U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2015, 03:48 PM
 
1,759 posts, read 2,448,124 times
Reputation: 3541

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
She wasn't jailed for not following the law. The only consequence she suffered for not following the law was that a district court ordered her to begin following the law. She refused. That is called contempt of court and THAT is why she was jailed.
You are splitting hairs...I am 100% familiar with what being held in contempt of court actually is.... She said I will not follow a law I do not agree with. Judge says yes you will, or I will jail you. She says I will not, goes to jail...technically speaking she is in jail for not following the order of the judge, but you can remove the judge and the fact pattern is the same....she went to jail for not enforcing the law....had she followed the judges order and enforced the law, she would not have been held in contempt, thus no jail.

There is no difference between her and Obama not following the laws...except that Obama has not been held in contempt of court after being ordered to follow the law...why not? Because congress is spineless and they think its bad for their image to order a black president to actually follow the law. Obama is breaking laws daily with zero ramifications.

This lady just happens not to be the president. Its that simple.

 
Old 09-08-2015, 03:56 PM
 
5,911 posts, read 6,713,109 times
Reputation: 15253
The fact that she simply doesn't resign this position and take a job where her religious beliefs are irrelevant, or consistent with the job she is being asked to perform, is very telling.

She is trying to use the public pulpit as a place to broadcast her personal message....and thankfully, this judge (and the courts before him) are having none of it. It is a shining example of how our system does work. And she can, and apparently wishes to, make a spectacle of herself and her private beliefs and will appeal it, once again all the way to the Supreme Court. That is her right.

In the meantime, out Constitution, and our laws, stand tall and unbowed by her assault. One has to be proud to be an American when our system of justice works as intended.
 
Old 09-08-2015, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
2,526 posts, read 1,232,569 times
Reputation: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
Kinda like our immigration laws? We have laws in place that the President does not want to enforce, so he does not.

Once you allow one person to pick and choose which laws they want to follow or not follow, the laws become meaningless. If you are going to jail this lady (and I take no stance on gay marriage) but if you are going to jail her for not following the law, then there is a LONG list of politicians who need to be jailed as well...and we can start with the commander in chief. His immigration actions by ordering ICE not to prosecute illegal immigrants is exactly the same as her not issuing a marriage certificate. Exactly the same as his "decree" to issue work permits, or extended visas...he is breaking the law.

The statute for BOTH laws uses the word "shall" which in the legal world means is required, as in, not up for debate or areas of compromise.

Follow the laws as written, or change the laws, but picking and choosing at any level is wrong.
Ummmm

(1) President Barack Hussein O'Bama is not sitting at his desk day by day (dis)approving visas and stamping passports

(2) But, while "homosexuality" used to be a legal impediment to would be immigrants, it is no longer and IMHO, that is a good thing ...
 
Old 09-08-2015, 03:58 PM
 
8,835 posts, read 5,123,147 times
Reputation: 10096
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
You are splitting hairs...I am 100% familiar with what being held in contempt of court actually is.... She said I will not follow a law I do not agree with. Judge says yes you will, or I will jail you. She says I will not, goes to jail...technically speaking she is in jail for not following the order of the judge, but you can remove the judge and the fact pattern is the same....she went to jail for not enforcing the law....had she followed the judges order and enforced the law, she would not have been held in contempt, thus no jail.

There is no difference between her and Obama not following the laws...except that Obama has not been held in contempt of court after being ordered to follow the law...why not? Because congress is spineless and they think its bad for their image to order a black president to actually follow the law. Obama is breaking laws daily with zero ramifications.

This lady just happens not to be the president. Its that simple.
I'm not splitting hairs at all. You stated that she is being treated differently than others who do not follow laws, and you cited immigration laws. Is there an instance of a public official being court-ordered to enforce immigration laws but the public official refused? I am not aware of any such instance, but would be very interested in reading about it. I am not aware that Obama has stood in a court room and informed a judge that he refuses to obey the court's order.

Also, county clerks are not part of law enforcement. She is not required to enforce any law. She has not been asked to enforce any law.
 
