The erroneous ruling of the Supreme Court contending that sodomite "marriage" is a "right" under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the united States has stirred controversy for months between supporters of the ruling and those opposed. Further controversy sparked when Rowan County, KY clerk Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, standing on her Christian beliefs; however, Davis was also standing on Kentucky State law declaring marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Davis served jail time, unjustified, for refusing to follow a judge's order that violated Kentucky law.
Despite Article I of the Constitution declaring Congress as the legislative body and Article IV securing for all States a republican form of government, the Associated Press, in a news article claiming support for religious freedom of public officials has declined, stated the Supreme Court "effectively legalized" sodomite marriage nationwide. In an Associated Press-GfK poll surveying 1,027 adults conducted "online" from 10/15 - 10/19 using a sample from Gfk's probability based Knowledge Panel, 41 percent of those surveyed favored a religious liberty exemption for public officials on issuance of marriage licenses while 56 percent did not stating the official should issue the license regardless. The AP states this is a shift in opinion from three months ago where the majority opinion favored religious exemption. Opinions upon Republicans indicate a shift where only 58 percent favored a religious liberty exemption as opposed to 72 percent three months ago.
The AP claims the majority of Americans hold the same opinion as Linda Massey, a 64 year old retiree from Lewiston, Michigan. Massey opposes same-sex marriage; yet, she declares those holding a job in government should do what the government instructs.
"If the government says you have to give out those marriage licenses, and you get paid to do it, you do it," stated Massey. "That woman should be out of a job," she said of Kim Davis.
It boils down to the majority of Americans expecting government officials to do their job over religious objections. Individuals like Linda Massey believe government and public officials should leave their religion at the door when performing government duties under State and Federal law. Yes, that is a generalization; but bear with it.
The Catholic Church under the ungodly Pope Francis and the Mormon Church both call for compromises between protecting religious freedom and prohibiting of discrimination. In fact, Mormon leader Dallin H. Oaks informed a gathering of judges and clergy in Sacramento, CA, citizens must follow court rulings when conflicts arise between religion and law. These religious institutions are treading carefully to try to accommodate society's shifting changes while retaining their doctrines on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
It's a subtle but very effective continuation of "brainwashing." As so oft been quoted, "repeat a lie long enough" and eventually it becomes truth. The more the news outlets declare the Supreme Court "legalized" marriage, the more people believe it to where the practice of the ruling is put in place without any law being changed. It happened with Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court erroneously ruled a woman has a "right" to murder her unborn child. Now, it's happening with sodomite "marriage." Under the ruse of "choice," women can murder their unborn without facing criminal charges. Never mind the woman could choose to use birth control, participate in abstinence or the man use condom protection before engaging in intercourse. All of those "choices" mattered not. Never mind that murder is against the law and has no age restriction or requirement for a person to be born. Some States never changed their laws on abortion -- the States ceased to enforce the law.
Under the ruse of "rights," sodomites can marry each other -- laws against sodomy remain in many States but unenforced. However, the laws concerning marriage being the union of one man and one woman have not changed. What is happening with the definition of marriage by the States is the same as what happened with abortion -- sodomite "marriage" will be allowed without the definition of marriage being changed by law under a "fiat" erroneous, unlawful, unconstitutional Supreme Court "legislation."
Effectively, the Supreme Court is "legislating" from the bench, with news agencies and some "church" organizations repeating the lie that sodomite "marriage" is legalized.
The Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, along with plenty others, are now "working" to accommodate this "ruling" that only applies to those involved in the litigation while "keeping" the "doctrine" on sodomy "marriage" and homosexuality. It's not surprising as it was done with the Roe v. Wade decision.
What is to follow will be nothing short of the showdown between the protection of religious liberty and freedom versus "freedom of equality" under the law. If the majority of public opinion is that of Linda Massey, public officials, even those elected by the people, will be required to "check their religious beliefs" at the door or they will be barred from holding public office. After all, if you work for the government and are given instructions, "you do it."
Two things are going in tandem here. First, the belief among these pollsters that government officials are to "follow instructions" regardless; and second, religious beliefs should be checked at the door when holding public office. This brings considerable questions in play should this conflict wind up in the Supreme Court's hands.
