User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:32:50 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know, I know.... "but this is different". Get back to me in a few decades. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There were plenty of those people [that "believe that there is a higher law that is meant to inform our laws"] after Loving v Virginia when they denied interracial marriage licenses. They also got bitchslapped by the court. The ironic thing is, in about 30-50 years people will be looking back on this case and this era and will think "wow, people really thought like that?", just like people do with things like womens' suffrage, segregation, civil rights movement, interracial marriages, etc. It will undoubtedly happen. History has shown it happening again and again.  I know, I know.... "but this is different". Get back to me in a few decades. You mean 2000 years? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:35:52 PM EDT
[#2]
Now that a precedent for prosecuting clerks who dont issue licenses has been set, how long will it take to round up the ones in cities not issuing CHLs?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:37:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Some questions...
Is she upholding Kentucky law? Isn't she elected by the people of the county whom reside in Kentucky? Is there an enforcement arm of the Supreme Court that I'm unaware of or missed in my reading of the Constitution? Do states have the ability to regulate things not spelled out specifically in the Constitution? Maybe I got a bad copy? How do you amend the Constitution? I'm often amazed at the utter ignorance and lack of understanding of freedom by people who own guns. 
Ignoring bad Supreme Court decisions is a national past time or at least it used to be...public indoctrination education is working. Rhino |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:38:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is someone from Texas dictating what people in Kentucky can and can't do with their local government? I'm not dictating. I'm suggesting cost-saving measures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:40:29 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with both of these posts. The law should be sacred and applied to everyone. We've become a nation where the law is used as a bludgeon against those who are unlucky enough to catch the attention of a political beast or unfortunate enough to espouse a belief the people in power find distasteful. In other words, tyranny. I cannot understand how people are celebrating in the face of all this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The irony is that the Court and the administration is very inconsistent, only striking down state laws they dislike. The exact same court that upheld Obamacare stating that it was not their job to overturn a law passed by the legislature acting as the representatives as of the people did exactly the opposite in this case. DOJ enforcing federal court decision in this case but ignoring sanctuary cities where immigration law is ignored, etc. And that, ultimately, is my problem with all this bullshit. The federal government is not supposed to be an instrument for jamming the fetishes of elitist down the throats of hundreds of millions of citizens regardless of how they feel about it...but that is EXACTLY what is happening. I agree with both of these posts. The law should be sacred and applied to everyone. We've become a nation where the law is used as a bludgeon against those who are unlucky enough to catch the attention of a political beast or unfortunate enough to espouse a belief the people in power find distasteful. In other words, tyranny. I cannot understand how people are celebrating in the face of all this. The 14th amendment states this. What if this clerk refused to sell fishing licenses to people with tattoos? Would that be OK? Personally, I would rather not have the government at any level involved with personal relationships, but SSI and our income tax code put a couple of huge nails in that coffin. (not the first or last but a big ones) And once again, some people have no idea what the word "tyranny" means.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:43:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No you can't. Formally approved interracial marriages have taken place in this country since before it was a country. I read of one in the 1600's. Not the same thing at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
People didn't exactly care too much for gay people back then. I know, I know ... those were the days [insert All in the Family themesong]. One could also use the same bad argument for the "newly discovered" "right" to marry someone of a different race. No you can't. Formally approved interracial marriages have taken place in this country since before it was a country. I read of one in the 1600's. Not the same thing at all. It wasn't legal in some states until 1967. Care to guess where? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:43:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 14th amendment states this. What if this clerk refused to sell fishing licenses to people with tattoos? Would that be OK? Personally, I would rather not have the government at any level involved with personal relationships, but SSI and our income tax code put a couple of huge nails in that coffin. (not the first or last but a big ones) And once again, some people have no idea what the word "tyranny" means. