Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[jon_berzerk]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

 

[Tresha91203]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

 

[jon_berzerk]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

 

[Tresha91203]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

 

[Faun]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.

 

[Tresha91203]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.

SHE IS THE GOVERNMENT. She, personally, can believe what she wants. An agent of the goverment, which she is as CoC, cannot deny a citizen his legal right for religious reasons. That is the govt (in this case, Davis) endorsing a religion. If she were a Muslim at the DMV denying women drivers' licenses, would you back her?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool

 

[jon_berzerk]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.

but they can infringe as long as they are not citing religious freedom is that what you are saying

 

[jon_berzerk]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.

SHE IS THE GOVERNMENT. She, personally, can believe what she wants. An agent of the goverment, which she is as CoC, cannot deny a citizen his legal right for religious reasons. That is the govt (in this case, Davis) endorsing a religion. If she were a Muslim at the DMV denying women drivers' licenses, would you back her?

i am not backing anyone i am simply curious where you draw the line on the government enforcing or not enforcing laws for what ever reason

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

there should be plenty of them

an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back

ran head on into a school bus killing four children

it happens over and over again

Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News

 

[Tresha91203]

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool

As I said in the post you responded to, "No, its not." I also said I think someone with standing (to sue) has finally filed suit.

Davis is an agent of the government. She is the goverment here.

 

[Faun]

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool

Your attempt at deflection is noted, but Davis will remain in jail despite it.

 

[Tresha91203]

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

there should be plenty of them

an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back

ran head on into a school bus killing four children

it happens over and over again

Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News

One has finally filed (I heard/read). I am surprised it took so long and glad it finally has.

 

[Faun]

She should have resigned in protest IMO. In the private sector, I might stand with her, but govt should not use religion to deny someone his legal rights.

Hmm...according to the 1st Amendment the government should not use the courts to deny a person their religious rights.

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

It's not ok under any circumstance. But she is citing religious freedom as her reason and I am pointing out the government cannot establish (or infringe) laws based on religion.

but they can infringe as long as they are not citing religious freedom is that what you are saying

There could be valid reasons for denying a request for a marriage license. Religious dogma is not a valid reason.

 

[Lakhota]

Are incestuous marriages allowed in Kentucky?

Kentucky Is Exactly What You'd Expect: Married Cousins and Inbred Children

 

[Kondor3]

There is no 97% against 3%. The majority of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...

We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.

As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.

Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.

Delicious.

...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.

It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.

Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date? Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.

After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.

One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.

Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.

Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...

All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.

No Constitutional Amendment required.

 

[Kondor3]

...That is quite a delusional rant, clearly born of desperation and despair. It must e hard being you. So angry and alienated. So fearful of change and unable to accept the reality of progress. I might have to live with and deal with people like you but I thank the Gods and the Goddesses that I am not you . Have a nice day

Desperation and despair?

Hardly.

Merely a harbinger of what's coming.

Angry?

Yes.

The Supreme Court ruling was wrong, in connection with the best interests of The People and the Republic.

Alienated?

Hardly.

I side with the 97% of my fellow countrymen, whose interests lie in direct contrast to the interests of the 3%, for whom this abortion of a ruling was crafted.

I am in very large and very excellent company.

As to progress...

The legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) is not progress.

It is a downward slide into a cesspool of filth, degeneracy, licentiousness and emasculation of the Nation; going the way of other nations who inflicted themselves with thsi disease.

Progress? More like a shift towards national suicide.

As to personal references... thank you for your input.

OK Kondor, I have two assignments for you should you choose to accept them ( and I suggest that you do if you want to establish any credibility here)


1. Explain unemotionally and in objective and unambiguous terms- without the use of pejoratives such as “ sexual pervert” EXACTLY how same sex marriage is detrimental to the best interest of the country and to those who are not directly involved in it.


You might want to look at various jurisdictions-foreign and domestic where same sex marriage has been in effect for over a decade ( you have several choices) and tell us what negative effects on those societies have emerged. Please be sure to use observable, measurable, and verifiable criteria.


Please also be sure to avoid simple correlations that do not control for intervening variables. Rather you are asked to establish a cause and effect relationship. Remember also, we are talking specifically about same sex marriage, not homosexuality in general.


2. Critique the Obergefell decision in terms of constitutional law which includes binding precedents established by case law and explain how you believe that the court could have found for the defendants in that case. Keep in mind that prior to the oral arguments, at the time that the court accepted the case, it was established that the ruling would be based on the 14th amendment so your argument must also be based on that amendment.

Also keep in mind that for the government to deny a group or an individual something that they are claiming as a right that others enjoy, a compelling government interest-or at minimum a rational basis must be established, so your argument must address what the interest or rational basis might be.


For both assignments, please provide appropriate source documentation for all points presented as fact. Good luck. This should keep you out of troubles for a while and may even make you a better person

You'd have better luck asking him what color ends in "urple." Or name any color that begins with "blu."

True.

 

[Vandalshandle]

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool

There are no city or state immigration laws. Only federal immigration laws.

 

[Vandalshandle]

She is a representative of the government. Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

there should be plenty of them

an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back

ran head on into a school bus killing four children

it happens over and over again

Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News

States do not have the authority to enforce federal laws.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool

There are no city or state immigration laws. Only federal immigration laws.

which certain cities and states are not adhering to