SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[werepossum]

Why do you assume that the Muslim cashier is a woman?

#MaleMuslimCashierLivesMatter bro.

If this woman *truly* had the courage of her convictions then she would simply resign. It's that simple.

One of the more interesting aspects to this whole to-do is that fact that she's a Democrat. Not that Democrat's can't be Christians or homophobes or women with large foreheads, it's just...odd. Then throw in the support of Cruz, Jindall, et al, and I kind of feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Too-shay.

I would point out that in the South the worst bigots are always Democrats, except that some of them only used to be Democrats and are now card-carrying Republicans. And you aren't taking crazy pills, you are just surrounded by crazy people. lol

Thank you and a few others for actual civil and respectful debate. As I said, I had not followed this story but you've given me points to consider. Still not really sure where I'll end up on this one but, if someone else could have done this part of the job, she had the compromise situation I was seeking.

No problem buddy. I respect your opinion as long as it remains reasonable - I disagree, obviously, but yours was reasonable - and there are usually reasonable opinions and points on both sides of any issue, not just mine. Where a reasonable person lands should depend mostly on what he or she most values.

That said, I will say that to me, gay marriage is about as one-sided as any debate we have, especially given that as Republicans we're supposed to be in favor of individual liberty and limited government. If government holds a veto over two competent adults marrying, it cannot be called limited, and if our definition of individual liberty is limited to what we personally approve, then we might as well be progressives. This is one issue (admittedly of many) that we on the right have badly flubbed, and unfortunately we seem Hell-bent on continuing to flub it.

 

[Paratus]

No, we don't have to restrict the freedoms and rights of anyone, including hers. I'm sure you've read enough to understand my true concerns so I won't go over it again but thank you again for the civil debate.

I'm going to disagree with you here. When you work for the state your rights are restricted.

For example I'm a civil servant /federal employee. Per the Hatch act I can't endorse a politician while I'm working for the federal govt. I can in my free time but at work and in my capacity as a civil servant my right to free (political) speech is restricted.

That's an restriction I agreed to when I took the job. So did she.

 

[Vic]

Slightly off topic, is she still collecting a salary while she is in jail?

Yes. The court has no authority to withhold her salary.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes. The court has no authority to withhold her salary.

I'm thinking of a county policy not the court.

 

[sandorski]

No, we don't have to restrict the freedoms and rights of anyone, including hers. I'm sure you've read enough to understand my true concerns so I won't go over it again but thank you again for the civil debate.

Her Rights/Freedoms are not being violated, she's the one violating other People's Rights/Freedoms.

 

[werepossum]

Yes. The court has no authority to withhold her salary.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a clause withholding salary when one is incarcerated might be a good thing for every politician, government official, and, shit, everybody. Especially if one is incarcerated for not doing that same job.

 

[Vic]

I'm going to disagree with you here. When you work for the state your rights are restricted.

For example I'm a civil servant /federal employee. Per the Hatch act I can't endorse a politician while I'm working for the federal govt. I can in my free time but at work and in my capacity as a civil servant my right to free (political) speech is restricted.

That's an restriction I agreed to when I took the job. So did she.

This particular discussion on the national stage has brought to light that there are a staggeringly large number of Americans who do not understand how our government works.
When a person goes to work for the government, they become an extension of the government while on the job. If you endorsed a particular political candidate, you would be the government endorsing that candidate. When a police officer shoots a suspect in self-defense, he is the government acting in self-defense, not an individual.
And when the County Clerk of Rowan county, KY, refuses to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs, she is the government violating the Establishment clause. If she wishes to exercise her rights under the Free Exercise clause, she may freely do so.. as a private citizen.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a clause withholding salary when one is incarcerated might be a good thing for every politician, government official, and, shit, everybody. Especially if one is incarcerated for not doing that same job.

Did you see my earlier post?

Just saw on the news, the county offered to essentially deputize other people in the office to handle her marriage duties but she would not relinquish the authority, it appears she may have threatened to fire anyone who goes against her decision.
She had ample opportunity to comply. This also could explain why the county refused to rewrite the paperwork to say per office of deeds without a name. I'd bet she burned some bridges.