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The irony is that the Court and the administration is very inconsistent, only striking down state laws they dislike. The exact same court that upheld Obamacare stating that it was not their job to overturn a law passed by the legislature acting as the representatives as of the people did exactly the opposite in this case. DOJ enforcing federal court decision in this case but ignoring sanctuary cities where immigration law is ignored, etc. And that, ultimately, is my problem with all this bullshit. The federal government is not supposed to be an instrument for jamming the fetishes of elitist down the throats of hundreds of millions of citizens regardless of how they feel about it...but that is EXACTLY what is happening. I agree with both of these posts. The law should be sacred and applied to everyone. We've become a nation where the law is used as a bludgeon against those who are unlucky enough to catch the attention of a political beast or unfortunate enough to espouse a belief the people in power find distasteful. In other words, tyranny. I cannot understand how people are celebrating in the face of all this. The 14th amendment states this. What if this clerk refused to sell fishing licenses to people with tattoos? Would that be OK? Personally, I would rather not have the government at any level involved with personal relationships, but SSI and our income tax code put a couple of huge nails in that coffin. (not the first or last but a big ones) And once again, some people have no idea what the word "tyranny" means. You can file taxes jointly in a common law marriage. I'm not sure I fully understand the pragmatic legal obstacles to doing away with marriage licensing. In the handful of States where you can be "legally" married without a license, there doesn't seem to be a big problem along those lines. eta: Anyways, income tax shouldn't be a thing, either. Government may be a necessary evil, but I can't think of a more evil way to fund it than the personal income tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:45:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. But most of the malfeasant officials in Ohio knew better than to fuck with Appellate Court judges here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can you point to one state or local bureaucrat who has been recently jailed for failing to issue permits and licenses relating to firearms? No. But most of the malfeasant officials in Ohio knew better than to fuck with Appellate Court judges here. And usually they are smart enough to know that when they lose the first time and then at the appellate level and then the Supreme Court, it's time to quit before getting found in contempt. We are approaching that point here in CA, when Peruta was won, most of the Sheriffs shifted policies to comply, then the State appealed, most are now waiting. If we win on Peruta, then they almost all will go to "Shall Issue", except for the Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco. He's currently going to get hammered for not following the law on Deporting Aliens, so whoever follows him will get the decision. That's probably a close analogy, the City and County of San Francisco acting through the sheriff in his official capacity, is not following the law regarding Deportation of criminal aliens. I guess the guys here would support him in placing his strongly held (almost religious in nature) beliefs in to his administration of the law. I guess most posters would agree his feelings about deportation above the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:46:06 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The tribunal with the authority to decide constitutional issues clearly disagrees with you. Whether you like it or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Amendments are modified by amendment. That's the way it is. There is no such amendment sanctioning queer marriage, the majority decision contra-wise notwithstanding. Since the Constitution is silent on this issue, it properly belongs to the States. The tribunal with the authority to decide constitutional issues clearly disagrees with you. Whether you like it or not. They have not decided a Constitutional issue - they have invented one. As a patriotic citizen it is my duty to point it out, and oppose it by all practical means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:46:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. You misunderstand. The only license I should need to carry a weapon, open or concealed, or drive a fully loaded and armed M-1 Abrams tank to work, SHOULD Be the ability to fog a mirror, not being a felon, and not being adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous to others or myself. That is why it is called "Constitutional Carry". The fact that we violate to Constitution in this area is not a justification or excuse to violate the Constitution in another area. The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, but rather a series of limitations upon the Federal government (originally) that reduced or controlled the manner and extend to which the enumerated rights could be limited or regulated. Period. Full stop. Obviously, other rights exist, but none of those were placed outside the bounds of government action, Federal in the initial case, and State and local since the 14th. Marriage had never, ever been in the Federal sand box to play with. That means it belongs to the States, according to the 9th and 10th. Since there is no bar to regulating marriage, (indeed, it is a very regulated endeavor, for obvious reasons) in the Constitution, the SC decision is based on - nothing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It most certainly is. One doesn't need a permit to exercise a right. Even in Texas you need a CCL and NFA paperwork. It comes down to if you regard rights as something governments were established to protect, or rights as something granted by the government. Even then, there's plenty of history of various rights being infringed or not recognized. Excluding everything else, your argument seems to be perilously close to "the only rights that exist are those granted by the government". Wrong. You misunderstand. The only license I should need to carry a weapon, open or concealed, or drive a fully loaded and armed M-1 Abrams tank to work, SHOULD Be the ability to fog a mirror, not being a felon, and not being adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous to others or myself. That is why it is called "Constitutional Carry". The fact that we violate to Constitution in this area is not a justification or excuse to violate the Constitution in another area. The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, but rather a series of limitations upon the Federal government (originally) that reduced or controlled the manner and extend to which the enumerated rights could be limited or regulated. Period. Full stop. Obviously, other rights exist, but none of those were placed outside the bounds of government action, Federal in the initial case, and State and local since the 14th. Marriage had never, ever been in the Federal sand box to play with. That means it belongs to the States, according to the 9th and 10th. Since there is no bar to regulating marriage, (indeed, it is a very regulated endeavor, for obvious reasons) in the Constitution, the SC decision is based on - nothing. I agree with you until your last sentence*. The ruling was they had to treat everyone the same. I am OK with states, and county clerks being forced to treat everyone equally. *The fuel economy on an M1 sucks, I would be more inclined to go with a Bradley which sucks less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:47:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
