Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kentucky Clerk Defies Supreme Court

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 4:49:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This isn't news. This was an inevitability.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 4:59:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:49:35 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This isn't news. This was an inevitability.

True, but it is interesting to me nonetheless...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 5:18:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

Her job is to act as a clerk and issue marriage licenses. I'd be willing to bet that refusing "under god's authority" not to issue a marriage license is not part of her job discription. Personally, I'd like to see her arrested and charged with contempt of court. But simply firing her would suffice.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 5:19:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 5:18:36 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

Her job is to act as a clerk and issue marriage licenses. I'd be willing to bet that refusing "under god's authority" not to issue a marriage license is not part of her job discription. Personally, I'd like to see her arrested and charged with contempt of court. But simply firing her would suffice.

Agreed.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 10:09:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

I agree, only if it's a private business though.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 1:52:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
She sounds like an attention seeker. She has a case though. Several similar cases which have reached the Supreme Court, seem to side with the employee, in this type of situation.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:05:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

Being religious as I am, she shouldn't have to issue licenses against her beliefs. But, to ease conflict and keep the peace, she should resign.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:13:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 3:05:44 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

Being religious as I am, she shouldn't have to issue licenses against her beliefs. But, to ease conflict and keep the peace, she should resign.

When you take an oath as a public official, you vow to uphold the law. The Constitution prohibits the state establishment of religion, and refusing to fulfill government obligations on the basis of religion is establishing religious tests for upholding the laws. If you want to hold public office, you MUST be willing to perform that job even if it requires you to violate your religious beliefs, otherwise you have no business being a public official. She should perform her job or be placed in jail for contempt of court.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:21:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 10:09:53 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

I agree, only if it's a private business though.

She's a county clerk... no private businesses do what she does. What do you mean?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:03:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 3:13:01 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/3/2015 3:05:44 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

Being religious as I am, she shouldn't have to issue licenses against her beliefs. But, to ease conflict and keep the peace, she should resign.

When you take an oath as a public official, you vow to uphold the law. The Constitution prohibits the state establishment of religion, and refusing to fulfill government obligations on the basis of religion is establishing religious tests for upholding the laws. If you want to hold public office, you MUST be willing to perform that job even if it requires you to violate your religious beliefs, otherwise you have no business being a public official. She should perform her job or be placed in jail for contempt of court.

I understand. She also made that vow before she was required to issue licenses for gay couples. There should be some merit there. It's also just that if we DO have freedom of religion, the government shouldn't be able to violate it. I don't really know how to explain or rationalize myself. Hopefully what I'm saying is making sense. My brain is pretty fried right now.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:44:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 4:03:41 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/3/2015 3:13:01 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/3/2015 3:05:44 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

Being religious as I am, she shouldn't have to issue licenses against her beliefs. But, to ease conflict and keep the peace, she should resign.

When you take an oath as a public official, you vow to uphold the law. The Constitution prohibits the state establishment of religion, and refusing to fulfill government obligations on the basis of religion is establishing religious tests for upholding the laws. If you want to hold public office, you MUST be willing to perform that job even if it requires you to violate your religious beliefs, otherwise you have no business being a public official. She should perform her job or be placed in jail for contempt of court.

I understand. She also made that vow before she was required to issue licenses for gay couples. There should be some merit there.

She took that vow knowing that it was possible laws could be changed, and that she would be required to enforce those laws. It doesn't change her obligation when she made the vow, because the vow applies to all laws coming into force under her tenure, and she has a responsibility, therefore, to enforce those laws.

It's also just that if we DO have freedom of religion, the government shouldn't be able to violate it.

The government is a-religious. That is to say, the government cannot act in a way that is religiously biased. In her capacity as a county clerk, the woman is "the government." When she fails to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, this is what in effect is happening: the government is claiming that it cannot give gay couples rights because of its religious beliefs. This violates the Constitution.

