Why Jail for Kim Davis But Not for Sanctuary City Officials?

[cnm]

Why do I always feel like I'm explaining things to a bunch of five-year-olds whenever I debate lefties?

They're a few years ahead of your reading age?

 

[bripat9643]

Why do I always feel like I'm explaining things to a bunch of five-year-olds whenever I debate lefties?

They're a few years ahead of your reading age?

You're just slaying me with these brilliant retorts!

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody has yet to prove sanctuary cities are illegal

 

[Lakhota]

"Why Jail for Kim Davis But Not for Sanctuary City Officials?"

Are sanctuary churches illegal? Oh, and try to focus on one topic at a time.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Jailing someone in this case, is forcing someone to exchange their beliefs In order to comply with an opposing view of what someone else believes. You can use the system to remove her from office, but to jail her for simply having a different core value of beliefs is wrong - period,

If she is to be jailed for not following the law, then those in office who allowed the illegal immigrant felon to remain in San Francisco deserve the same fate. There is no difference in tolerance

 

[rightwinger]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Jailing someone in this case, is forcing someone to exchange their beliefs In order to comply with an opposing view of what someone else believes. You can use the system to remove her from office, but to jail her for simply having a different core value of beliefs is wrong - period,

If she is to be jailed for not following the law, then those in office who allowed the illegal immigrant felon to remain in San Francisco deserve the same fate. There is no difference in tolerance

She was not jailed for not following the law. She was jailed for contempt

When religious people feel their religion conflicts with their job, they can always leave their job

She cannot force her religious beliefs on the community

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles, she cannot be permitted to not do her job properly.

If the only way to do that is to jail her, so be it.

She has the key of liberty.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Jailing someone in this case, is forcing someone to exchange their beliefs In order to comply with an opposing view of what someone else believes. You can use the system to remove her from office, but to jail her for simply having a different core value of beliefs is wrong - period,

If she is to be jailed for not following the law, then those in office who allowed the illegal immigrant felon to remain in San Francisco deserve the same fate. There is no difference in tolerance

She was not jailed for not following the law. She was jailed for contempt

When religious people feel their religion conflicts with their job, they can always leave their job

She cannot force her religious beliefs on the community

She can be removed from office, but to jail her is wrong and there is nothing to justify jailing someone for their personal beliefs.

 

[rightwinger]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Jailing someone in this case, is forcing someone to exchange their beliefs In order to comply with an opposing view of what someone else believes. You can use the system to remove her from office, but to jail her for simply having a different core value of beliefs is wrong - period,

If she is to be jailed for not following the law, then those in office who allowed the illegal immigrant felon to remain in San Francisco deserve the same fate. There is no difference in tolerance

She was not jailed for not following the law. She was jailed for contempt

When religious people feel their religion conflicts with their job, they can always leave their job

She cannot force her religious beliefs on the community

She can be removed from office, but to jail her is wrong and there is nothing to justify jailing someone for their personal beliefs.

She should stand by her personal beliefs and resign....that is what public officials who have religious conflicts are expected to do

Answer me honestly.......Do you really believe public officials should be permitted to have their religious beliefs define how they will do their job?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Hmmmmm, and forcing a baker to bake for a gay couple is not forcing your beliefs on others???? Double standard or hypocrisy-----------you choose.

So is forcing someone to let the blacks use the same restroom as the whites.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair stood up because she felt she was being forced to accept something that was against her personal set of beliefs. She was not jailed, or coerced into following a set of values that was contrary to her own. It was believed a person had a choice to follow after ones own conscience without consequences, and have her views of beliefs respected. Here we have an individual who is told they must comply to another's view even if it's contrary to that person's own conscience. Then jailed in order to force them to comply against what she personally believes. Yet both instances are each having a national impact on how we are to respect another's personal set of beliefs, and whether you have the right to force your opposing set of beliefs onto others.

 

[rightwinger]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Hmmmmm, and forcing a baker to bake for a gay couple is not forcing your beliefs on others???? Double standard or hypocrisy-----------you choose.

So is forcing someone to let the blacks use the same restroom as the whites.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair stood up because she felt she was being forced to accept something that was against her personal set of beliefs. She was not jailed, or coerced into following a set of values that was contrary to her own. It was believed a person had a choice to follow after ones own conscience without consequences, and have her views of beliefs respected. Here we have an individual who is told they must comply to another's view even if it's contrary to that person's own conscience. Then jailed in order to force them to comply against what she personally believes. Yet both instances are each having a national impact on how we are to respect another's personal set of beliefs, and whether you have the right to force your opposing set of beliefs onto others.

