Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[Traditio]

No, that is reality. She's a county clerk and one of the primary duties of that position is to issue marriage licenses to citizens of the county.

Suppose I agree. What's your point? From what you've said, the social liberal position doesn't follow.

Nothing abstract there at all, nor any need to analogize. Deal with the facts as they are.

You don't know what the word "abstract" means, do you?

So you agree that your earlier objection regarding "important aspects of the job" was meaningless. Good.

How on earth does this follow from what I said earlier?

Dodge.

It's not a dodge. Your point was purely rhetorical and aimed to score rhetorical "points." [Which, incidentally, is why debating idealogues of any kind (whether conservative or liberal) is an utter waste of time.] I grant that there are different fields of medicine and that the issue of abortion simply wouldn't arise for many doctors.

It's irrelevent to the issue. :idunno:

If they cannot run adoption agencies without breaking the law, then no.

You don't see the problem with what you are saying? Are you that much of a socially liberal mindless sheep, are you so hooked into the social liberal "hive mind" that you cannot see a problem with the way that you are putting this and what you are saying?

It seems that's not true either.

I don't know the laws of the place in question. Chances are, she does. However, I do recall reading somewhere that when the judge ordered her to be imprisoned, and homosexual advocates asked whether they could get licenses without her signature, he told them to do so at their own risk. :idunno:

So "we all should follow the law" is "silly" to you. Noted.

Should Rosa Parks have gone to the back of the bus?

So you're trying to analogize between Parks, who was fighting against discrimination, and Davis who is fighting for discrimination?

This only supports my previous assertion. Think about what you've just said. You won't, of course, and even if you do, you are likely too much of a sheep and indulge yourself far too much on the fattening, yet utterly non-nourishing, food of liberal buzzwords to realize it. But hey, one can only dream, right? :nono:

And that "something" is one of the primary duties of her position.

No, it isn't. My evidence for this is that, prior to the ruling, she issued absolutely no marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and yet she still was doing her job, and nobody questioned this. If that is the case, then it's not a primary duty of her job.

So basically your answer is "There's only 8 million of 'em, and they've only been around for about 140 years, so they don't get the same rights"?

Try that in court and let me know how it goes. :chuckle:

The point that I'm ultimately making is the one that St. Thomas makes at ST I-II, q. 96, a. 2 and ST I-II, q. 97, a. 3.

The laws are to be proportionate to the concrete conditions of the community.

 

[Ktoyou]

Though I think I understand some of the finer points of the law of the United States and its various states and occasionally opine on those matters, at the end of the day, I realize that there is a higher law that we will all be judged by and I sometimes question whether or not you understand this.

Sometimes, or usually? Why do you wonder if he understands it. Do you think Annie Wilkes is more apt?

 

[quip]

Not really, I lived with suffering too long to fear it.

It seems not the current case.

You just attempted to avoid three quarters of my previous post.

Did you find my truncated point invigorating? :chuckle:

 

[exminister]

We are all born into sin, and being homosexual is one of many sins; however, we seek to be born again, saved from sin, and to live righteously. No one can live in sin and live righteously, not even homos.

So I think you agree we are born sinners and thereby are born with sinful ways which include even homosexuality. It is not a choice any more than being born a sinner is. Stating specific sins qualifies what it means to be BORN a sinner. Only Christ can free us from the specific sins we were born with. Yes?

 

[ok doser]

Not to niggle...

what's wrong with niggling?

are you racist?

 

[fzappa13]

Sometimes, or usually? Why do you wonder if he understands it. Do you think Annie Wilkes is more apt?

I'm not sure I understand the analogy.

 

[fzappa13]

what's wrong with niggling?

are you racist?

Behave.

 

[Yorzhik]

None of them are a good reason in a pluralistic society. Because you have to either accept everyone's exception or none of them. I prefer none of them and the rule of law.

