Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simply, she invoked her religious right, and was jailed for contempt.
The very same Law that protects against religious persecution(discrimination).
And This only occurred after she was ordered by the Executive branch to issue the license.
People can't evoke religious rights to break the law. Some old guy can't marry a couple of 12 year olds and say it's because of his religion, you can't say it's against your religion to pay your taxes or sacrifice an infant because your religion demands it. With my ex religion a parent can't deny a child a blood transfusion without the courts getting involved. You can refuse to salute the flag if it's against your religion because you're not infringing on anyone. People who work in these situations are looking to get recused. So long as it doesn't affect the couple looking to get married who cares? The law was clear, the Bible is clear on this matter, I don't see what the problem is.
If your interested, two of the women who quit rather than break the laws names are:
A rural eastern New Mexico county clerk and her deputy resigned Friday rather than abide by a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, officials said.
Roosevelt County manager Charlene Webb confirmed that Clerk Donna Carpenter and Deputy Clerk Janet Collins announced their resignations Friday morning.
Webb declined to say why they quit. But county commissioners said it was in protest of Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling declaring it unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses.
Commissioner Bill Cathey said the two had made it clear they would quit “rather than be associated with that.”
Only for the Lawless and those that swear an oath of allegiance.
Welcome to the Mark of the Beast era.
Actually if same sex marriage is now a law, and same sex couples get married, aren't they recipients of the benefits of that law and not lawless at all? And what in the heck does the mark of the beast have to do with this?
Actually if same sex marriage is now a law, and same sex couples get married, aren't they recipients of the benefits of that law and not lawless at all? And what in the heck does the mark of the beast have to do with this?
Rev 13
16And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark — the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18Here is a call for wisdom: Let the one who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and that number is six hundred sixty-six.…
I guess it means if you're not willing to give up your livelihood be prepared to accept the mark of the beast.
This is the question that arises all suspect actions against civil rights.
Marriage is between a man and woman.
And is the foundation of the framework of all subsequent Laws pertaining to the governing system.
Meaning the Definition was already established within the framework of the U.S governing Laws.
So with the established framework already in place defining marriage as between a man and woman, a well placed and firm foundation gives credence to what the judicial rulings should rest on. The constitution being already established also in describing Treason is a well established foundation and has a framework for prosecuting. The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
The supreme justices 9 siting judges are given the duty to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.
And if a said judge attempted to strip one amendment from the constitution this would be an act of treason.
A perversion of justice of the highest for a Nations liberty.
You are unaware that laws change? Well, they do. The articles of the US Constitution spell out the legal process of passing new laws and amending old ones.
New laws are passed virtually every day Congress is in session.
Btw, have you ever heard of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution? It was repealed by the 21st Amendment. And despite your assertion to the contrary, no one was charged with treason.
Simply put the Judicial branch ursurped the executive branch in jurisdiction first.
Then dictated that same sex unions are now defined by the Judicial branch and are to be given licenses, subsequently all powers report to the Judicial branch to dictate what a lawfull union is.
This overreach is tantamount to treason in regards to even what was stated by a Supreme Justice themself.
Overreach? Deciding whether laws are Constitutional or not is the function of the Supreme Court. Its THE reason we have a Supreme Court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