 

[Ns1]

Did you see my earlier post?

Just saw on the news, the county offered to essentially deputize other people in the office to handle her marriage duties but she would not relinquish the authority, it appears she may have threatened to fire anyone who goes against her decision.
She had ample opportunity to comply. This also could explain why the county refused to rewrite the paperwork to say per office of deeds without a name. I'd bet she burned some bridges.

this woman is ridic

(CNN)Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was given a second chance: She didn't have to issue same-sex marriage licenses herself; she merely had to agree not to interfere with five deputy clerks who had told the federal judge they'd issue them in her stead.

But Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses. Davis was not in the courtroom for the second session. She was in a hallway outside.

"We cannot represent to the court that she would allow licenses to be issued," attorney Mat Staver said.

Kim Davis case: Some GOP candidates rally around her

Staver later told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper" that Davis would issue licenses if her name and title were not on them.

"Because that in her understanding and mind is authorizing something that is contrary to her Christian values and convictions," he said. "That's where the conscience rub is."

this part was especially lulzy

Echoing those who cited Acts 5:29, he said he felt Davis had a right to refuse to issue the marriage license and, waving his Bible, he told CNN he bore no hatred toward gay couples and is merely standing "for the truths of my God's word."

"I just know the destruction that this brings. As a pastor, I see the background. I see the broken families. I see the AIDS. I see the folks dying of diseases and the brokenness of relationships," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html

 

[Paratus]

This particular discussion on the national stage has brought to light that there are a staggeringly large number of Americans who do not understand how our government works.
When a person goes to work for the government, they become an extension of the government while on the job. If you endorsed a particular political candidate, you would be the government endorsing that candidate. When a police officer shoots a suspect in self-defense, he is the government acting in self-defense, not an individual.
And when the County Clerk of Rowan county, KY, refuses to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs, she is the government violating the Establishment clause. If she wishes to exercise her rights under the Free Exercise clause, she may freely do so.. as a private citizen.

Very well put.

 

[CitizenKain]

this woman is ridic



this part was especially lulzy




http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html

That is some weapons grade irony there.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

this woman is ridic



this part was especially lulzy




http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html

My favorite part:
her attorneys argue that she shouldn't be held in contempt. Instead, they argued, there are alternatives that would allow couples to get marriage licenses in Rowan County without going against Davis' religious beliefs.Among the options they offered were allowing other officials to issue marriage licenses in the county, distributing marriage licenses at the state level or changing marriage license forms to remove Davis' name

That was already offered to her and she said no I will not allow others to sign the forms.
I thought an escalating fine was more appropriate but after reading this jail is the only option.

 

[Ns1]

I thought an escalating fine was more appropriate but after reading this jail is the only option.

 

[Indus]

This particular discussion on the national stage has brought to light that there are a staggeringly large number of Americans who do not understand how our government works.
When a person goes to work for the government, they become an extension of the government while on the job. If you endorsed a particular political candidate, you would be the government endorsing that candidate. When a police officer shoots a suspect in self-defense, he is the government acting in self-defense, not an individual.
And when the County Clerk of Rowan county, KY, refuses to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs, she is the government violating the Establishment clause. If she wishes to exercise her rights under the Free Exercise clause, she may freely do so.. as a private citizen.

And on top of that

What is the “rule of law”?

▪ Everyone must follow the law.
▪ Leaders must obey the law.
▪ Government must obey the law.
▪ No one is above the law.

