SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[Atomic Playboy]

the rules changed under her tenure, when she was elected this was a non issue and now it is...the challenge is that if she quits or steps down then she doesn't get any severance and is essentially without pay and finding a job of comparable income given what she has been doing I am guessing is pretty difficult.

There should be a mechanism where she can vacate the position and collect some type of benefits and or where they can remove her but allow her to file for unemployment.

It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow, regardless of if she opts to issue certificates chances are she will still be sued so its almost better for her if she just holds the line and continues to fight it out in the hopes that she gets some type of a deal to be removed from office.

When I was elected, segregation was perfectly legal, so I don't see why I should be required to integrate...

The law is the law. If your job is to issue a required government license, it's not your place to interpret the law as you see fit and refuse service to citizens based on personal beliefs, regardless of how the laws change during your tenure. If your personal beliefs are getting in the way of you doing your job as a representative of the government, you leave your job. Why should we give someone back pay and a pension for a failure to do their sworn duty? Shit, desertion in the Army is no longer a crime; now it comes with severance!

 

[sandorski]

this is a stawman as pork is something that is and has already been "certified" whereas in this case you're talking about arguably something that has never been recognized now being acknowledged under the letter of the law and something highly polarizing from both a political, personal, and religious stance.

It is not a Strawman. Gay Marriage is now the Law. Pork is polarizing for some Religious people. This woman's objection is purely based upon her Religious Belief.

 

[bozack]

When I was elected, segregation was perfectly legal, so I don't see why I should be required to integrate...

The law is the law. If your job is to issue a required government license, it's not your place to interpret the law as you see fit and refuse service to citizens based on personal beliefs, regardless of how the laws change during your tenure. If your personal beliefs are getting in the way of you doing your job as a representative of the government, you leave your job. Why should we give someone back pay and a pension for a failure to do their sworn duty? Shit, desertion in the Army is no longer a crime; now it comes with severance!

I wasn't alive when segregation was allowed and then changed but would be willing to guess there were plenty of folks who had their own issues with it, the difference being we are far more litigious as a society today and access to media far greater.

Again, I still feel they should find a mechanism to relieve her of her position and give her a pension/unemployment, there are a number of cases where individuals are allowed the option of not performing certain tasks which they have a moral/personal issue with.

 

[MongGrel]

This isn't an issue anymore.

 

[bozack]

It is not a Strawman. Gay Marriage is now the Law. Pork is polarizing for some Religious people. This woman's objection is purely based upon her Religious Belief.

As I said previously its a weak argument and or comparison at best. In your scenario you have someone going out of their way to get a position for the sole purpose of restricting access to a certain food product...in the other you have someone that was in a position performing a task that had been limited to a pretty specific set of criteria for over a hundred years which recently changed due to the action of the legislative branch of government.

While gay marriage is now the law, one could make the case that this individual took this position under the pretense that they felt they would never see a change in the status quo in their lifetime, now things have changed, they really need a better mechanism to allow folks in these situations to get out of them without compromising their financial position and or their moral convictions.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

As I said previously its a weak argument and or comparison at best. In your scenario you have someone going out of their way to get a position for the sole purpose of restricting access to a certain food product...in the other you have someone that was in a position performing a task that had been limited to a pretty specific set of criteria for over a hundred years which recently changed due to the action of the legislative branch of government.

While gay marriage is now the law, one could make the case that this individual took this position under the pretense that they felt they would never see a change in the status quo in their lifetime, now things have changed, they really need a better mechanism to allow folks in these situations to get out of them without compromising their financial position and or their moral convictions.

Keep in mind there are no State sponsored or approved religions in the US. Would you make a similar claim to a pastafarian(spelling?) or a follower of the Jedi Order or a Satanist to not follow a new ruling because its against their beliefs? Should the Jedi get an early retirement offer too?

 

[sandorski]

As I said previously its a weak argument and or comparison at best. In your scenario you have someone going out of their way to get a position for the sole purpose of restricting access to a certain food product...in the other you have someone that was in a position performing a task that had been limited to a pretty specific set of criteria for over a hundred years which recently changed due to the action of the legislative branch of government.

While gay marriage is now the law, one could make the case that this individual took this position under the pretense that they felt they would never see a change in the status quo in their lifetime, now things have changed, they really need a better mechanism to allow folks in these situations to get out of them without compromising their financial position and or their moral convictions.

