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

[Redfish]

Been to a chic-filet lately?

Last week. And they no longer support anti-gay marriage groups, not that it matters.

Hey you want one of them chicken sandwiches on Sunday? Ask them why don't they open up on Sunday ? I'm sure there are those offended by them being closed on Sunday, but should they be forced by a manipulated government to open If a few people complain about it ?

Is there any law saying that they should be?

You all keep using law as if every law is valid and should be honored no matter what the sheeple think.. There are laws still on the books today that no judge would up hold nor would anyone be expected to follow, and the gay marriage law should be amongst them..

laws are valid until they are changed or reversed. That applies to all laws including immigration laws that are not being enforced by the president or sanctuary cities.

 

[Seawytch]

Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law

Many commentators have sought to draw an equivalence between Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of a federal court order, and the decision of so-called “sanctuary cities” to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet as a legal matter, the questions presented by the two scenarios are quite distinct. Put directly, Kim Davis is acting in defiance of applicable federal law; sanctuary cities are not — and we can again cite Justice Scalia to explain the difference.

So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.

The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.

One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:

The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. (Scalia)​

 

[Redfish]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

Defying federal law?

 

[Redfish]

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?

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

 

[SwimExpert]

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

No. But then again, they don't have to.

You need to learn the difference between defying federal statutes, and violating other people's constitutionally protected rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

If you're claiming equal protection under the law is a religious belief, then yes, the government certainly can do that -

our government, in its present form.

 

[Redfish]

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

No. But then again, they don't have to.

You need to learn the difference between defying federal statutes, and violating other people's constitutionally protected rights.

are you crazy? When the feds order SFO to keep an illegal felon in jail and they release him they are not defying federal law?

Exactly which constitutionally protected rights apply to people who enter this country illegally and continue to violate our illigration laws?

 

[Redfish]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

If you're claiming equal protection under the law is a religious belief, then yes, the government certainly can do that -

our government, in its present form.

The federal government is forcing citizens to comply with the governments beliefs relative to same sex marriage and forcing citizens to violate their personal religious beliefs on that same issue.

This is an example of the government punishing thoughts. Have you read 1984 by Orwell? He predicted this shit and he was right.

 

[SwimExpert]

are you crazy? When the feds order SFO to keep an illegal felon in jail and they release him they are not defying federal law?

Exactly which constitutionally protected rights apply to people who enter this country illegally and continue to violate our illigration laws?

Come back if and when you find some integrity and are ready to demonstrate some intellectual honesty.

 

[Redfish]

are you crazy? When the feds order SFO to keep an illegal felon in jail and they release him they are not defying federal law?

Exactly which constitutionally protected rights apply to people who enter this country illegally and continue to violate our illigration laws?

Come back if and when you find some integrity and are ready to demonstrate some intellectual honesty.

your straw man is amusing, as are your inane posts on this topic. Criminals are afforded the constitutional protections of a trial, nothing more. Illegal aliens are criminals. Give them a trial, if they are here illegally send them home. Thats what every other country in the world does. Although a muslim country may execute you or imprison you for life for illegal entry.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When the feds order SFO to keep an illegal felon in jail and they release him they are not defying federal law?

That is currently unconstitutional. And the Feds could have deported the guy since they had him before they turned him over to the city eh?

THIRD CIRCUIT HOLDS ICE DETAINERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL | Law Offices Of Farhad Sethna

 

[Camp]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Try to wrap you thinking around this. The first amendment forbids the government from establishing a religion. The county clerk is not just an ordinary citizen. The county clerk is an agent of the government and represents the government in her actions. By refusing to issue a document based on her religious convictions the agent of the government is establishing an endorsed and promoted specific religion via the refusal to issue the document due to religious beliefs. If she were not an agent of the government and representing the government there would be no issue.

 

[Redfish]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

 

[Redfish]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Try to wrap you thinking around this. The first amendment forbids the government from establishing a religion. The county clerk is not just an ordinary citizen. The county clerk is an agent of the government and represents the government in her actions. By refusing to issue a document based on her religious convictions the agent of the government is establishing an endorsed and promoted specific religion via the refusal to issue the document due to religious beliefs. If she were not an agent of the government and representing the government there would be no issue.

I said earlier that she was in violation of the law and subject to the penalties that go with that.

But why is she in jail and denied bail? Is her crime so heinous that she is a danger to humanity?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Try to wrap you thinking around this. The first amendment forbids the government from establishing a religion. The county clerk is not just an ordinary citizen. The county clerk is an agent of the government and represents the government in her actions. By refusing to issue a document based on her religious convictions the agent of the government is establishing an endorsed and promoted specific religion via the refusal to issue the document due to religious beliefs. If she were not an agent of the government and representing the government there would be no issue.

Or, she can strongly believe in her position and allow other clerks in her office to issue the licenses which would be a religious accommodation, which would also be fine, but she is refusing the let the other clerks do that either and so, she sits in jail while they do her job for her.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Try to wrap you thinking around this. The first amendment forbids the government from establishing a religion. The county clerk is not just an ordinary citizen. The county clerk is an agent of the government and represents the government in her actions. By refusing to issue a document based on her religious convictions the agent of the government is establishing an endorsed and promoted specific religion via the refusal to issue the document due to religious beliefs. If she were not an agent of the government and representing the government there would be no issue.

I said earlier that she was in violation of the law and subject to the penalties that go with that.

But why is she in jail and denied bail? Is her crime so heinous that she is a danger to humanity?

She is in jail becasue a fine would be paid by others, and if free she would be back at her job interfering with the issuing of licenses again. There is no bail in Contempt, and she is being held one country over so that others are allowed to take over her duties. She is her own jailer. If she complies with the law, shes out...

 

[rightwinger]

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?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

You don't get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

 

[Jantje_Smit]

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

Funny, I don't see all the pro-bible republicans lining up to propose a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage.

Why not?