The government is not infringing on the woman's freedom of religion, because when she took her oath of office, she also forswore and gave up any right she had not to perform her duties as a government official due to her religious beliefs. When she became a public official, she acquired the obligation to act impartially with regards to religion.

So, there is NO violation of religious freedom in this situation. There is a REAL violation of the law, of her responsibilities as a public official, and of the rights of the couples to whom she has denied their lawful benefits.

I have literally zero sympathy for this woman, because she has no ground to stand on--legally, ethically, or morally.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:50:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 4:03:41 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/3/2015 3:13:01 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/3/2015 3:05:44 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

Being religious as I am, she shouldn't have to issue licenses against her beliefs. But, to ease conflict and keep the peace, she should resign.

When you take an oath as a public official, you vow to uphold the law. The Constitution prohibits the state establishment of religion, and refusing to fulfill government obligations on the basis of religion is establishing religious tests for upholding the laws. If you want to hold public office, you MUST be willing to perform that job even if it requires you to violate your religious beliefs, otherwise you have no business being a public official. She should perform her job or be placed in jail for contempt of court.

I understand. She also made that vow before she was required to issue licenses for gay couples. There should be some merit there. It's also just that if we DO have freedom of religion, the government shouldn't be able to violate it. I don't really know how to explain or rationalize myself. Hopefully what I'm saying is making sense. My brain is pretty fried right now.

It's not infringing upon the freedom of practicing religion to tell a government employee to follow the law. From her position, she should've considered that the government would make decisions she didn't agree with. Nonetheless, she has to follow the order, or else get another job. She has to do what the state tells her to do. If that means go against a belief she holds in a religious setting - so be it. Government itself is secular to uphold the freedom from religion for citizens.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 1:19:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

So we can claim "Gods authority" to get out of any law we don't like ? cool.

I am gonna need a gun and a list of shrimp eating, christmas pagan celebrating, mixed clothing, divorced, not virgins on their wedding night evangelical christians.

I got the Lords work to do...........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 7:02:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 1:19:57 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

So we can claim "Gods authority" to get out of any law we don't like ? cool.

I am gonna need a gun and a list of shrimp eating, christmas pagan celebrating, mixed clothing, divorced, not virgins on their wedding night evangelical christians.

I got the Lords work to do...........

As of about 1:15 PM EDT today, Sept. 3, 2015 Kim Davis is in the custody of Federal Marshalls for contempt of court. Judge Bunning has ordered her to jail until she complies with the law. Her staff has also been told they will subject themselves to the same measures if they refuse to issue marriage license.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 3:06:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have literally zero sympathy for this woman, because she has no ground to stand on--legally, ethically, or morally.

Yeah, I can see your basis for feeling that way. I'm not trying to cause confrontation, I was just giving my personal opinion, as you asked.

Also, though, I'd like to know your opinion on this article:
http://www.nbcnews.com...
Particularly what Huckabee said about it.
Thoughts?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 3:11:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 3:06:11 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I have literally zero sympathy for this woman, because she has no ground to stand on--legally, ethically, or morally.

Yeah, I can see your basis for feeling that way. I'm not trying to cause confrontation, I was just giving my personal opinion, as you asked.

I mean, this is more an issue of fact than opinion. You would be objectively wrong to assert that her religious freedom is being violated by this ruling.

http://www.nbcnews.com...
Particularly what Huckabee said about it.
Thoughts?

Huckabee doesn't understand basic Constitutional law, as that article demonstrates. He is all bluster, no substance.

Rulings are binding interpretations of the law. If the Court interprets the law to give gay couples a right to marry, every clerk in the nation is REQUIRED to issue the licenses, because now the law (as it is officially interpreted) says that gay people are entitled to marriage licenses.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 3:19:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 3:11:31 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:06:11 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I have literally zero sympathy for this woman, because she has no ground to stand on--legally, ethically, or morally.