It doesn't matter when she took the position. Her job is to administer Government Policy, not pick and choose what policy she likes/dislikes. If she can't do that, she should step down. If she refuses to step down, she should be removed.

 

[werepossum]

You're failing the comprehend the distinction between - on the one hand - "trying to determine the legislative history" of legal language in order to understand the intended meaning, and - on the other hand - "using the historic meaning" of legal language. The former is a method of determining the "intended meaning", while the latter is just a circular statement: one must determine the "historic meaning" before one can use it. The problem is, what method did Scalia use to arrive at the "historic meaning?" Answer: He examined the legislative history of the 2nd Amendment. The problem, as Easterbrook points out, is that the legislative debate consists of numerous voices and shifting ideas, and the more remote in time that debate was, the less clear becomes the overall "intent" of the legislature. That's why he states that at some point "the original meaning is lost in the passage of time." And when that happens, it's time for the courts to stop imposing their own guesses at the lost meaning.

You believe that the "original meaning" of the 2nd Amendment defines a private right to own firearms for the purpose of self-defense. But the fact is that Scalia had to go back into English common law in his attempt to justify that "interpretation." A clear statement about "private citizens owning firearms for self defense" is simply not a part of the actual historical debate over the 2nd Amendment. And that being the case, it's totally fair to say that the SCOTUS "created a right" in Heller. That fact that you can't see that is just a statement about your own bias.

Scalia had to go back to English common law because we used to not be an idiocracy and understood natural rights. Want to know who historically were denied the use of arms for self defense? The unfree - slaves and serfs. They were denied the use of arms because they were property and their lives were at their owners' discretion. Why the left wants to restore that unfree status for all of us totally escapes me. Even a rat has the natural right to defend itself as best able, yet proggies feel our lives should belong to whomever wishes to take them. Bizarre.

 

[werepossum]

I wasn't alive when segregation was allowed and then changed but would be willing to guess there were plenty of folks who had their own issues with it, the difference being we are far more litigious as a society today and access to media far greater.

Again, I still feel they should find a mechanism to relieve her of her position and give her a pension/unemployment, there are a number of cases where individuals are allowed the option of not performing certain tasks which they have a moral/personal issue with.

I have no problem with her resigning and filing for unemployment. Beyond that, I don't think she is owed anything. This is no different than a D.C. Official refusing to issue handgun permits after the ban was struck down because that violates her personal beliefs. The law is the law and there is no assurance that it stays the same during one's term.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We should know soon. I assume her office opens at 9am and there will be some kind of computer problem/upgrade that needs to happen today. We know people will be waiting.

 

[Brainonska511]

We should know soon. I assume her office opens at 9am and there will be some kind of computer problem/upgrade that needs to happen today. We know people will be waiting.

http://nyti.ms/1LQWB0r
"A county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds denied licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, despite the Supreme Court saying that she could not refuse to do so."

 

[cabri]

http://nyti.ms/1LQWB0r
"A county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds denied licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, despite the Supreme Court saying that she could not refuse to do so."

She upped the anti; now what will the judge do and the Kentucky Legislature.

Minimum of fine and contempt of court by the judge.
Legislature should remove her from office (if they are willing to accept the rule of the land) for refusing to perform her duties.

I would think that the Federal DA has already looked into this situation for legal options.

 

[JD50]

As I said previously its a weak argument and or comparison at best. In your scenario you have someone going out of their way to get a position for the sole purpose of restricting access to a certain food product...in the other you have someone that was in a position performing a task that had been limited to a pretty specific set of criteria for over a hundred years which recently changed due to the action of the legislative branch of government.

While gay marriage is now the law, one could make the case that this individual took this position under the pretense that they felt they would never see a change in the status quo in their lifetime, now things have changed, they really need a better mechanism to allow folks in these situations to get out of them without compromising their financial position and or their moral convictions.

No, they just have to deal with it. Should a Police Officer be able to resign with full pension if a law changes that they have a moral problem with?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I believe a county prosecutor was asked to charge her. They referred the complaint to another county which is what they traditionally do. They generally don't investigate themselves.

I'm pretty sure it was the straight couple that reported it.