 

[sportage]

If I were a psychiatrist and asked to psychoanalyze this lady and others with the same mental defect i.e. Mike Huckabee, I'd have to look beyond what they do to determine why they act as they do.
What we have here are people that are mentally defective.
Not retarded, since they still function in society, instead suffer from some mental defect.
Like the cocaine user might use and abuse cocaine to reach a high, this lady found an opportunity for using and abusing religion to obtain her high.
This is not your biblical faith based religion in play here.
The fatal flaw with society is to assume what people like this believe or why they act as they do should in any way share a connected to the gospel of religion.
True biblical religion has nothing to do with her or with her addiction.
This lady, and thousands like her, use religion as their drug of choice to satisfy their dislike for society and to obtain that drug addicted high.
For them, they discovered that religion is so powerful in itself, that they can not only feed off that power, but actually believe they are personally empowered by it.
They feel as a God, and must act accordingly.
They believe themselves to be both judge and jury.
I will say that again...
She believes she is both the judge and the prosecutor in bringing the wrath of god down upon those deemed unworthy.

It is not that hard at all to expose the true objectives of people like Mike Huckabee and this lady.
They all talk the same, they all act the same, however every one of them highly hypocritical when it comes to their own lives.

A person of true biblical religious faith would and could deal with and function in a society that is less than perfect. Less than moral.
In this case, anyone of true religious faith could and would hand out the license, knowing their own heart and mind were secure. Or if necessary, later say a prayer. Light a candle. And always avoid the judging of others they might come in contact with.
Which, by the way, is exactly what the true scripture teaches.
But here we have the clue that none, not one of the self appointed and anointed gods of morality, are anything but.
This lady is pulling a stunt, using her drug of choice just as Mike Huckabee would do, to obtain her moral high.
Beware of people like her. They will easily take you down with them.

 

[werepossum]

This particular discussion on the national stage has brought to light that there are a staggeringly large number of Americans who do not understand how our government works.
When a person goes to work for the government, they become an extension of the government while on the job. If you endorsed a particular political candidate, you would be the government endorsing that candidate. When a police officer shoots a suspect in self-defense, he is the government acting in self-defense, not an individual.
And when the County Clerk of Rowan county, KY, refuses to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs, she is the government violating the Establishment clause. If she wishes to exercise her rights under the Free Exercise clause, she may freely do so.. as a private citizen.

I don't know it's "do not understand how our government works" so much as "do not care how our government works, only that they get their way". I'll argue my druthers as vigorously as the next guy, but at the end of the day sometimes your side wins and sometimes they lose. Win or lose, the law is the law, and should be followed.

Although as I write that, I think back on the great civil rights protests. It is worthy to be willing to peacefully oppose a law one considers to be immoral or unjust, and I'll support her right to do just that - outside of government.

Did you see my earlier post?

Just saw on the news, the county offered to essentially deputize other people in the office to handle her marriage duties but she would not relinquish the authority, it appears she may have threatened to fire anyone who goes against her decision.
She had ample opportunity to comply. This also could explain why the county refused to rewrite the paperwork to say per office of deeds without a name. I'd bet she burned some bridges.

Yup. I would certainly HOPE she's burned nearly all bridges. She found herself in an uneviable position where her morals collided with her responsibilities, with far more power and discretion than is usual for people in that situation, and bullheadedly tossed aside every possible opportunity to reconcile the two. She richly deserves to sit in jail and imagine it's a cross.

Speaking for G-d is an incredible presumption, and one would hope a Christian would at least limit oneself to those things the Christ specifically addressed. Or if not that, devote equal time to denouncing people eating shellfish or mixing fibers or crops.

Or failing that, carry a large sign so people don't unwittingly try to converse with her.

 

[werepossum]

And on top of that

What is the “rule of law”?

▪ Everyone must follow the law.
▪ Leaders must obey the law.
▪ Government must obey the law.
▪ No one is above the law.

Unless one is President and decides that illegal immigrants should be getting government assistance instead of being deported. Or one is SecState and decides that rules don't supercede her own best interests. Let's not forget those.

 

[Brainonska511]

Deputy clerks start issuing licenses:

http://nyti.ms/1UwJUap

Deputy clerks at the county clerk’s office here began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Friday, a day after their boss was jailed for refusing to do so...

 

[cabri]

Any indications on what the State Legislature is thinking?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Any indications on what the State Legislature is thinking?

