kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Hmm. What was that? I wasn't listening to your asinine comments.
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Hmm. What was that? I wasn't listening to your asinine comments.
The rest of your arguments aside, I think this one has some merit. Town's a federalist and his offerings will likely continue to reflect that. A County Clerk is a state officer and the State District Judge would appear to be the court of proper jurisdiction in this instance. In my opinion the Federal Supreme Court placed a burden to act upon a state officer without proper constitutional authority (See federal constitutional amendment 10.)
Davis herself is the one who made this a federal cause by claiming a federal first amendment right in this case though I suspect she had some outside encouragement. Her mistake. She's arguing the wrong point of law in the wrong court and, sad to say, there is no shortage of folks willing to encourage her in that endeavor for their own purposes.
Last edited:
iamaberean
New member
Did anyone look into this woman's eyes when she responded to those on the other side of the counter, besides me?
mmmmm ... okay, I'll bite ... what woman?
exminister
Well-known member
Some see Jeremiah 10 as prohibition of Christmas trees. Additionally, the holiday has pagan roots.
For no jewelry people use 1 Peter 3:1-6. Also other texts
People use Deuteronomy 22:5 to say women should not wear pants since it has been considered men's clothing.
For cutting of hair in the New Testament see 1 Corinthians 11
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Because of this verse I think all the pictures of Jesus are wrong. He probably had short hair.
You appear to be saying that religious beliefs can be protected only if it's a widely held belief with a long history. Why does philosophy, western tradition, or what you think about its intrinsic evil matter to the JW who holds that belief? Religious beliefs are religious beliefs. Are only the majority to be protected? Freedoms are supposed to protect the minorities as well. And I doubt religious freedom laws mention philosophers and western traditions.
Same questions/comments as above.
Jose Fly
New member
OK then, let's not deal in the abstract, let's address the facts of this case as they actually are.
In this case, Kim Davis is a County Clerk, and we know one of the primary duties of that position is to issue marriage licenses to citizens of the county. Thus, she cannot argue that she had no idea that as county clerk, she would be asked to issue marriage licenses.
Your examples are too vague. Is the Catholic doctor working at a clinic that performs abortions? And what kind of doctor is he? Is he a dermatologist?
What in the world????? :idunno:
So you're actually going to conclude that my position is that Catholics cannot be dermatologists, gasteroenterologists, podiatrists, or even nurses?
The only thing I can figure is that you have no clue about various fields of medicine, or you do and are being purposefully obtuse to try and salvage a losing argument.
Probably not in states that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And by the same token, Christian Identity believers cannot run adoption agencies and refuse to sign over children to Jewish households either.
Let's be clear. The "important aspect of the job" is to issue marriage licenses to all citizens of the county, according to the law.
If they take the same course as Kim Davis and not only refuse to issue the licenses, but also demand that no one else in the office issue them either, then no, they cannot hold the position.
Yes, in our society you are expected to follow the law. Imagine that.
Just as when a Muslim says "My religion dictates that I behead the person who disgraced my family", we say "No, your religion is not an excuse to break the law", when a Christian says "My religion dictates that I discriminate against gays", we say "No, your religion is not an excuse to break the law".
Not too difficult to figure out.
Um.....what? I never used that phrase.
Are you serious? Your rebuttal to the obvious (pointing out that if we allow one faith to be exempt from the law, we have to allow the same for others) is "but those aren't serious beliefs"?
Who in authority do you expect to rule on such a thing? What government official would you like to be in charge of deciding what is and isn't a serious belief?
What in the world are you talking about? Institutionalized racism was the norm in our country for the majority of its history.
No, it's reality. If you have a problem with it, your problem is with reality, not me.
Again, that's just reality. If you have a problem with it, your problem is with reality, not me.
Jose Fly
New member
It's fascinating to see how often fundamentalist Christians think things are so just because they say they are.
Genuineoriginal apparently believes him merely saying that the federal judge had no jurisdiction is sufficient to make it so, and everyone else is supposed to accept his word as unquestioned gospel.
Fascinating.
Jose Fly
New member
Not when the actions of the county are violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens. When that happens, as in this case, it goes to federal court where such Constitutional issues are resolved.
Nope. If that were true, Loving v. Virginia "placed a burden to act on a state officer" when the SCOTUS overturned state bans on interracial marriage.
I doubt if the Founding Fathers ever thought that "Same Sex" unions would become a Constitutional issue?
But here we are living in the lunatic fringe and it's legal!
Jose Fly
New member
So? I doubt they ever thought there would be a federal agency in charge of aviation either.
Man, but Christianity is taking a public beating over this. It is so entertaining to watch.
four members of the court didn't think so
They got overruled. Outside of it annoying you that others actually have the choice to marry the adult they wish to marry, how are you harmed?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
what "public"?
the hell-bound Godless secularist/liberal public?
who cares what they think?
other than other hell-bound Godless secularist/liberals, of course
Jose Fly
New member
More of this attitude from Christians......please. :thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i suspect you'll be red before too long
As someone else already posted:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475
(c)
The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.
Based on that, it doesn't have to be her signature.
are you okay with same sex marriage?
Foxfire
Well-known member
Patently false! Kentucky law clearly and specifically allows deputy clerks to sign marriage licenses as well as providing that licenses can be issued in the absence of the elected clerk.