O'Hare stood up against others forcing their religion on her. She was not insisting that schools teach atheism....only that they not force Christian beliefs on her children

 

[billyerock1991]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

where do you get this idea its clearly unconstitutional where does it say only men and women can marry in the constitution??? love to read that section... and your idea that the supreme court is imoral because they held up the law??? HOW DID YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION ???

 

[billyerock1991]

and also....what about concealed,carry....many cities won't issue permits even though they are required to...those officials should be in prison too....and you don't die if you don't get a marriage license.....a woman in New Jersey died because the officials held up her concealed,carry permit.

CONCEALED CARRY IS NOT A FEDERAL LAW YOU IDIOT...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Hmmmmm, and forcing a baker to bake for a gay couple is not forcing your beliefs on others???? Double standard or hypocrisy-----------you choose.

So is forcing someone to let the blacks use the same restroom as the whites.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair stood up because she felt she was being forced to accept something that was against her personal set of beliefs. She was not jailed, or coerced into following a set of values that was contrary to her own. It was believed a person had a choice to follow after ones own conscience without consequences, and have her views of beliefs respected. Here we have an individual who is told they must comply to another's view even if it's contrary to that person's own conscience. Then jailed in order to force them to comply against what she personally believes. Yet both instances are each having a national impact on how we are to respect another's personal set of beliefs, and whether you have the right to force your opposing set of beliefs onto others.

O'Hare stood up against others forcing their religion on her. She was not insisting that schools teach atheism....only that they not force Christian beliefs on her children

It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience." Nope, you cannot refuse government services to people because you disagree with the law.

 

[bodecea]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Jailing someone in this case, is forcing someone to exchange their beliefs In order to comply with an opposing view of what someone else believes. You can use the system to remove her from office, but to jail her for simply having a different core value of beliefs is wrong - period,

If she is to be jailed for not following the law, then those in office who allowed the illegal immigrant felon to remain in San Francisco deserve the same fate. There is no difference in tolerance

She's in jail for contempt. And what about her clerks. The ones she forced, under pain of losing their jobs, to disobey the law? That was religious tyranny on her part.

 

[billyerock1991]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Jailing someone in this case, is forcing someone to exchange their beliefs In order to comply with an opposing view of what someone else believes. You can use the system to remove her from office, but to jail her for simply having a different core value of beliefs is wrong - period,

If she is to be jailed for not following the law, then those in office who allowed the illegal immigrant felon to remain in San Francisco deserve the same fate. There is no difference in tolerance

She was not jailed for not following the law. She was jailed for contempt

When religious people feel their religion conflicts with their job, they can always leave their job

She cannot force her religious beliefs on the community

She can be removed from office, but to jail her is wrong and there is nothing to justify jailing someone for their personal beliefs.

the justification is she refused to up hold the law .... thats the justification .... she is in contempt of the court... if you don't like the courts ruling, aand you refuse to uphold the law, you will be jailed, if ther court says you have to do it ... if you don't like the Idea of doing it because of religious reasons, then you need to resign ... its that simple...

 

[billyerock1991]

"It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience." Nope, you cannot refuse government services to people because you disagree with the law.

its like some one refusing to kill some one on death row ... its against the religion to kill some one ... so they aren't going to allow death row prisoners to be killed ...

 

[rightwinger]

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Hmmmmm, and forcing a baker to bake for a gay couple is not forcing your beliefs on others???? Double standard or hypocrisy-----------you choose.

So is forcing someone to let the blacks use the same restroom as the whites.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair stood up because she felt she was being forced to accept something that was against her personal set of beliefs. She was not jailed, or coerced into following a set of values that was contrary to her own. It was believed a person had a choice to follow after ones own conscience without consequences, and have her views of beliefs respected. Here we have an individual who is told they must comply to another's view even if it's contrary to that person's own conscience. Then jailed in order to force them to comply against what she personally believes. Yet both instances are each having a national impact on how we are to respect another's personal set of beliefs, and whether you have the right to force your opposing set of beliefs onto others.

O'Hare stood up against others forcing their religion on her. She was not insisting that schools teach atheism....only that they not force Christian beliefs on her children

It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

 

[Freewill]

The far right, and some of the far left, are masters of false equivalency, then cry when they get caught.

Yeah, just you just did RW.