The Governor said it isn't his place to do anything. The legislature is out of session on break. I'd guess they plan on doing next to nothing other than clarifying some old rules about who an under 18 year old first time bride needs to file with.

 

[JD50]

That's not true. If she truly believes this act to be in violation of God's law, she just cannot do it. I'm not bigoted enough against people of faith to ignore that.

No, she can, she chooses not to. There is no magical man in the sky physically stopping her hand from signing marriage certificates. You can't just say "religion" to excuse otherwise bigoted and hateful actions and beliefs. Well, you can, but you shouldn't. Religion is no different than any other belief, but for some reason it seems to be a free pass to do and believe some pretty shitty things.

The fact that the law changed while she was in office is irrelevant. Police Officers can't pick and choose which laws they will enforce, this is no different.

 

[JD50]

This particular discussion on the national stage has brought to light that there are a staggeringly large number of Americans who do not understand how our government works.
When a person goes to work for the government, they become an extension of the government while on the job. If you endorsed a particular political candidate, you would be the government endorsing that candidate. When a police officer shoots a suspect in self-defense, he is the government acting in self-defense, not an individual.
And when the County Clerk of Rowan county, KY, refuses to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs, she is the government violating the Establishment clause. If she wishes to exercise her rights under the Free Exercise clause, she may freely do so.. as a private citizen.

:thumbsup:

 

[Mxylplyx]

Watching the Republican candidates feel compelled to rally to her defense is emblematic of the serious problems they face trying to keep the Republican base in the fold without ruining their chances in the general. Surely these candidates coming to her defense know that what she is doing is completely unacceptable in a nation ruled by laws, but yet they feel they must publicly sympathize with her in order to not piss off the Neanderthals that agree with her, and vote in Republican primaries.

It seems the only hope for Republicans to see the white house again while dragging around this anchor that is the Republican primary voters is for all Americans to become stupider. Maybe that's why they are killing higher education funding.

 

[dawp]

I don't know it's "do not understand how our government works" so much as "do not care how our government works, only that they get their way". I'll argue my druthers as vigorously as the next guy, but at the end of the day sometimes your side wins and sometimes they lose. Win or lose, the law is the law, and should be followed.

Although as I write that, I think back on the great civil rights protests. It is worthy to be willing to peacefully oppose a law one considers to be immoral or unjust, and I'll support her right to do just that - outside of government.


Yup. I would certainly HOPE she's burned nearly all bridges. She found herself in an uneviable position where her morals collided with her responsibilities, with far more power and discretion than is usual for people in that situation, and bullheadedly tossed aside every possible opportunity to reconcile the two. She richly deserves to sit in jail and imagine it's a cross.

Speaking for G-d is an incredible presumption, and one would hope a Christian would at least limit oneself to those things the Christ specifically addressed. Or if not that, devote equal time to denouncing people eating shellfish or mixing fibers or crops.

Or failing that, carry a large sign so people don't unwittingly try to converse with her.

I think this old gal let herself be used by her lawyers. they were the ones making the decision and they used her and never actually gave a damn what happened to her, she was a rube. they gave her the advice to prevent others signing the licenses knowing the likely outcome. I don't think she's too bright.

 

[Sonikku]

So, what I'm hearing is that the job has changed so that she can no longer do it and we say "if you don't like it, quit". You see, I have a problem with that. Elected or otherwise, I wouldn't like it if my boss came in tomorrow and said from now on, you'll need to do some task that he knows I can't do. If you don't like it, quit.

I see this more as a handicap. Let her keep doing the job she was elected to do. Hire somebody else to do the new task.

In private business change and adaptability is part of the game. If you insist on having the same day to day routine with the exact same tasks to do with no deviation throughout your entire career, you're going to find yourself without a job one day. And what they call a "Responsibilities Promotion" is becoming all the rage. No doubt if someone made a lawsuit against an employer ranting all "My boss gave me more tasks to do that I don't want to do, force them to give me a break" the Republicans would be all over it rushing to the employer's defense. It'd be dismissed and you'd be out of luck.