First up is the "following instructions" defense. While many would say it only applied to the issuance of marriage licenses, remember, government stands in regarding the legitimacy of the claim. Regardless of law, government employees and officials are to "follow instructions." So, when Lois Lerner targeted conservative groups at the behest of the administration, she gets a pass as she was "following instructions." Many would dispute that as a defense: however, as we all have seen, that has happened.
Obama instructed the DHS and Immigration Services to ignore immigration law, which they are. Following the logic that the government applies broadly any public opinion in favor of a specific issue, those involved following Obama's fiat regarding immigration against the law receives a "free pass" as the "following instructions" defense applies. Now, if Obama instructs government officials to register firearms and then confiscate them, these officials would get a "pass" since they were "following instructions," regardless of the Second Amendment. Interesting how the Nuremberg Court did not recognize the "following instructions" defense in the commission of crimes during the war, yet some Americans are willing to recognize that as legitimate.
What some people support specifically -- government officials violating law to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples upon a ruling by the Supreme Court -- under "following instructions," government has a tendency to broadly interpret a specific to mean across the board.
Along with "following instructions," the pollsters indicated government officials are to "check their religion" at the door and perform their duties. While Article VII of the Constitution of the United States prohibits a "religious test" being applied by government in order to hold a government position, the people can apply a "religious test" themselves at the voting booth. However, with Massey's comment referring to Davis, "she should be out of a job," it suggests that any official practicing their religion in office should be fired. This means government officials applying a "religious test" to employees. This mindset places government over religious beliefs or government before God. It's a subtle way of telling Christians to stay out of government employment or be prepared to violate your religious beliefs when given instructions that conflict with those beliefs.
A government official need not even be a Christian. If a superior instructs the employee to violate the law, the employee should do so regardless of conscience -- that's what Massey is indicating along with the "majority" polled. Again, government's tendency is to apply across the board public opinion related to a specific scenario. This is taking into consideration the poll data is accurate, which it might not be.
The issue of Christian artisans in business refusing to participate in sodomy "marriage" rituals due to conflicting with religious beliefs remains in controversy. Bakers, photographers and florists upholding their religious beliefs have been subject to court proceedings under charges of "discrimination" by sodomite Christian-hating activists. So far, courts are upholding the claims of sodomite couples, signaling that in all business or jobs held one must "check their religion" at the door. This apparently was not addressed in the AP poll.
For those paying attention, it is clear what happens when government officials "follow instructions" instead of upholding the law. It leads to lawlessness and law upon the whim of those in positions of power. Obama, with his pen and phone, instructing agencies to ignore immigration law is a perfect example. These people are just "following instructions" and if they didn't "should be out of a job" say pollsters. So, in one fell swoop, the majority of those polled support the "follow instructions" of superiors when it comes to government; and, support application of a "religious test" by government officials in keeping their job should instructions and religious beliefs conflict.
America has been sliding on this slippery slope of "legislation through fiat and court ruling" for a while with the majority of the public in acceptance, meaning the majority (according to this poll) are in favor of a continued oligarchy, not a constitutional republic. As poll data can be skewed and often is to support a position, it will matter not to the bureaucrats charged with making the law -- they see and support only what coincides with the agenda. The stage is set for a showdown between multiple facets that surround the issue of religious liberty versus equality -- which trumps which, all based on an erroneous ruling and belief, and which "freedom" government officials are to support. Whatever the Supreme Court ruling, pundits will push it as "law."
The majority of those polled are already getting what they support -- government officials following instructions based on Supreme Court rule and dictator decree despite law. Will those polled still support the "government officials should follow instructions or be out of a job" stance when an issue comes along that applies to and limits them? Would those polled have supported government employees "following instructions" to murder millions as was done in World War II by soldiers and SS officers in Nazi Germany, as they would have been killed had they not followed instructions?
All one has to do is substitute any issue into Massey's statement to know where the bureaucratic political ruling oligarchy stands.
"If government says you have to ______________________, and you get paid to do it, you do it or you should be out of a job." Isn't that obvious with Lerner, Holder, Lynch, Napolitano, Johnson, and others?Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.