Sure there are good reasons. If there is a behavior that is bad for the people engaged in it, and for society, we hope that our officials will fight for what's right, even defying other officials that are promoting what is wrong.

 

[Yorzhik]

Let me try it this way.

The legislative branch creates and passes law.
The executive branch signs laws into effect and enforces them.
The judiciary's involvement in law comes by way of review, when an objection is made concerning the foundation of a law or its application and the question becomes is that foundation and/or application Constitutional. The Court ultimately determines, by review, whether or not that law or particular application of it should stand/is Constitutional.

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding.

So if the legislative branch creates a law that says Jews are not human and people have to get a license so they can work for them, and the executive branch enforces said law, and the judiciary agrees the application of the law is constitutional, wouldn't you want your elected officials to oppose such a law?

 

[Foxfire]

So if the legislative branch creates a law that says Jews are not human and people have to get a license so they can work for them, and the executive branch enforces said law, and the judiciary agrees the application of the law is constitutional, wouldn't you want your elected officials to oppose such a law?

Are you sure you can't you find a more hyperbolic and improbable analogy? :think:

 

[Yorzhik]

Are you sure you can't you find a more hyperbolic and improbable analogy? :think:

Just making an analogy that is extreme enough to be clear. Is it clear? Wouldn't you want your elected officials to oppose such a law?

 

[Lon]

I believe in religious liberty, but this is a civil job she has, and the law is the law, and she should either have issued the licenses or left her post. Some will disagree with me, but this woman is out for fame and money, IMO.

She is, however, being used as an example. It should have just been a firing. Perhaps this was done to 'try' and avoid counter-suit...

I don't think they were 'thinking' however, this wasn't the answer to that, nor is fining people out-of-business. It's all like shooting one's own country in the foot.

There is a lot of mindless lemming mentality going on to be PC... :sigh:

 

[Town Heretic]

So if the legislative branch creates a law that says Jews are not human and people have to get a license so they can work for them, and the executive branch enforces said law, and the judiciary agrees the application of the law is constitutional, wouldn't you want your elected officials to oppose such a law?

Of course, as I'm against the denial of the foundation of our law, which is equality before it. That's what you're speaking to with your example and one of the reasons it isn't a parallel.

 

[Ktoyou]

Let's make that clear, we stand equal; before the law/ not the law makes us equal.

 

[Town Heretic]

Let's make that clear, we stand equal; before the law/ not the law makes us equal.

The law recognizes and protects our right to equality before it. I won't argue cart or horse, the importance of it being in its protection and the attempt to balance right peacefully among ourselves.

 

[ok doser]

what Christian considers themself to be equal to a homosexual pervert?



what Christian gives any regard at all to man's law that defies God's Law?

 

[bybee]

The law recognizes and protects our right to equality before it. I won't argue cart or horse, the importance of it being in its protection and the attempt to balance right peacefully among ourselves.

Was this Judge appointed or elected?

 

[TracerBullet]

The only person using the word "hate" is you. I have not stated that I hate anyone. I disapprove of certain behaviors.
You attempt to conflate things that are not of the same value.

Look at what you are posting about gays. If you were to say the same things about blacks or Jews what would it be called?

 

[TracerBullet]

If you are born a sinner and being gay is a sin why can't you be born gay? What meaning does being born a sinner have if you cannot be born with sinful ways?

but if you pretend that orientation is just an aberrant behavior that anyone could choose to change at the drop of a hat then you can pretend that you aren't really being hateful or bigoted

 

[TracerBullet]

Not to niggle, but the tenth amendment to the federal constitution reserves any non enumerated rights to the people or the states. Either way the constitution does not provide for the type of usurpation of power exercised in this and many other cases but, that is the nature of gradualism ... The anti-federalists won the day in the framing of our federal constitution but the federalists appear to have won the war as it regards it's eventual implementation.

equal rights and protects are enumerated in the constitution meaning they fall under federal jurisdiction meaning that states cannot enact laws denying rights to minorities