never said it was "Forcing" anything Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, telling you the Truth about God's Word - the duty of a good Christian. I've been wanting to ask this for a while and considered a thread on it. I'm genuinely curious. Where in the Bible does God command his followers to force others to follow his laws? Anywhere? Isn't The Bible an individual's guide to a personal relationship with God? Aren't all of man's laws, that are forcing other's to comply with God's laws, outside what God teaches? That doesn't mean that no laws are the answer, which is where this will go because that is the leap many will want to take, so ignore those replies. Thinking people, like yourself, will understand the question being asked. List the verses if they exist.  Christians from almost any sect are taught to proselytize... and if I remember correct there are a few versus on this subject... Proselytizing is not forcing to follow. I would expect one allegedly having read the entire Bible to know the difference. never said it was "Forcing" anything Your post was in response to a question about forcing. Are you in the habit of posting responses completely unrelated to the post you are responding to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:47:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A4S1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." DOMA was passed pursuant to the second sentence, and relieved states of any obligation to honor same-sex foreign marriages. Pursuant to DOMA and their own policies, most states which did not permit same-sex marriage did not recognize same-sex foreign marriages. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Name one state that doesn't acknowledge a marriage in another state as legally valid it is between a man and a woman. Now, if you are doing it for one couple, you have to do it for all of them. Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A4S1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." DOMA was passed pursuant to the second sentence, and relieved states of any obligation to honor same-sex foreign marriages. Pursuant to DOMA and their own policies, most states which did not permit same-sex marriage did not recognize same-sex foreign marriages. The 14th amendment supersedes all that comes before it and all subsequent amendments supersede all the come before them. In any event, the part you quoted of the USC killed DOMA. What I really would have like to have seen handled by the courts was a couple that used to life down the street from me when I moved in. Married, 3 kids and Erica decide they wanted to be Paul. I briefly met Paul, but did not socialize with them. Well before the change over, my coworker down the street referred to her as "the crazy lady" as opposed to the one across the street from me that stabbed her now ex-husband. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:48:23 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree, but I have seen lawsuits about the very situation you stated. As well as concessions made at grocery stores asking you if you have pork to please go to another line based on the clerks religious beliefs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not reading 28 pages. What if this women had been Muslim and did the same thing? Would they jail her? It will happen one day so we will see. Also, being an employee of the .gov, I would think there is a clause somewhere that says they can't discriminate based on religion. I don't know how that would play in this. Exactly how it's going right now, as the issues is she's in contempt of court. She refuses to resign or do her job in compliance with a Supreme Court ruling. Very little else matters. hmmm So, if she is unable to do her job based on a law that conflicts with her religious beliefs, wouldn't that be discrimination based on religion? I'm not saying who is right or wrong, I'm just saying there seems to be conflict if one is hired/elected with the understanding you can't be discriminated against based on religious beliefs. No. The check out clerk at the supermarket can't refuse to handle pork due to her religious beliefs. You fire her ass on the spot for refusing to do the job. Take your Hajib and your magic prayer carpet with you. That is not protected by the 1st. I agree, but I have seen lawsuits about the very situation you stated. As well as concessions made at grocery stores asking you if you have pork to please go to another line based on the clerks religious beliefs. Kind of like asking the Customer/Citizen to go to the Assistant Clerk in Line 2 to get the License issued? Because the Clerk in Line 1 had religious beliefs? Except that the Count has decided not only to not open Checkstand 2, it has ordered all the clerks not to check anybody out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:49:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some questions... Is she upholding Kentucky law? Isn't she elected by the people of the county whom reside in Kentucky? Is there an enforcement arm of the Supreme Court that I'm unaware of or missed in my reading of the Constitution? Do states have the ability to regulate things not spelled out specifically in the Constitution? Maybe I got a bad copy? How do you amend the Constitution? I'm often amazed at the utter ignorance and lack of understanding of freedom by people who own guns.
Ignoring bad Supreme Court decisions is a national past time or at least it used to be...public indoctrination education is working. Rhino Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some questions... Is she upholding Kentucky law? Isn't she elected by the people of the county whom reside in Kentucky? Is there an enforcement arm of the Supreme Court that I'm unaware of or missed in my reading of the Constitution? Do states have the ability to regulate things not spelled out specifically in the Constitution? Maybe I got a bad copy? How do you amend the Constitution? I'm often amazed at the utter ignorance and lack of understanding of freedom by people who own guns.
