bigot," for two interlocking reasons. First, the word "bigot" suggests bias motivated by hatred, and I really doubt that what Davis is doing comes from hatred so much as it comes from certain ideological forces to which she has probably been exposed and with which she has agreed. One obviously is her religion: and while many versions of Christianity (and many other perfectly valid religions) teach that homosexuality is a sin, Christianity, at least, most often recommends to its believers a policy of separating sin from sinner: love the sinner, hate the sin. I may know someone is a thief, and that makes them a sinner, but it doesn't mean I "hate" them. Much the same attitude might be brought to bear on this issue.

Her actions caused people emotional pain and were, therefore, hateful. No offense, but this line of rationalization is not becoming of the rest of your really good post, moz.

Is every action that causes emotional pain hateful? I think motivation counts for something, and while I can't peer into her heart, is it fair to say - knowing that I can't peer into her heart - that her interest in Christian morality is merely an expedient post facto way of justifying her hatred of gays?

Perhaps the ideology itself is hateful, and to hold it is to hate. I am sympathetic to that view, but then, as just one example, the Catholic ideology I grew up with made it pretty clear that while homosexuality was in its view immoral behavior, that was NOT a license to hate its practitioners. This much too often led to a very damaging form of cognitive dissonance to be sure (and indeed, is the biggest single reason I will not raise my child Catholic), but I can't say it is illogical or impossible on its face. Like I said, I think you can hate stealing but love the thief, for example.

(Thank you for the compliment by the way)

Doll Is Mine wrote:
My gut tells me this isn't only about religious freedom and Kim Davis is using her position to impose her beliefs on others when her "boss" already told her that she can't do that.

Of this there is little doubt. The absolute privileging of the individual - provided that individual falls within certain cultural and ethnic parameters - is at the heart of the "libertarian" streak of American conservatism.

mozartpc27 wrote:

SK790 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Interesting take on people's reactions to Kim Davis. I agree with the article's main thrust, certainly, although, and bear with me here, I'd hesitate to call Davis a "bigot," for two interlocking reasons. First, the word "bigot" suggests bias motivated by hatred, and I really doubt that what Davis is doing comes from hatred so much as it comes from certain ideological forces to which she has probably been exposed and with which she has agreed. One obviously is her religion: and while many versions of Christianity (and many other perfectly valid religions) teach that homosexuality is a sin, Christianity, at least, most often recommends to its believers a policy of separating sin from sinner: love the sinner, hate the sin. I may know someone is a thief, and that makes them a sinner, but it doesn't mean I "hate" them. Much the same attitude might be brought to bear on this issue.

Her actions caused people emotional pain and were, therefore, hateful. No offense, but this line of rationalization is not becoming of the rest of your really good post, moz.

Is every action that causes emotional pain hateful? I think motivation counts for something, and while I can't peer into her heart, is it fair to say - knowing that I can't peer into her heart - that her interest in Christian morality is merely an expedient post facto way of justifying her hatred of gays?

Perhaps the ideology itself is hateful, and to hold it is to hate. I am sympathetic to that view, but then, as just one example, the Catholic ideology I grew up with made it pretty clear that while homosexuality was in its view immoral behavior, that was NOT a license to hate its practitioners. This much too often led to a very damaging form of cognitive dissonance to be sure (and indeed, is the biggest single reason I will not raise my child Catholic), but I can't say it is illogical or impossible on its face. Like I said, I think you can hate stealing but love the thief, for example.

(Thank you for the compliment by the way)

Yeah I think there's a good chance that she sincerely believes that two gay people can't love each other the way two straight people can, and therefore isn't causing them pain by not allowing them to be married. Like its something like not issuing a blind person a driver's license to her. Not a perfect analogy but you get the point. It may be ignorant and wrong but its not necessarily hateful.

mozartpc27 wrote:

SK790 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Interesting take on people's reactions to Kim Davis. I agree with the article's main thrust, certainly, although, and bear with me here, I'd hesitate to call Davis a "bigot," for two interlocking reasons. First, the word "bigot" suggests bias motivated by hatred, and I really doubt that what Davis is doing comes from hatred so much as it comes from certain ideological forces to which she has probably been exposed and with which she has agreed. One obviously is her religion: and while many versions of Christianity (and many other perfectly valid religions) teach that homosexuality is a sin, Christianity, at least, most often recommends to its believers a policy of separating sin from sinner: love the sinner, hate the sin. I may know someone is a thief, and that makes them a sinner, but it doesn't mean I "hate" them. Much the same attitude might be brought to bear on this issue.

Her actions caused people emotional pain and were, therefore, hateful. No offense, but this line of rationalization is not becoming of the rest of your really good post, moz.

Is every action that causes emotional pain hateful? I think motivation counts for something, and while I can't peer into her heart, is it fair to say - knowing that I can't peer into her heart - that her interest in Christian morality is an excellent post facto way of justifying her hatred of gays?

Perhaps the ideology itself is hateful, and to hold is to hate. I am sympathetic to that view, but then, as just one example, the Catholic ideology I grew up with made it pretty clear that while homosexuality was in its view immoral behavior, that was NOT a license to hate its practitioners. This much too often led to a very damaging format of cognitive dissonance to be sure, but I can't say it is illogical or impossible on its face. Like I said, I think you can hate stealing but love the thief, for example.

(Thank you for the compliment by the way)

No, but an action that is met with people telling you that you are being hurtful and hateful and then continuing to double down on your actions is. Motivation does not count for much if your actions are shitty, especially if your motivations are "my personal beliefs are different", as it is in this instance.

The problem with your 2nd bit is that by "hating" homosexuality, that leads you to openly discriminate people who are homosexuals. It's the same BS rationalization those damn bakers who refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. They claim they aren't being hateful and they don't hate gay people all the while denying them services specifically because they're gay. Motivations may matter in explaining someones actions, but actions are always the most important thing, moz, because actions have real world physical and emotional consequences. Comparing homosexuality to a criminal act like theft is pretty crass, I must say. Someone chooses to be a thief; people don't choose to be gay.

Maybe it's just my personal belief that actions are much, much more consequential than what someone says or their motivations that leads me to be so adamant about hating this woman. I just don't think you can explain away consistent shitty behavior with motivations, that's all. You can apologize for your shitty behavior, grow as a person, and move on with your life(you know, like a grown ass adult?)