Yeah, I can see your basis for feeling that way. I'm not trying to cause confrontation, I was just giving my personal opinion, as you asked.

I mean, this is more an issue of fact than opinion. You would be objectively wrong to assert that her religious freedom is being violated by this ruling.

I'd say it's really a balance between the two, but I'd agree that it's predominantly an issue of fact. However, I'm not necessarily wrong to assert her religious freedom is being violated. Yes, she made a decision that was wrong if she wanted to keep her religious freedom, but it's a violation nonetheless.

She believes (because of her religion) that gay marriage is wrong. As such, forcing her to do so is a violation or her religious freedom. But allow me to reiterate, I do understand that she forfeited her right to have the religious freedom by assuming the job she had.

http://www.nbcnews.com...
Particularly what Huckabee said about it.
Thoughts?

Huckabee doesn't understand basic Constitutional law, as that article demonstrates. He is all bluster, no substance.

Rulings are binding interpretations of the law. If the Court interprets the law to give gay couples a right to marry, every clerk in the nation is REQUIRED to issue the licenses, because now the law (as it is officially interpreted) says that gay people are entitled to marriage licenses.

Eh. But what real authority *should* SCOTUS have? (I do understand your point, and it's reasonable, I just believe in a Higher Power, so I'm inclined to agree that she shouldn't be forced to issue those licenses)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 3:27:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 3:19:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:11:31 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:06:11 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I have literally zero sympathy for this woman, because she has no ground to stand on--legally, ethically, or morally.

Yeah, I can see your basis for feeling that way. I'm not trying to cause confrontation, I was just giving my personal opinion, as you asked.

I mean, this is more an issue of fact than opinion. You would be objectively wrong to assert that her religious freedom is being violated by this ruling.

I'd say it's really a balance between the two, but I'd agree that it's predominantly an issue of fact. However, I'm not necessarily wrong to assert her religious freedom is being violated. Yes, she made a decision that was wrong if she wanted to keep her religious freedom, but it's a violation nonetheless.

It's important here to understand the concept of "waiving" rights. If I waive my right to be interrogated without a lawyer present, it is not a violation of my rights to question me without a lawyer. In the case of elected officials, when they run for and assume office, they do so with the knowledge that they must carry out their duties without religious biases. By taking public office, therefore, people implicitly waive their right to raise religious objections to their work, and so forcing them to do their job is NOT a violation of their religious freedoms. Period.

She believes (because of her religion) that gay marriage is wrong. As such, forcing her to do so is a violation or her religious freedom. But allow me to reiterate, I do understand that she forfeited her right to have the religious freedom by assuming the job she had.

If you believe that, then you must also believe that there is not violation of her religious freedom, because, to put it bluntly, she gave up her religious freedom when she took office, at least to the extent that it might impact her work. So, forcing her to issue same-sex marriage licenses doesn't violate her rights, because she doesn't have a right not to do it.

She can like it or lump it, but her rights are not being infringed, and she has no ground to stand on, whatever her erroneous beliefs.

http://www.nbcnews.com...
Particularly what Huckabee said about it.
Thoughts?

Huckabee doesn't understand basic Constitutional law, as that article demonstrates. He is all bluster, no substance.

Rulings are binding interpretations of the law. If the Court interprets the law to give gay couples a right to marry, every clerk in the nation is REQUIRED to issue the licenses, because now the law (as it is officially interpreted) says that gay people are entitled to marriage licenses.

Eh. But what real authority *should* SCOTUS have? (I do understand your point, and it's reasonable, I just believe in a Higher Power, so I'm inclined to agree that she shouldn't be forced to issue those licenses)

I think SCOTUS has all the power it should, and if Huckabee thinks--as he does--that Congress alone can override them, he is an idiot when it comes to the law, and he should not be President with that little legal knowledge.