Ignoring bad Supreme Court decisions is a national past time or at least it used to be...public indoctrination education is working. Rhino Kentucky law has been ruled unconstitutional. Just like Alabama law was in United States v. Brittain. On November 10, 1970, Sergeant Louis Voyer, a soldier stationed by the Army at Fort McClellan near Anniston, Alabama, and Phyllis Bett, a resident of the city, attempted to procure a marriage license from the office of Probate Judge G. Clyde Brittain. After filling out the application form and waiting several minutes, they were told by one of Judge Brittain's clerks that they could not get a license because it would be against state law. Miss Bett is a Negro, while Sgt. Voyer is a Caucasian. Want to guess what happened with the case? Also, not establishing religion in government is very much spelled out in the Constitution. She blatantly said that she enforced her personal religious beliefs [while acting as a government official] as law instead of following the actual law in denying a license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:52:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
well for the longest time people thought slavery was good to go also...times and things change... And we have a process to change them. In the case of slavery we fought a war and passed 2 amendments. 5 unelected lawyers saying "because we say so" is not and never has been a legitimate method to alter our laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:52:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Four of the nine Supreme Court Justices did not feel the court had the right to do this and stated so in their dissenting opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Four of the nine Supreme Court Justices did not feel the court had the right to do this and stated so in their dissenting opinion. Quoted:
Quoted:
Amendments are modified by amendment. That's the way it is. There is no such amendment sanctioning queer marriage, the majority decision contra-wise notwithstanding. Since the Constitution is silent on this issue, it properly belongs to the States. The tribunal with the authority to decide constitutional issues clearly disagrees with you. Whether you like it or not. And 4 out of 5 want to throw out the Second Amendment. So I guess you are fine with that and want to throw it out because 4 out of 5 say so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:53:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They threw out a law for violating the constitution. It is their job to interpret it and other laws. The can't and have not created a new law. This is not a new thing, at all and it certainly is not tyranny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Tyranny is not two people you don't know getting married. North Korea is an example of tyranny. Tyranny is replacing a representative democracy by endowing an unelected combination of 5 lawyers super-legislative powers. Perhaps you missed that? They threw out a law for violating the constitution. It is their job to interpret it and other laws. The can't and have not created a new law. This is not a new thing, at all and it certainly is not tyranny. ..except that law doesn't violate the constitution - any more than voting Republican does. They simply made it up, and in the process abrogated the legislative power to the judicial branch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:54:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You know what we call them, whether we like it or not? The losing side.
Like most of DU on the 2nd Amendment decisions??? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:55:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They didn't throw out a law. They EXPANDED the existing law to cover more people. Read the darn opinion (majority and minority). It is not long and it is easy to digest. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They threw out a law for violating the constitution. It is their job to interpret it and other laws. The can't and have not created a new law. This is not a new thing, at all and it certainly is not tyranny. They didn't throw out a law. They EXPANDED the existing law to cover more people. Read the darn opinion (majority and minority). It is not long and it is easy to digest. They have no power to do so. If the people wanted the law expanded, that is what the legislature is for. Not judges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:56:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That depends. If you are little people, you are going to jail. Are you little people? I am little people.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fair enough. Maybe Ima gonna do the same. Maybe Ima gonna hava lotta company going forward. How's that gonna work? That depends. If you are little people, you are going to jail. Are you little people? I am little people. Enough little people can change everything... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:57:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:It was passed to protect newly freed slaves, but, it says what it says and is still in full force. (kind of like the 2nd) It is as valid as any other part of the USC. Some of you sound like the left when it comes to the 2nd and claims that it is for the National Guard or is only for muskets. And what is says - says NOTHING about marriage, or gays. It's not in there. A majority of the Supreme Court flat-out LIED. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:58:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I fail to understand, if she feels so strongly in her beliefs, why don't she just quit? Can't have your cake and eat it too. This. She got what she wanted. Attention. Now she has everyone's attention, LOL. Idiot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:58:05 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They have no power to do so. If the people wanted the law expanded, that is what the legislature is for. Not judges. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They threw out a law for violating the constitution. It is their job to interpret it and other laws. The can't and have not created a new law. This is not a new thing, at all and it certainly is not tyranny. They didn't throw out a law. They EXPANDED the existing law to cover more people. Read the darn opinion (majority and minority). It is not long and it is easy to digest. They have no power to do so. If the people wanted the law expanded, that is what the legislature is for. Not judges. They do have the power to enforce the Constitution. Edit: through the gov. not on their own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 10:59:48 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kentucky law has been ruled unconstitutional. Just like Alabama law was in United States v. Brittain. Want to guess what happened with the case? Also, not establishing religion in government is very much spelled out in the Constitution. She blatantly said that she enforced her personal religious beliefs [while acting as a government official] as law instead of following the actual law in denying a license. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Some questions... Is she upholding Kentucky law? Isn't she elected by the people of the county whom reside in Kentucky? Is there an enforcement arm of the Supreme Court that I'm unaware of or missed in my reading of the Constitution? Do states have the ability to regulate things not spelled out specifically in the Constitution? Maybe I got a bad copy? How do you amend the Constitution? I'm often amazed at the utter ignorance and lack of understanding of freedom by people who own guns.
