Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
Actually instead of applauding him for quitting, I would applaud him for staying and fighting this thing.
We need Christians willing to go to the mat and fight this evil thing, rather than throwing in the towel and surrendering.
He should have stayed and fought for his position and his beliefs.
If we simply quit our jobs then what jobs would be left for any Christians to do?
yes we might get fired but they will have to force us out and we can always appeal and fight this thing and we might actually win.
next time let us fight it out.
|
What could he do? How can he fight when his 1st Amendment rights have been trumped by non-discriminatory laws?
He made a strong parting comment which will always be remembered - "I am reminded of the last words of David who said, “He that rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God”. Where there is no “fear of God” there can be no justice!"
The LBGT will file a lawsuit saying - "It is not about religious beliefs. It is about a civil servant doing their job."
The ACLU responds -
“As Governor McCrory and other officials have made clear, the highest responsibility of state actors is to uphold the United States Constitution,” Chris Brooks, the organization’s legal director for North Carolina, said in a statement. “Federal courts have agreed that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law for all citizens includes the right of gay and lesbian citizens to marry the person they love. The law is clear, and all state officials are bound to respect it.”
Justice Scalia made this comment in 2011:
UC Hastings law professor Calvin Massey asked, “In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?”
“Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society,” Scalia said.
“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t,” he said. “Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.
“If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society,” he said.
http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm...=913358&evid=1
Hybrid Mode