Old 09-08-2015, 03:59 PM
 
8,835 posts, read 5,123,147 times
Reputation: 10096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear View Post
The fact that she simply doesn't resign this position and take a job where her religious beliefs are irrelevant, or consistent with the job she is being asked to perform, is very telling.

She is trying to use the public pulpit as a place to broadcast her personal message....and thankfully, this judge (and the courts before him) are having none of it. It is a shining example of how our system does work. And she can, and apparently wishes to, make a spectacle of herself and her private beliefs and will appeal it, once again all the way to the Supreme Court. That is her right.

In the meantime, out Constitution, and our laws, stand tall and unbowed by her assault. One has to be proud to be an American when our system of justice works as intended.
Well said.
 
Old 09-08-2015, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
2,526 posts, read 1,232,569 times
Reputation: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
You are splitting hairs...I am 100% familiar with what being held in contempt of court actually is.... She said I will not follow a law I do not agree with. Judge says yes you will, or I will jail you. She says I will not, goes to jail...technically speaking she is in jail for not following the order of the judge, but you can remove the judge and the fact pattern is the same....she went to jail for not enforcing the law....had she followed the judges order and enforced the law, she would not have been held in contempt, thus no jail.

There is no difference between her and Obama not following the laws...except that Obama has not been held in contempt of court after being ordered to follow the law...why not? Because congress is spineless and they think its bad for their image to order a black president to actually follow the law. Obama is breaking laws daily with zero ramifications.

This lady just happens not to be the president. Its that simple.
Street cops don't ticket every speeder or cite every jaywalker, either

But, re: immigration, we do have reasonably controlled borders and immigration laws and policies (despite the TeaBag Party nonsense about "anchor babies") ...
 
Old 09-08-2015, 04:05 PM
 
5,631 posts, read 6,442,869 times
Reputation: 3608
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates View Post

The state of Kentucky did not allow SSM when she won the election.
She had/has the opportunity to step down. New laws get passed all the time after elections or laws get modified after elections. She can't just pick and choose which laws fall under her own religious beliefs all the while getting paid by the taxpayers some of which may not share the same beliefs as she does.

She has to ask herself if her faith is strong enough to be willing to give up that high paying job for a potentially lower paying one (like a church secretary) that allows her to practice her beliefs.

Now we have major two politicians trying to use this incident for their own benefit to garner more votes. This circus needs to stop.

Last edited by Azure110; 09-08-2015 at 04:16 PM..
 
Old 09-08-2015, 04:10 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,246,648 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates View Post
Education is key.

She did all of those things BEFORE she became a Christian. I know it is really hard not to try and throw stones at a Christian as often as possible, but she did NONE of those things while she held any Christian beliefs.
No, we know this is untrue. She is currently employed as the court clerk. She currently claims to be Christian. There is no "before"; we are talking about the present.

If, in her worldview, becoming Christian makes you an idiot, unable to distinguish between civil contracts and religious marriage ceremonies, then she needs to resign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates View Post
The state of Kentucky did not allow SSM when she won the election.
But they do now, and she therefore needs to quit.

I am Catholic, and have never heard of any part of the bible that claims you must not enforce civil laws because of an unrelated belief about Christian marriage, but there you go. She's an idiot using Christiantiy as a crutch for her own mental failings.

There is zero relationship between a religious marriage ceremony and civil marriage recognition.
 
Old 09-08-2015, 04:16 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,246,648 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster View Post
The state has a provision in its law to accommodate religious objections. That should be invoked in this case.
There are no religious objections. It has nothing to do with any type of religious marriage. We're talking about a civil contract.

And such a law would be held unconstitutional anyways. She could say she won't sign the license because her religious prevents blacks or Jews or redheads from marrying. Supreme Court has always held that religious freedom is limited and stops when you're infringing on the rights of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster View Post
And this has nothing to do with civil vs: religious marriages. It has to do with issuing the license, no matter who performed the ceremony. So before you call her "stupid" maybe you should be sure you understand the actual problem.
Wrong. It has everything to do with civil marriages and zero to do with religious ceremonies. She is a civil court clerk and has no legal authority for religious marriage.
 
Old 09-08-2015, 04:19 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,246,648 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Do you feel the same way about govt employees that ignore rules regarding illegals? Guns?
Yes.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top