As for the Higher Power, as an agnostic, I think we need to settle things on our own. Belief in a higher power, however sincere, is merely speculative, and we could never know this power's true desires even if we wanted to. Using our laws is the only legitimate way we can run our nation. It cannot be run theocratically.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 4:00:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 3:27:27 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:19:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:11:31 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:06:11 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I have literally zero sympathy for this woman, because she has no ground to stand on--legally, ethically, or morally.

Yeah, I can see your basis for feeling that way. I'm not trying to cause confrontation, I was just giving my personal opinion, as you asked.

I mean, this is more an issue of fact than opinion. You would be objectively wrong to assert that her religious freedom is being violated by this ruling.

I'd say it's really a balance between the two, but I'd agree that it's predominantly an issue of fact. However, I'm not necessarily wrong to assert her religious freedom is being violated. Yes, she made a decision that was wrong if she wanted to keep her religious freedom, but it's a violation nonetheless.

It's important here to understand the concept of "waiving" rights. If I waive my right to be interrogated without a lawyer present, it is not a violation of my rights to question me without a lawyer. In the case of elected officials, when they run for and assume office, they do so with the knowledge that they must carry out their duties without religious biases. By taking public office, therefore, people implicitly waive their right to raise religious objections to their work, and so forcing them to do their job is NOT a violation of their religious freedoms. Period.

That's what I said. Perhaps they violated these rights themselves (as you and I have both explained), but it still is a violation.

She believes (because of her religion) that gay marriage is wrong. As such, forcing her to do so is a violation or her religious freedom. But allow me to reiterate, I do understand that she forfeited her right to have the religious freedom by assuming the job she had.

If you believe that, then you must also believe that there is not violation of her religious freedom, because, to put it bluntly, she gave up her religious freedom when she took office, at least to the extent that it might impact her work. So, forcing her to issue same-sex marriage licenses doesn't violate her rights, because she doesn't have a right not to do it.

She can like it or lump it, but her rights are not being infringed, and she has no ground to stand on, whatever her erroneous beliefs.

http://www.nbcnews.com...
Particularly what Huckabee said about it.
Thoughts?

Huckabee doesn't understand basic Constitutional law, as that article demonstrates. He is all bluster, no substance.

Rulings are binding interpretations of the law. If the Court interprets the law to give gay couples a right to marry, every clerk in the nation is REQUIRED to issue the licenses, because now the law (as it is officially interpreted) says that gay people are entitled to marriage licenses.

Eh. But what real authority *should* SCOTUS have? (I do understand your point, and it's reasonable, I just believe in a Higher Power, so I'm inclined to agree that she shouldn't be forced to issue those licenses)

I think SCOTUS has all the power it should, and if Huckabee thinks--as he does--that Congress alone can override them, he is an idiot when it comes to the law, and he should not be President with that little legal knowledge.

I think it's sad that SCOTUS had/has as much power as it did/does. But this is solely from a religious standpoint.

As for the Higher Power, as an agnostic, I think we need to settle things on our own. Belief in a higher power, however sincere, is merely speculative, and we could never know this power's true desires even if we wanted to. Using our laws is the only legitimate way we can run our nation. It cannot be run theocratically.

I wasn't intending to force my beliefs on you, or anyone else, I was merely stating my inclination based on that. Sorry if it came out wrong.

In all of this, I hope you're not upset at me, or dislike me... I've only been trying to respond to the forum post as it was posed.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 4:14:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 4:00:28 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:27:27 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:19:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:11:31 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:06:11 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I have literally zero sympathy for this woman, because she has no ground to stand on--legally, ethically, or morally.

Yeah, I can see your basis for feeling that way. I'm not trying to cause confrontation, I was just giving my personal opinion, as you asked.

I mean, this is more an issue of fact than opinion. You would be objectively wrong to assert that her religious freedom is being violated by this ruling.

I'd say it's really a balance between the two, but I'd agree that it's predominantly an issue of fact. However, I'm not necessarily wrong to assert her religious freedom is being violated. Yes, she made a decision that was wrong if she wanted to keep her religious freedom, but it's a violation nonetheless.

It's important here to understand the concept of "waiving" rights. If I waive my right to be interrogated without a lawyer present, it is not a violation of my rights to question me without a lawyer. In the case of elected officials, when they run for and assume office, they do so with the knowledge that they must carry out their duties without religious biases. By taking public office, therefore, people implicitly waive their right to raise religious objections to their work, and so forcing them to do their job is NOT a violation of their religious freedoms. Period.

That's what I said. Perhaps they violated these rights themselves (as you and I have both explained), but it still is a violation.

If there is no right present, no right can be violated. The clerk has no right to religious freedom present, and so her right cannot be violated. Like, it is a fact that no rights violation occurred because she didn't have the right in the first place. She voluntarily gave it up.

Rulings are binding interpretations of the law. If the Court interprets the law to give gay couples a right to marry, every clerk in the nation is REQUIRED to issue the licenses, because now the law (as it is officially interpreted) says that gay people are entitled to marriage licenses.

Eh. But what real authority *should* SCOTUS have? (I do understand your point, and it's reasonable, I just believe in a Higher Power, so I'm inclined to agree that she shouldn't be forced to issue those licenses)

I think SCOTUS has all the power it should, and if Huckabee thinks--as he does--that Congress alone can override them, he is an idiot when it comes to the law, and he should not be President with that little legal knowledge.

I think it's sad that SCOTUS had/has as much power as it did/does. But this is solely from a religious standpoint.

I like SCOTUS's power, if only because they can check Congress more effectively than the President can.

As for the Higher Power, as an agnostic, I think we need to settle things on our own. Belief in a higher power, however sincere, is merely speculative, and we could never know this power's true desires even if we wanted to. Using our laws is the only legitimate way we can run our nation. It cannot be run theocratically.

I wasn't intending to force my beliefs on you, or anyone else, I was merely stating my inclination based on that. Sorry if it came out wrong.

I didn't say you were. I just said it would be a bad idea to govern as if there were a higher power.

In all of this, I hope you're not upset at me, or dislike me... I've only been trying to respond to the forum post as it was posed.

No, I don't dislike you. You're on my good side b/c of LD :P I just disagree with you on this one issue.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 4:15:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Somebody just told me she was arrested for this. If that's the case it might be going too far. I understand firing somebody but WTF?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 4:16:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 4:14:14 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 4:00:28 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:27:27 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:19:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:11:31 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/4/2015 3:06:11 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I have literally zero sympathy for this woman, because she has no ground to stand on--legally, ethically, or morally.

Yeah, I can see your basis for feeling that way. I'm not trying to cause confrontation, I was just giving my personal opinion, as you asked.

I mean, this is more an issue of fact than opinion. You would be objectively wrong to assert that her religious freedom is being violated by this ruling.

I'd say it's really a balance between the two, but I'd agree that it's predominantly an issue of fact. However, I'm not necessarily wrong to assert her religious freedom is being violated. Yes, she made a decision that was wrong if she wanted to keep her religious freedom, but it's a violation nonetheless.

It's important here to understand the concept of "waiving" rights. If I waive my right to be interrogated without a lawyer present, it is not a violation of my rights to question me without a lawyer. In the case of elected officials, when they run for and assume office, they do so with the knowledge that they must carry out their duties without religious biases. By taking public office, therefore, people implicitly waive their right to raise religious objections to their work, and so forcing them to do their job is NOT a violation of their religious freedoms. Period.

That's what I said. Perhaps they violated these rights themselves (as you and I have both explained), but it still is a violation.

If there is no right present, no right can be violated. The clerk has no right to religious freedom present, and so her right cannot be violated. Like, it is a fact that no rights violation occurred because she didn't have the right in the first place. She voluntarily gave it up.

Noted.

Rulings are binding interpretations of the law. If the Court interprets the law to give gay couples a right to marry, every clerk in the nation is REQUIRED to issue the licenses, because now the law (as it is officially interpreted) says that gay people are entitled to marriage licenses.

Eh. But what real authority *should* SCOTUS have? (I do understand your point, and it's reasonable, I just believe in a Higher Power, so I'm inclined to agree that she shouldn't be forced to issue those licenses)

I think SCOTUS has all the power it should, and if Huckabee thinks--as he does--that Congress alone can override them, he is an idiot when it comes to the law, and he should not be President with that little legal knowledge.

I think it's sad that SCOTUS had/has as much power as it did/does. But this is solely from a religious standpoint.

I like SCOTUS's power, if only because they can check Congress more effectively than the President can.

Noted.

As for the Higher Power, as an agnostic, I think we need to settle things on our own. Belief in a higher power, however sincere, is merely speculative, and we could never know this power's true desires even if we wanted to. Using our laws is the only legitimate way we can run our nation. It cannot be run theocratically.

I wasn't intending to force my beliefs on you, or anyone else, I was merely stating my inclination based on that. Sorry if it came out wrong.

I didn't say you were. I just said it would be a bad idea to govern as if there were a higher power.

Noted.

In all of this, I hope you're not upset at me, or dislike me... I've only been trying to respond to the forum post as it was posed.

No, I don't dislike you. You're on my good side b/c of LD :P I just disagree with you on this one issue.

Alright. Well that's encouraging. :P Have a good evening. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 2:29:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 4:15:19 AM, Wylted wrote:
Somebody just told me she was arrested for this. If that's the case it might be going too far. I understand firing somebody but WTF?

She can't be fired, she is an elected official. She would have to be impeached by special session of the local legislature. The court feels she is in the wrong, and can keep assessing penalties (enabling the law to be broken, continually), they can ask for her resignation (which she won't tender), or they can incarcerate her due to contempt which enables the law to be followed.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 5:12:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson (at least widely attributed to him)

As the article below shows, when the left disobeys the law in the US there is no jail.

A prime example was Gary Newsom who as San Francisco Mayor forced clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples - in contravention of the law. Was he sent to jail until he reversed his stance?

http://thefederalist.com...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 6:07:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 4:15:19 AM, Wylted wrote:
Somebody just told me she was arrested for this. If that's the case it might be going too far. I understand firing somebody but WTF?

She broke the law. Why is jail not appropriate?

She can't be impeached; the KY legislature is too red for that. She can't be fined meaningfully, since rich conservative groups were already fundraising to pay her fines for her. She can't be fired since she is an elected official. Therefore, the ONLY option the court really had to punish her was jail.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 8:53:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As an Englishman I cannot see why they can't find her another less well paid job.
Often you will find with immovable religious types the threat of reduced income does the trick. The job is no longer suitable to her.
It reminds me of doctors who are excused from performing abortions; they get away with it because of the shortage of doctors but I think there should always be a finacial penalty.
Religion, like many human professions , is a thin veneer used to cover our more unpleasent hidden characteristics or as a stick to control others.
When the chips are down we are all the same.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 12:35:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

I have a thought, why aren't all the public officials in sanctuary cities not thrown in jail for defying federal law/ What's good for the county clerk is good for them. Defying federal law is defying federal law. Or are laws something that the judicial system picks and chooses to enforce based on ideology and political agendas. I am guessing it is the later and absolutely provable. The rule of law is meaningless in America.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 12:39:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 5:18:36 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/2/2015 4:15:30 AM, bsh1 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com...

Thoughts?

Her job is to act as a clerk and issue marriage licenses. I'd be willing to bet that refusing "under god's authority" not to issue a marriage license is not part of her job discription. Personally, I'd like to see her arrested and charged with contempt of court. But simply firing her would suffice.

What about public officials who's job it is to enforce immigration laws That is their job, isn't? I can assume you want them thrown in jail too, if you were to be consistent with your statement.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%