- Moderator
- #161
This is the Clean Debate Zone. Stop calling each other names.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Correct.This is so simple.
The US-Constitution is THE law of the land, not Kim Davis. Not Mike Huckabee. Not Calgary Cruz.
The SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the law and passing judgement in cases that make it all the way to the SCOTUS.
That's how it works.
If you don't like it, there are banana republics all over the place willing to take in people who cannot understand how a consitutional Republic based on indirect Democracy works.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
Incorrect.She did deny people - same sex as well as straight couples - marriage licenses. She did not allow her deputies to sign, as she could have.People have a right to their religious conscience.
They do not have a right to impose their conscience upon other people.
Especially agents of the government.
No... A "religious conscience" is totally meaningless to grant me as a right. It's akin to saying I have "free speech" as long as I don't vocalize, write or otherwise express it.
Kim Davis is not imposing her conscience on anyone, she is not saying anyone has to follow her conscience or abide by her religion. She is not saying Kentucky can't change it's law. She is not saying the SCOTUS must change it's ruling. She's not standing in the way of gay people getting married anywhere else. She's not even standing in the way of them getting married in her jurisdiction, she just can't sign the authorization for it or authorize others to do so on her behalf.
She *did* impose her religious view on those taxpayers who pay her salary.
In doing so, she was brought to court and found in contempt.
The judge offered her an accommodation - let the deputies sign.
That's not good enough for her. Her name is *not* on the certificate, and she's still moaning.
And you know what - the judge told her to not interfere with people being granted licenses - but you can bet yer sweet ass, she's going to.
Watch.
She did not "deny" anyone anything.
She did not "impose" anything on anyone.
She is not obligated to accommodate anything in her name.
You can bet your sweet ass that people aren't going to accept violation of their religious freedom.
She did not "deny" anyone anything.
Why are you blatantly lying about something the entire world knows just happened?
attempted to follow a state measure invalidated by the Supreme Court
...she is infringing on the Legal Right to a Marriage license...
You have no legal right to a marriage license, if you did, someone wouldn't need to issue one.
Then let's get rid of marriage licenses altogether. I'd be fine with that. I've never understood why you need permission from the government to get married in the first place.
Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.
You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights.
Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.
Or she can do the honorable thing and resign.You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights.
You can because she is the government and the government cannot discriminate.
No one needs permission from the government to get married....she is infringing on the Legal Right to a Marriage license...
You have no legal right to a marriage license, if you did, someone wouldn't need to issue one.
Then let's get rid of marriage licenses altogether. I'd be fine with that. I've never understood why you need permission from the government to get married in the first place.
They need it to get civilly(government) married.
Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.
Her religious beliefs are irrelevant in her capacity as an agent of the government. The government cannot discriminate
Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.
Her religious beliefs are irrelevant in her capacity as an agent of the government. The government cannot discriminate
The government can also not violate her Constitutional rights.
So there is a problem. Fix it!
BOSS SAID:
"You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights."
Incorrect.
Again, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play.
As the US District Court held yesterday:
“The Court therefore has the ability to grant Davis’ Motion, but only to the extent that she seeks to compel enforcement of her free exercise and free speech rights under the First Amendment. However, Davis has failed to convince the Court that such relief is appropriate.”
http://files.eqcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/103-ORDER-denying-injunction-pending-appeal.pdf
Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.
Her religious beliefs are irrelevant in her capacity as an agent of the government. The government cannot discriminate
The government can also not violate her Constitutional rights.
So there is a problem. Fix it!
Her rights are not being violated. She is violating the law
When asked about his faith, and doing the duties of a public officer:
"But if the time should ever come ...when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." - John F. Kennedy
Or she can do the honorable thing and resign.You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights.
You can because she is the government and the government cannot discriminate.