Pope Says Workers Have "Human Right" To Refuse Same Sex Marriages Licenses.

The quote is out of context in the sense that we are assuming it applies to Davis. He does not make this clear. Also, we have only the world of Davis' lawyer and a Davis-associated pressure group that she and the Pope ever met.

The Pope chose not to make the meaning of the statement clear and to not confirm that he ever met with her.

Also saying something is a human right is not the same as saying it should be legal. Civil disobedience is done in the knowledge that it is not legal and penalties may apply. Davis' right to pursue this disobedience and experience these legal penalties has not be quashed and she has been afforded very right to publicize her choice and the reasons for it.

 

My thoughts exactly. After all, if you were vegetarian and objected to serving meat to people, you wouldn't be so dumb as to take a job at Mc Donald's would you?

 

Well firstly when she took the position same sex marriage was not legal, and secondly it is an elected post rather than a job per se.

And saying civil disobedience is a human right does not mean you can do it without legal repercussion. In fact the *whole point* of civil disobedience is for the law to be applied and the protester use that to draw attention to their cause.

"Civil disobedience: the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes. "

I am a pro-marriage-equality atheist, but I agree with the Pope. Civil disobedience is a human right. Davis is getting to exercise it.

 

They have a right, but there is also the right of their employer to take away they're ability to refuse licenses. Point blank I'm indifferent on the issue of Gay marriage. All I know is if you're not doing what's in you're job description then it's time to find another occupation.

 

Actually because she is in elected office she does not have a single person who is her employer. That is why the courts had to take over that function.
Which they did. Which is as it should be.

Again, the right to civil disobedience is the right to break a law for reasons of conscience and use you trial and sentencing to attract attention to your cause. the Pope is not saying breaking the law for reasons of conscience should mean they are let off. That would be to quite misunderstand his point.

The Pope has also now clarified that he did meet with Davis but this meeting does not reflect support for her actions.

 

As a gay guy I must admit that sometimes when I come across people who don't agree with same gender marriage it's kind of frustrating, because obviously I can't see nothing wrong with it and when they are telling me that gay people shouldn't get married I feel that I'm being offended and denied of a human right, as if I wasn't "valid" enough to get married. But in the other hand people has the right to think whatever they want, because its human right. But I don't agree with those people being offensive and aggressive towards the LGBT+ community, because as long as we are not harming anyone, they shouldn't be rude with us.

 

I totally agree with you Gmckee1985 and ScooterBranden the person you quoted. As for as another comment yes it was an elected position yet she had to run for the position and she won; yes the law changed after she was elected.
If she does not like the new law then move on from your position; not use religion as an excuse to gain attention. In my opinion if she was so up and mighty religious she would not have been married 4 times, while unwed she also conceived twins with a lover, two of her weddings were Godless, one was at a “universal life church” and one preformed by a judge; the list of Non compliance with religion goes on and on.
So how is it that all of a sudden she is so dedicated to Religious beliefs that she can refuse to perform her “elected” duty. Maybe those voters could impeach her, I have no clue; seems like if that were an option it would be voted on and done by now. I am just convinced all of this is “pretend religion” is all a excuse to gain attention and be rich and famous.

 

I’ve been alternately amused, frustrated, angry, and sad over the last two weeks as I’ve watched people try to label Francis rather than understand Francis. It’s not enough for him to simply be a Pope. No, he’s got to have a political label too. And so the tug of war began.

He’s a liberal because he speaks about climate change, and income inequality, and ending the death penalty. No, he’s a conservative because he talks openly about the importance of a life of faith, is thoroughly pro-life, and believes passionately in the importance of a religiously formed conscience.

What is he?

People were almost frantic in their efforts to categorize this man. And that’s human nature. Because people don’t like surprises, or anxiety, or unpredictable behavior…especially in leaders. After all, if people can’t be categorized they become wild cards, uncontrollable. God forbid. And here comes Francis, always upsetting things. Just when you think you can use his authority to prove your point, and how right you are, and how wrong your enemies are…he goes and does something like meet with a county clerk from Kentucky in private.

Great break for the anti-gay marriage ‘true believers’, right? I mean, you couldn’t pray for better optics---the spiritual leader of 1 billion Catholic Christians makes time for Kim Davis, the ex-Catholic and quintessential church lady from Kentucky. Well, the Pope must agree with her, then, right? She was right to deny that marriage license to those gay men, right?

Immediately millions of people who were adoring the “progressive pope” the day before were jumping off his bandwagon as quickly as you could shout “judgmental.” And people who’d been busy bad-mouthing the pontiff because he’d spoken about the sin of unfettered capitalism were now back on board.

In all the jumping, though, most liberals and conservatives missed the fact that before Francis met with Davis he met with a friend who is openly gay, Yayo Grassi, along with Grassi’s partner of 19 years Iwan Bagus. Grassi said Francis had asked him to stop by so he could give his former student a hug. This too was a closed door meeting, the details of which were not shared with the general public---which is how closed door meetings generally work.

Well, now what? What good is Francis now? Because a good liberal wouldn’t meet with someone like Davis, and encourage her to be courageous, and a good conservative wouldn’t meet with a gay couple to give out hugs.

BLANK STARE.

How about this as a possible explanation? Pope Francis is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. He is a man trying to live and love like Jesus. Wait, a religious leader who’s actually trying to practice what he preaches? Something like that, yes.

Francis engages the political world, but refuses to be a politician. He cares about people, and not just the ones the press believes he should care about. He seeks understanding before agreement, and charity before consensus. And he’s much more interested in opportunities than optics---opportunities to encourage people to be good and do good…for the Good. And if some don’t like the way this looks, for instance who he meets with in private, than optics be damned. Kind of like that other radical who lived a couple thousand years ago in Galilee.

Francis talked a lot during his week in the United States. But his greatest sermon wasn’t spoken, it was lived. He once again refused to be categorized or cubby-holed---especially for the sake of petty politics and Pharisees.

 

I don't really get why all this is being treated as new. We had the same thing back in the 70's about selling birth control pills out of pharmacies. the bottom line then and still is... if you find the things you have to do as part of your job such a conflict to your ethical values or spirituality, then you should find a different line of work. just because you believe things should be a certain way and the law states otherwise, you have no right to try to prevent others from doing what is allowed by law. It don't matter if it is handing over a bag with birth control, or the morning after pill or baking a same sex cake.

I have to say the cake issue blows my mind the most, maybe what should be done is not state what it is for and then just adorned the cake when it is yours because you paid for it. Just order a cake and have the caterer put on the topper...problem solved. Why is it so many people feel they have to force their preferences on somebody else? I tell you privacy is so important, why people are compelled to share so much detail on their lives in any manner available is a mystery to me. Keep it to yourself, keep it private and do as you will. Use some common sense on your decisions, employ some class and discretion when it comes to what information you share. If someone tries to prevent you from following your peaceful existence sue them! I know a legal contract is different then buying a cake, you have to share much more information, send that woman someplace else like property record or the DMV, if she feels it is such a conflict with her spirituality. Try and find God in a 2010 Toyota registration. I am sure the DMV has patriots in their employ, have we ever heard of someone refusing to grant a title because the vehicle was not American made? Nope.... and you know why that is? because they (the patriotic worker) know(s) when it is appropriate to make a big deal out of something and they know WHERE it is appropriate to make that big deal on an issue.

 

This is my thoughts exactly. A person has a job and they should do it. If they refuse to do then then they should be replaced by someone who will do the job. I don't have the right to pick and choose what I want to do with my job.