Ignoring bad Supreme Court decisions is a national past time or at least it used to be...public indoctrination education is working. Rhino Kentucky law has been ruled unconstitutional. Just like Alabama law was in United States v. Brittain. On November 10, 1970, Sergeant Louis Voyer, a soldier stationed by the Army at Fort McClellan near Anniston, Alabama, and Phyllis Bett, a resident of the city, attempted to procure a marriage license from the office of Probate Judge G. Clyde Brittain. After filling out the application form and waiting several minutes, they were told by one of Judge Brittain's clerks that they could not get a license because it would be against state law. Miss Bett is a Negro, while Sgt. Voyer is a Caucasian. Want to guess what happened with the case? Also, not establishing religion in government is very much spelled out in the Constitution. She blatantly said that she enforced her personal religious beliefs [while acting as a government official] as law instead of following the actual law in denying a license. Did you stop reading after my first sentence? The questions go together. Where you educated in a public school by chance? Rhino |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:00:10 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmmmm......social conservatives or the gay mafia. I don't care for either, to be honest. Then keep thy bagged milk drinking carcass in the Great White North .... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:01:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am going to go get a .gov job and once i am hired tell them it is against my religion to work. Then I will cash checks the rest of my life! 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Suits were about places that did not sell pork, ethnic shops, then started selling pork. Then some body calls the others mother a whore and then the lawyes get involved. The principle is clear. The Amish can't demand a private employer not use technology. Muslims can't refuse to work with women... Unless they quit. Aryans can't refuse to work with blacks... Unless they quit. You can't use the government to enforce your religious beliefs as the law. No you can't, but back to my original question. IF there was a clause stating that the county doesn't discriminate based on religion beliefs (and I don't know if there was) then how is this not discrimination based on religion? If you don't want to run into this situation, then you can't include that statement. But if you do, and a lot of .gov and private employers have it, your going to run into exactly what we have now. I am going to go get a .gov job and once i am hired tell them it is against my religion to work. Then I will cash checks the rest of my life!
That's GS-10 grade or higher, right there ..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:01:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a question. I think I read that she has stopped issuing all marriage licenses, not just those for LGBQEIEIO couples. Is this true and if so, how does that affect the entire situation? It leaves her open to suits from other people who are required by law to get marriages licenses from the office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:02:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if this clerk came out as Libertarian and said "I don't believe the State should be involved in marriage at all, so,as a result this office will not issue any "State Approval" for marriages. No licenses from this office, at all. If you want the Governments approval to marry, go to another county" How many would still be screaming for her to lose her job or go to jail I would. That is well above her pay grade. If the state legislature wants to do that, awesome, but that is not her decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:02:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:It is not the county clerk's job to interpret the Constitution. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, it is her JOB to follow the LAW. She doesn't get to violate civil rights.
But do tell me where in the Constitution does it give a county clerk the right to refuse a legal marriage license. It's all our jobs to interpret the Constitution and its all our jobs to raise hell when it is violated as in this case. Even if we agree with the particular outcome. ESPECIALLY if we agree with the particular outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:03:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you stop reading after my first sentence? The questions go together. Where you educated in a public school by chance? Rhino Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some questions... Is she upholding Kentucky law? Isn't she elected by the people of the county whom reside in Kentucky? Is there an enforcement arm of the Supreme Court that I'm unaware of or missed in my reading of the Constitution? Do states have the ability to regulate things not spelled out specifically in the Constitution? Maybe I got a bad copy? How do you amend the Constitution? I'm often amazed at the utter ignorance and lack of understanding of freedom by people who own guns.
Ignoring bad Supreme Court decisions is a national past time or at least it used to be...public indoctrination education is working. Rhino Kentucky law has been ruled unconstitutional. Just like Alabama law was in United States v. Brittain. On November 10, 1970, Sergeant Louis Voyer, a soldier stationed by the Army at Fort McClellan near Anniston, Alabama, and Phyllis Bett, a resident of the city, attempted to procure a marriage license from the office of Probate Judge G. Clyde Brittain. After filling out the application form and waiting several minutes, they were told by one of Judge Brittain's clerks that they could not get a license because it would be against state law. Miss Bett is a Negro, while Sgt. Voyer is a Caucasian. Want to guess what happened with the case? Also, not establishing religion in government is very much spelled out in the Constitution. She blatantly said that she enforced her personal religious beliefs [while acting as a government official] as law instead of following the actual law in denying a license. Did you stop reading after my first sentence? The questions go together. Where you educated in a public school by chance? Rhino - She was elected by the people to be a representative of the state government to the people. The same state government that can't establish a religion. - Enforcement arm of the Supreme Court? The government. - You amend the Constitution with an amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:03:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If, the SCOTUS can force her to issue licenses then I presume they could do the same with the POTUS with regards to Obamacare? deportations? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a question. I think I read that she has stopped issuing all marriage licenses, not just those for LGBQEIEIO couples. Is this true and if so, how does that affect the entire situation? It's her job to issue marriage licenses. She failed. That is not the question I asked. She is also an elected official and can only be removed from office via impeachment by the local legislative body (which is not going to happen). Edit: She is an elected official, not a government employee. If, the SCOTUS can force her to issue licenses then I presume they could do the same with the POTUS with regards to Obamacare? deportations? yep. and there are currently lawsuits working their way up to that effect as we type. The Steinle family is suing a variety of government organizations for their failure to follow the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:04:04 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The government (federal and state) can't establish a religion. And neither has. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:06:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And neither has. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The government (federal and state) can't establish a religion. And neither has. When a government official says they're going to ignore the actual law and use their personal religious beliefs as law [while acting as a government official], they have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:06:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good question. If Kentucky really doesn't need her to issue marriage licenses, and people can just go a short distance down the road... why not just eliminate her position altogether? Time to trim the fat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a question. I think I read that she has stopped issuing all marriage licenses, not just those for LGBQEIEIO couples. Is this true and if so, how does that affect the entire situation? It's her job to issue marriage licenses. She failed. That is not the question I asked. She is also an elected official and can only be removed from office via impeachment by the local legislative body (which is not going to happen). Edit: She is an elected official, not a government employee. The bigger question is why are are electing what is essentially a paper pusher? Good question. If Kentucky really doesn't need her to issue marriage licenses, and people can just go a short distance down the road... why not just eliminate her position altogether? Time to trim the fat. All the other things County Clerks do, run elections, business licenses, etc. If her job was just issue licenses then we could replace her with a kiosk like getting a ticket and boarding pass at the airport. But then those don't make decisions on religion, you have the required elements, ticket issued. No bullshit allowed (unless you haven't flown in 20 years, then the fun begins) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:07:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you really opening that can of worms? That we base who can receive their civil rights by the intent of the authors at the exact time that it was written? That is the exact same argument used by gun grabbers to say that the Founders only intended for the 2A to include muskets and other 18th century small arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
14th doesn't say anything about gays, and was not understood to be about that by the men who wrote and ratified it. Or anyone for the next 150 years. The claim that the 14th justifies this is bullshit and we should not stand for it. Are you really opening that can of worms? That we base who can receive their civil rights by the intent of the authors at the exact time that it was written? That is the exact same argument used by gun grabbers to say that the Founders only intended for the 2A to include muskets and other 18th century small arms. No it is the exact OPPOSITE of that argument. The 2nd means exactly what the words in it say. Any doubts about the meaning of those words at the time it was ratified can be examined in the light of the original intent of those who wrote it, argued about it and ratified. In such light, no one, not even the Supreme Court, could read it to mean anything other than what it said. Likewise, the 14th means exactly what the words in it mean. Any ambiguity can be resolved by examining the writings and arguments of those who wrote it, passed it, and ratified it. NONE of which mention , "Oh, by the way, this means gays can marry now", nor did anyone think it did for 150 years. The claim that it indeed does so is nonsense. Both those trying to gut the 2nd and stretch the 14th do violence to the rule of law, and both should be opposed with everything we have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:08:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? How? No, there are a lot of people, not just "super right fundamentalists" who believe that there is a higher law that is meant to inform our laws and we are not at liberty to determine or change these things at a whim to suit 2% of the population who happen to be bullies. Ever read the Constitution and Declaration? I mean really read it. Because if you don't like what I said, then you can chuck your copies out the door. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Welp, she's a martyr now. The more the queer lobby pushes their agenda, the worse they look. Hopefully she's the first of many.  Yeah - I think pretty much everyone thinks this woman is the one looking bad. No one but the super right fundamentalists think she is doing the right thing. And the cherry on top is she is the biggest hypocrite in the world right now. That is hilarious. Really? How? No, there are a lot of people, not just "super right fundamentalists" who believe that there is a higher law that is meant to inform our laws and we are not at liberty to determine or change these things at a whim to suit 2% of the population who happen to be bullies. Ever read the Constitution and Declaration? I mean really read it. Because if you don't like what I said, then you can chuck your copies out the door. Can you quote me out of your copy where it says that only Christian beliefs are meant to be considered as valid when the government acts in an administrative function? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:10:33 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When a government official says they're going to ignore the actual law and use their personal religious beliefs as law [while acting as a government official], they have. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The government (federal and state) can't establish a religion. And neither has. When a government official says they're going to ignore the actual law and use their personal religious beliefs as law [while acting as a government official], they have. Wait, were you under the impression that SCOTUS wrote a new law? Can you explain to me where you can find that in the US or the Kentucky Constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:13:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, were you under the impression that SCOTUS wrote a new law? Can you explain to me where you can find that in the US or the Kentucky Constitution? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The government (federal and state) can't establish a religion. And neither has. When a government official says they're going to ignore the actual law and use their personal religious beliefs as law [while acting as a government official], they have. Wait, were you under the impression that SCOTUS wrote a new law? Can you explain to me where you can find that in the US or the Kentucky Constitution? The failure to understand this simple point is amazing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:13:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bingo. While the first amendment prohibits government from interfering with individual religous beliefs, it also prohibits the establishment of religion. She's using her government position to enforce her beliefs on people she is to serve [even if it's minority] and granting herself personal authority to enforce her beliefs as law. A Hindu wouldn't be allowed to refrain from issuing a marriage license because beef is going to be served at the wedding. A majority muslim DMV wouldn't be allowed to refuse issuing driver's licenses to women. Don't like your job? Quit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I fail to understand, if she feels so strongly in her beliefs, why don't she just quit? Can't have your cake and eat it too. Why should she quit her job because a couple of lunatics that no one elected decided to redefine civilization? Because under due process of the law, as an agent of the state she is required to provide them a license. Aka "Her job." Bingo. While the first amendment prohibits government from interfering with individual religous beliefs, it also prohibits the establishment of religion. She's using her government position to enforce her beliefs on people she is to serve [even if it's minority] and granting herself personal authority to enforce her beliefs as law. A Hindu wouldn't be allowed to refrain from issuing a marriage license because beef is going to be served at the wedding. A majority muslim DMV wouldn't be allowed to refuse issuing driver's licenses to women. Don't like your job? Quit. 1st amendment establishment clause does not mean what you think it means. It meant that the Federal government could not establish a particular religion, such as Catholicism, as the mandatory national religion, nor could it prohibit Quakers, Baptists, and such from practicing their faith. It placed no restriction on the States or subordinate local governments. Had the people of Rhode Island decided to vote that the Church of England was their official State religion, that would not have been a violation of the 1st. Crappy public school educations and the endless repeating of "separation of church and state", a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution, have fooled people as to what that amendment did and did not do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:14:12 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
- She was elected by the people to be a representative of the state government to the people. The same state government that can't establish a religion. - Enforcement arm of the Supreme Court? The government. - You amend the Constitution with an amendment. In case you weren't aware she's not establishing any religion. She's upholding standing Kentucky law... Where is that "government" enforcement outlined in the Constitution? I must of missed that day of class. Is there an amendment on marriage? I missed a week of classes apparently. Rhino |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:17:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, were you under the impression that SCOTUS wrote a new law? Can you explain to me where you can find that in the US or the Kentucky Constitution? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The government (federal and state) can't establish a religion. And neither has. When a government official says they're going to ignore the actual law and use their personal religious beliefs as law [while acting as a government official], they have. Wait, were you under the impression that SCOTUS wrote a new law? Can you explain to me where you can find that in the US or the Kentucky Constitution? It overturned state laws banning gay marriage. What SCOTUS did was say that " fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution". Acting as a government official, she chose to use her religious beliefs as law instead, thereby establishing her personal religion in government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:18:06 PM EDT
[#42]
How long was the thread decrying the injustice of the last schlub getting caught violating a gun law? Three pages of "play stupid games win stupid prizes?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:19:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No need to explain. Its WRONG. You have not presented an exhaustive list of the alternatives, which include what she is doing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you have a moral objection to doing your job, then the moral response is to quit and go do something else OR do the job under protest while working to get the system changed. I'm not sure why that has to explained to supposedly conservative board. No need to explain. Its WRONG. You have not presented an exhaustive list of the alternatives, which include what she is doing. I didn't list alternatives that are fucking retarded, sorry. She could also stand on top of her car and sing the star spangled banner with a kazoo stuck up her ass. It would make about as much sense as her current idiocy, but at least she wouldn't be abusing her position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:21:20 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question is can the laws apply to some people but not others and the answer is no. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's where to the argument really lies, is defining when it's over reach. Personally I do think the government should have a hand in assuring equal application of the law throughout the 50 states. Be it gun rights, property rights or gay rights. I do hold marriage to be a right between consenting adults. You clearly disagree, but at the end of the day the feds have made their ruling. We'll see how it plays out. IF marriage is a right, then I should be able to: Marry more than one person. Marry my mom. Or my sister. Or my daughter. Marry despite my present status of already married. If not - why not? Please explain how your theory of equal protection under the law either extends, or does not, to those situations. As long as everyone involved is of the age of majority I really don't care if you want to marry your sister and your mother and 37 other people. There's already nothing stopping you from having sex with your mom and sister, what difference does a piece of paper make? I find the behavior you listed to be disgusting, but I don't see why it should illegal. The question is NOT whether YOU see why it should be illegal. rather, the question is, in a representative democracy, are these particulars something that society can regulate through their elected representatives? The question is can the laws apply to some people but not others and the answer is no. The law was applied equally. Some special snowflakes demanded that the rule of law be junked so they could get new previously un-existing privileges they wanted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:23:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When they are in their lane and limits of authority, yes. When the exceed the limits of their authority, then their decision is entitled to no more obedience than an unconstitutional act of the legislative or executive branches. I submit that is the case here, and not the first one. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: She violated a lawful court order by a federal court... which is contempt of court, which is a crime. The court issued the order because she would not follow through with her duty to follow the Constitution and the interpretation of the Supreme Court. She *IS* following the Constitution. Tis the SC that is not. Under our system, the SC decides on matters of constitutionality, no some small town clerk. When they are in their lane and limits of authority, yes. When the exceed the limits of their authority, then their decision is entitled to no more obedience than an unconstitutional act of the legislative or executive branches. I submit that is the case here, and not the first one. Do you believe they exceeded their limits in Marbury v Madison. If not, then this is within their lane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:23:27 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It overturned state laws banning gay marriage. What SCOTUS did was say that " fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution". Acting as a government official, she chose to use her religious beliefs as law instead, thereby establishing her personal religion in government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The government (federal and state) can't establish a religion. And neither has. When a government official says they're going to ignore the actual law and use their personal religious beliefs as law [while acting as a government official], they have. Wait, were you under the impression that SCOTUS wrote a new law? Can you explain to me where you can find that in the US or the Kentucky Constitution? It overturned state laws banning gay marriage. What SCOTUS did was say that " fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution". Acting as a government official, she chose to use her religious beliefs as law instead, thereby establishing her personal religion in government. Again, what "actual law" is she ignoring? You said she is ignoring a law, I'd like to see what that law is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:24:00 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I imagine the State legislature can redraw the county lines. Maybe they just need to eliminate that county and add the territory to the surrounding counties. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bigger question is why are are electing what is essentially a paper pusher? Good question. If Kentucky really doesn't need her to issue marriage licenses, and people can just go a short distance down the road... why not just eliminate her position altogether? Time to trim the fat. Because the state constitution says so. I imagine the State legislature can redraw the county lines. Maybe they just need to eliminate that county and add the territory to the surrounding counties. Other than throwing a lot of connected relatives in redundant jobs out of work that would make a lot of sense. Like companies merging. Lots of costly redundancy getting gratefully funded by the taxpayers. (Although you can get too big, look at how big and fucked up the Los Angeles School District has become.) For example in CA we have 9 counties with populations of 20,000 or less, 9 with over a million. Ranging from Alpine with about 1130 people, to Los Angeles, just under 10 million (probably over that with uncounted illegals) Alabama only 9 over 100,000 and only one over 500,000, 15 under 25,000. Yeah consolidation probably makes a lot of financial sense. I expect TN has a lot of small counties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:25:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which government? You know this is truly significant question in a Constitutional Federal Republic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I fail to understand, if she feels so strongly in her beliefs, why don't she just quit? Can't have your cake and eat it too. Why should she quit her job because a couple of lunatics that no one elected decided to redefine civilization? Because under due process of the law, as an agent of the state she is required to provide them a license. Aka "Her job." Bingo. While the first amendment prohibits government from interfering with individual religous beliefs, it also prohibits the establishment of religion. She's using her government position to enforce her beliefs on people she is to serve [even if it's minority] and granting herself personal authority to enforce her beliefs as law. A Hindu wouldn't be allowed to refrain from issuing a marriage license because beef is going to be served at the wedding. A majority muslim DMV wouldn't be allowed to refuse issuing driver's licenses to women. Don't like your job? Quit. Which government? You know this is truly significant question in a Constitutional Federal Republic. Well since the First Amendment has been incorporated, it applies to all levels. But you knew that, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:25:29 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you support the laws enacted in CA to deprive citizens of their rights because the majority voted to do so. Gotcha. Or the decisions by the elected Sheriffs to not issue CCW? gotcha. Makes sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And right over your head it goes, I'm not talking about the majority of other people, I am talking abut religions people thinking that because the believe something, it should be forced on on everyone. Nope. You have trouble understanding, so I will try to be clearer - ANYONE has a right to have their political positions informed by WHATEVER they choose. If a majority of voters wish otherwise than you desire, tough shit. It matters not WHY they disagree with you. Because Oprah told them, their religious views, or because they think a giant purple ant on Mars has beamed instructions to do so into their head. No difference, they get one vote, same as you. When you don't have enough votes, you lose. Democracy kinda sucks when you are a minority. You have no right, or reason to expect, that you should be magically free of any disagreement, whether that disagreement be informed be religion, or anything else. You guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom from it. Should you dislike the results, you have every access and opportunity to convince people otherwise. That is legitimate action. Getting the Supreme Court to force in what you want in contravention to the rule of law is not legitimate, and it should be scorned. Clear? Any questions? So you support the laws enacted in CA to deprive citizens of their rights because the majority voted to do so. Gotcha. Or the decisions by the elected Sheriffs to not issue CCW? gotcha. Makes sense. As usual, you fail. CA actions are contravened by higher law - the Constitution. The claim that the Supreme Court has the authority to "magic" in to the 14th a heretofore occult freedom for gays to marry each other is bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:26:13 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why should she quit her job because a couple of lunatics that no one elected decided to redefine civilization? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I fail to understand, if she feels so strongly in her beliefs, why don't she just quit? Can't have your cake and eat it too. Why should she quit her job because a couple of lunatics that no one elected decided to redefine civilization? Laws. Agree with it or not, she has a boss, her boss said do this or walk. She picked Option C, "make a big old stink, change nothing and go to jail." Wrong answer. If you work in the private sector and your boss says do X, do X or work somewhere else. Easy. Standing by your convictions would be - "don't work for an organization that doesn't support your belief system." I've never signed a marriage license, straight or gay, I'd wager it's not on many job descriptions either. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