**I believe that the litigants need to ask a Judge to hold her in contempt**

Best comments from a story I read about this:

Carl Rosenbaum

Court records indicate Davis herself married when she was 18 in 1984, filed for divorce 10 years later, and then filed for divorce again, from another husband, in 2006, so does her Christian/religious beliefs include:

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

or does she just use the Bible as a weapon to support her bigotries?

Like · Reply · 53 · 1 hr


Mary Shew

BINGO!!!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I believe a county prosecutor was asked to charge her. They referred the complaint to another county which is what they traditionally do. They generally don't investigate themselves.

I'm pretty sure it was the straight couple that reported it.

**I believe that the litigants need to ask a Judge to hold her in contempt**

Best comments from a story I read about this:

Carl Rosenbaum

Court records indicate Davis herself married when she was 18 in 1984, filed for divorce 10 years later, and then filed for divorce again, from another husband, in 2006, so does her Christian/religious beliefs include:

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

or does she just use the Bible as a weapon to support her bigotries?

Like · Reply · 53 · 1 hr


Mary Shew

BINGO!!!

Typical Libtard. Doesn't know it's only about the parts of the bible that can be used conveniently at any given time to support a position.

 

[brycejones]

What I find pathetic is she hides in her office. She is putting the people who work for her in a horrible position, the least she could do is be out there on the front lines since its her personal beliefs that are putting them there.

 

[sandorski]

I believe a county prosecutor was asked to charge her. They referred the complaint to another county which is what they traditionally do. They generally don't investigate themselves.

I'm pretty sure it was the straight couple that reported it.

**I believe that the litigants need to ask a Judge to hold her in contempt**

Best comments from a story I read about this:

Carl Rosenbaum

Court records indicate Davis herself married when she was 18 in 1984, filed for divorce 10 years later, and then filed for divorce again, from another husband, in 2006, so does her Christian/religious beliefs include:

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

or does she just use the Bible as a weapon to support her bigotries?

Like · Reply · 53 · 1 hr


Mary Shew

BINGO!!!

Indeed.

 

[dawp]

Typical Libtard. Doesn't know it's only about the parts of the bible that can be used conveniently at any given time to support a position.

that's exactly what Davis is doing. cons do it all the time.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I wonder if the Judge will go the high drama route and tell her that the couple will be in the office at 8 am tomorrow, they will also have a Sheriff with them if you choose to not sign the form you will be arrested if you are not in the office at that time you will be arrested or will he go the low drama route and issue a fine at first. This should be interesting.

 

[dawp]

I wonder if the Judge will go the high drama route and tell her that the couple will be in the office at 8 am tomorrow, they will also have a Sheriff with them if you choose to not sign the form you will be arrested if you are not in the office at that time you will be arrested or will he go the low drama route and issue a fine at first. This should be interesting.

I would love to see her arrested and then her subordinates ordered to start issuing licenses. With her name on them.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

that's exactly what Davis is doing. cons do it all the time.

You didn't hear the whooshing sound overhead did ya?

 

[K1052]

I wonder if the Judge will go the high drama route and tell her that the couple will be in the office at 8 am tomorrow, they will also have a Sheriff with them if you choose to not sign the form you will be arrested if you are not in the office at that time you will be arrested or will he go the low drama route and issue a fine at first. This should be interesting.

Anyone who willfully puts themselves at the mercy of a federal contempt of court charge in order not to faithfully discharge the lawful requirements of public office should get to cool their heels in jail until they resign, are fired, or agree to comply.

 

[brycejones]

Anyone who willfully puts themselves at the mercy of a federal contempt of court charge in order not to faithfully discharge the lawful requirements of public office should get to cool their heels in jail until they resign, are fired, or agree to comply.

I'm good with fines doubling every day until compliance. Start at $1000.

 

[K1052]

I'm good with fines doubling every day until compliance. Start at $1000.

I'm not sure the judiciary will be (or should be) so charitable at this point since she insisted to take it all the way up and still ignores the order when she lost. Federal judges can basically do anything they want if you're found to be in contempt.

 

[brycejones]

I'm not sure the judiciary will be (or should be) so charitable at this point since she insisted to take it all the way up and still ignores the order when she lost. Federal judges can basically do anything they want if you're found to be in contempt.

Agreed