By editorial board • 

Imposing moral values on others is neither Christian nor Am

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .<0/p>

Comments

Mudstump

It's time to give these America hating Christian fascists some push back.

Horse with no name

Amen. Our Constitution is the sweetest thing our government has going, along with the amendments that allow our union to become more perfect, the more enlightened we become. Why don't they just pray for everyone to change and be like them... and please do as Matthew 6:5-6 says, in a closet, so the rest of us can get a little peace.

miketubbs1

Just curious, News-Register editorial board, whom exactly is allowed to decide for all of us, what defines what is immoral versus what is not immoral? Is it to left up to be decided by nine unelected, partisan Judges?

I believe that homosexuality is a mental illness, and especially so for those that believe they were 'assigned' the wrong gender pre-birth. Apparently, at some point during the sixties, larger numbers of Gays and Lesbians earned doctorates in the very subjective field of Psychiatry. Thus allowing themselves to declare that homosexuality will no longer be considered to be a mental illness.

I completely understand why the editorial staff at the News-Register do not want one group defining for another, what defines moral behavior versus what is not. As there is a great deal more revenue to be harvested from what had used to viewed as immoral.

Again, just curious, will the editorial staff at the News-Register be onboard with the idea of sponsoring McMinnville's first Gay Pride Parade? And if not, why not?

PS...Mr. Steve Bagwell, I'd cataloged a rather large collection of Ol' Peckerwood Pete's ass feathers (He passed away the morning of August 21st, 2011).

Over the years he had so graciously graced 'the little woman' and myself with his early morning Cock-a-Doodle-doo's. Not only do I miss him, but, I still yearn to know your hat size as well, Steve.


Trafik

I am not trying to pick a fight here.

We live in a land of laws. The orderly (yes, "orderly" could be debated) structure of our society is held together by our legislation. Whether we like or dislike various laws is utterly irrelevant. Once a law is enacted, it is fact, love it or hate it. Public officials whose duties include upholding or implementing these laws must either do so or find other lines of work. While I sympathize with some conscientious objectors, we cannot pick and choose the laws we'll follow and those we'll ignore. No one is above the law. For Kim Davis, the issue is clear-cut in my opinion.

But in the private sector it might be more complicated. A business must be open to all customers, not just some. So this means a restaurant owned by white racists must serve Black patrons, a Muslim-owned dress shop must serve Jews and a fundamentalist Christian baker must serve homosexuals, right? Or do we temper the message with the "reasonable" disclaimer? All businesses must meet all "reasonable" requests and make "reasonable" accommodations? So a halal caterer wouldn't be required to serve a maple bacon sheetcake or an African-American screenprinter wouldn't be mandated to produce KKK t-shirts? Where do we draw the line? Or do we even draw one?

Should religious schools be forced to hire people who engage in practices antithetical to the schools' fundamental doctrines? Why should an institution be forced to employ an individual who opposes its message? I understand companies like Nike and Coca-Cola make demands of their employees regarding the public use of competitors’ products. Is that an unreasonable expectation? Does any organization have any right to make any demand of any employee outside of strict job-related performance?

I hate that we've gotten to this point and, for me at least, many answers aren't as clear-cut as I'd like them to be.

Trafik

And for the life of me, I can't imagine why a customer would want to shop where his or her business is unwanted or a worker would seek employment at an institution that condemns a central part of his or her identity.

Why would a committed vegan or PETA activist seek employment at a meat packing plant? Or a liberal Democrat apply for a job at the Family Research Council? Or a conservative Christian at Planned Parenthood? Secret motives aside, it makes little sense when more suitable job opportunities exist. But if a person has a great deal of free time and is willing to be elevated as a trailblazing hero by half the population and vilified as an obnoxious attention-seeker by the rest, have at it.

miketubbs1

"For Kim Davis, the issue is clear-cut...." -Trafik

Her conscientious objection to same-sex marriage has been reasonably accommodated, her name will be removed from future marriage licenses. She will continue to hold the position of Rowan County Clerk.

Joel2828

Dear whoever wrote this editorial,

You had my attention until you veered into the gutter attack mode of seeking to smear Ms Davis because she has been divorced. Desperate personal attacks are usually a sign that one is not confident with the merits of their argument. You're better than that.

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable