Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kim Davis Lawsuits Dismissed

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
http://www.foxnews.com...

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
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Agreed, but why match bigotry with bigotry? Why instigate the situation to the level it graduated to, instead of finding some simple compromise? I mean seriously, the lady has her views, as intolerant as some may FEEL they are, they are her views. Same goes for the other side.

I know all the arguments about being a public servant, and the counter-arguments about her running for and accepting the position prior to this issue even being brought up...blah, blah, blah on both sides.

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:19:57 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Agreed, but why match bigotry with bigotry? Why instigate the situation to the level it graduated to, instead of finding some simple compromise? I mean seriously, the lady has her views, as intolerant as some may FEEL they are, they are her views. Same goes for the other side.
Well, for starters, she was ignoring the directive of the federal court, and state. She was denying people their protected rights. That is not a "well, if that's the way you FEEL". No, its a do it, leave your job, or brace for the legal consequences.

She's a big girl. Let her take responsibility for her own actions.


I know all the arguments about being a public servant, and the counter-arguments about her running for and accepting the position prior to this issue even being brought up...blah, blah, blah on both sides.

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

Because she was, as noted, denying rights to citizens. She was not following the law. We don't just sit on our heals and let that happen to let her leave with dignity. She could have done that day one. "I quit!"
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:31:52 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

They did. In the beginning of the controversy she wouldn't even allow her subordinates to issue the licenses, had she allowed that simple compromise she wouldn't have gone to jail. Kim Davis did not want to step away, she was proud of her bigotry and stood on a public stage with Mike Huckabee after leaving jail. But now it's a mute point because her bigotry did not prevail and gays can get their licenses in the county.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:35:48 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Then fire her, nothing else is needed. She'll suffer enough by losing her job for being incompetent. Lawsuits were a little excessive.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:54:05 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:35:48 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Then fire her, nothing else is needed. She'll suffer enough by losing her job for being incompetent. Lawsuits were a little excessive.

If it were that easy they would have fired her. But she claimed religious discrimination.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:59:12 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:35:48 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Then fire her, nothing else is needed. She'll suffer enough by losing her job for being incompetent. Lawsuits were a little excessive.

That was part of the problem. She could NOT be fired, she was an elected official. The governor could not "fire" Davis. They had to impeach, or she had to resign.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:17:55 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:19:57 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Agreed, but why match bigotry with bigotry? Why instigate the situation to the level it graduated to, instead of finding some simple compromise? I mean seriously, the lady has her views, as intolerant as some may FEEL they are, they are her views. Same goes for the other side.
Well, for starters, she was ignoring the directive of the federal court, and state. She was denying people their protected rights. That is not a "well, if that's the way you FEEL". No, its a do it, leave your job, or brace for the legal consequences.

She's a big girl. Let her take responsibility for her own actions.


I know all the arguments about being a public servant, and the counter-arguments about her running for and accepting the position prior to this issue even being brought up...blah, blah, blah on both sides.

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

Because she was, as noted, denying rights to citizens. She was not following the law. We don't just sit on our heals and let that happen to let her leave with dignity. She could have done that day one. "I quit!"

But you completely ignore the reasonable compromise I suggested in order to satisfy both sides. This could have been used until her term would have expired, then she could have stepped down, and not run for re-election.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:19:42 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:31:52 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

They did. In the beginning of the controversy she wouldn't even allow her subordinates to issue the licenses, had she allowed that simple compromise she wouldn't have gone to jail. Kim Davis did not want to step away, she was proud of her bigotry and stood on a public stage with Mike Huckabee after leaving jail. But now it's a mute point because her bigotry did not prevail and gays can get their licenses in the county.

Her problem there was that yes, her subordinates would have been "issuing" them unofficially; officially however, they would have been signing with a rubber stamp of her signature which not only defeats the purpose, but is also forgery.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:23:29 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:17:55 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:19:57 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Agreed, but why match bigotry with bigotry? Why instigate the situation to the level it graduated to, instead of finding some simple compromise? I mean seriously, the lady has her views, as intolerant as some may FEEL they are, they are her views. Same goes for the other side.
Well, for starters, she was ignoring the directive of the federal court, and state. She was denying people their protected rights. That is not a "well, if that's the way you FEEL". No, its a do it, leave your job, or brace for the legal consequences.

She's a big girl. Let her take responsibility for her own actions.


I know all the arguments about being a public servant, and the counter-arguments about her running for and accepting the position prior to this issue even being brought up...blah, blah, blah on both sides.

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

Because she was, as noted, denying rights to citizens. She was not following the law. We don't just sit on our heals and let that happen to let her leave with dignity. She could have done that day one. "I quit!"

But you completely ignore the reasonable compromise I suggested in order to satisfy both sides. This could have been used until her term would have expired, then she could have stepped down, and not run for re-election.

No. I don't ignore it, I dismiss it outright. She was refusing to follow law, interfering with American citizens exercising their right. There is no compromise to allow her to break law, and deny rights. She had choices. 1) Do the job, follow the law. 2) Quit. 3) Face legal repercussions.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:35:27 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:19:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:31:52 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

They did. In the beginning of the controversy she wouldn't even allow her subordinates to issue the licenses, had she allowed that simple compromise she wouldn't have gone to jail. Kim Davis did not want to step away, she was proud of her bigotry and stood on a public stage with Mike Huckabee after leaving jail. But now it's a mute point because her bigotry did not prevail and gays can get their licenses in the county.

Her problem there was that yes, her subordinates would have been "issuing" them unofficially; officially however, they would have been signing with a rubber stamp of her signature which not only defeats the purpose, but is also forgery.

That's why the law was changed so no name needs to be the license now. My point was there was no simple compromise, stepping away or appeal to dignity, Kim Davis is a bigot who refused to do her job. If she really cared about the state of affairs in she should have resigned in protest, by staying in office she continued to prevent the function of her department, that's why she chose to risk jail of resignation, so she could keep her title and prevent licenses from being issued.

But that doesn't matter, when she was jailed the licenses were issued, weather or not they had her name on them or not I don't know, but given that the law was just changed they probably did have her name on them - it's not forgery - unless you're willing to say any rubber stamped license issued to heterosexual couple the Kim herself did not sign is also forgery.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:23:29 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:17:55 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:19:57 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Agreed, but why match bigotry with bigotry? Why instigate the situation to the level it graduated to, instead of finding some simple compromise? I mean seriously, the lady has her views, as intolerant as some may FEEL they are, they are her views. Same goes for the other side.
Well, for starters, she was ignoring the directive of the federal court, and state. She was denying people their protected rights. That is not a "well, if that's the way you FEEL". No, its a do it, leave your job, or brace for the legal consequences.

She's a big girl. Let her take responsibility for her own actions.


I know all the arguments about being a public servant, and the counter-arguments about her running for and accepting the position prior to this issue even being brought up...blah, blah, blah on both sides.

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

Because she was, as noted, denying rights to citizens. She was not following the law. We don't just sit on our heals and let that happen to let her leave with dignity. She could have done that day one. "I quit!"

But you completely ignore the reasonable compromise I suggested in order to satisfy both sides. This could have been used until her term would have expired, then she could have stepped down, and not run for re-election.

No. I don't ignore it, I dismiss it outright. She was refusing to follow law, interfering with American citizens exercising their right. There is no compromise to allow her to break law, and deny rights. She had choices. 1) Do the job, follow the law. 2) Quit. 3) Face legal repercussions.

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:48:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

Where was Kim Davis's empathy and compassion for the gays whose rights she denied?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:49:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:35:27 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:19:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:31:52 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

They did. In the beginning of the controversy she wouldn't even allow her subordinates to issue the licenses, had she allowed that simple compromise she wouldn't have gone to jail. Kim Davis did not want to step away, she was proud of her bigotry and stood on a public stage with Mike Huckabee after leaving jail. But now it's a mute point because her bigotry did not prevail and gays can get their licenses in the county.

Her problem there was that yes, her subordinates would have been "issuing" them unofficially; officially however, they would have been signing with a rubber stamp of her signature which not only defeats the purpose, but is also forgery.

That's why the law was changed so no name needs to be the license now. My point was there was no simple compromise, stepping away or appeal to dignity, Kim Davis is a bigot who refused to do her job. If she really cared about the state of affairs in she should have resigned in protest, by staying in office she continued to prevent the function of her department, that's why she chose to risk jail of resignation, so she could keep her title and prevent licenses from being issued.

But that doesn't matter, when she was jailed the licenses were issued, weather or not they had her name on them or not I don't know, but given that the law was just changed they probably did have her name on them - it's not forgery - unless you're willing to say any rubber stamped license issued to heterosexual couple the Kim herself did not sign is also forgery.

If the signature stamp was used while Kim was NOT incarcerated....When one of those couples divorce and one side gets a good lawyer, during deliberation regarding asset distribution, better bet that lawyer will argue the invalid status of the marriage due to improper marriage license.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:53:40 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:48:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

Where was Kim Davis's empathy and compassion for the gays whose rights she denied?

Where was the empathy from all the same-sex couples refusing even the simplest of solutions....driving 20 minutes down the road to the next town for a marriage license? Or even just showing maturity by not screaming in her face like a caveman simply because the news camera is 5 feet to your left and filming?
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:59:05 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I hate gay people but its federal law

She shouldve been thrown in jail and not given anything to eat. Would've helped with her obesity problem. Fattie
Im not a Nazi
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:00:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:53:40 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:48:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

Where was Kim Davis's empathy and compassion for the gays whose rights she denied?

Where was the empathy from all the same-sex couples refusing even the simplest of solutions....driving 20 minutes down the road to the next town for a marriage license?

Wow what a pathetic response. Why should gays have to be inconvenienced because their local officials are criminals? You blame those denied their rights, not the person refusing to do her job. You don't give a damn about gays wanting to get married, you're just trying to protect her authoritarian bigotry.

Or even just showing maturity by not screaming in her face like a caveman simply because the news camera is 5 feet to your left and filming?

I like how in your view everyone but Kim Davis has to be mature. She knew she was breaking the law, she didn't care. She had options, she chose martyrdom. End of story.

Oh and your post about lawyers trying to invalidate the marriage licenses if Davis wasn't in jail - Lawyers can argue anything from here to the moon, doesn't mean it would work.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:35:48 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:23:29 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:17:55 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:19:57 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:08:42 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:00:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:11:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/23/2016 9:01:30 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like situations like these should result in the person being fired instead of facing lawsuits.

Well, this was a bit more tricky than just dismissing her. That plus she was denying rights to citizens, so...

Agreed, but why match bigotry with bigotry? Why instigate the situation to the level it graduated to, instead of finding some simple compromise? I mean seriously, the lady has her views, as intolerant as some may FEEL they are, they are her views. Same goes for the other side.
Well, for starters, she was ignoring the directive of the federal court, and state. She was denying people their protected rights. That is not a "well, if that's the way you FEEL". No, its a do it, leave your job, or brace for the legal consequences.

She's a big girl. Let her take responsibility for her own actions.


I know all the arguments about being a public servant, and the counter-arguments about her running for and accepting the position prior to this issue even being brought up...blah, blah, blah on both sides.

The only question that really matters here is: "Why didn't anyone diffuse the situation like an adult and leave her in office through her term and let her step away with dignity; meanwhile electing a second person to the same position to handle and sign same-sex marriage paperwork?

Because she was, as noted, denying rights to citizens. She was not following the law. We don't just sit on our heals and let that happen to let her leave with dignity. She could have done that day one. "I quit!"

But you completely ignore the reasonable compromise I suggested in order to satisfy both sides. This could have been used until her term would have expired, then she could have stepped down, and not run for re-election.

No. I don't ignore it, I dismiss it outright. She was refusing to follow law, interfering with American citizens exercising their right. There is no compromise to allow her to break law, and deny rights. She had choices. 1) Do the job, follow the law. 2) Quit. 3) Face legal repercussions.

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.
Not new law. Court ruling. Further, I have never heard any such thing. When laws change, and you break the laws, you are still guilty of breaking said law. I call bullsh1t on this one.


You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.
What? Really. Sue the SCOTUS because you are NOT complying with the court and constitution?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:43:58 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:53:40 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:48:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

Where was Kim Davis's empathy and compassion for the gays whose rights she denied?

Where was the empathy from all the same-sex couples refusing even the simplest of solutions....driving 20 minutes down the road to the next town for a marriage license? Or even just showing maturity by not screaming in her face like a caveman simply because the news camera is 5 feet to your left and filming?

Also they would have to drive over to the next COUNTY not town. And what if that county clerk was just as ignorant as Kim Davis? Would they have to drive out of State?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:51:16 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:00:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:53:40 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:48:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

Where was Kim Davis's empathy and compassion for the gays whose rights she denied?

Where was the empathy from all the same-sex couples refusing even the simplest of solutions....driving 20 minutes down the road to the next town for a marriage license?

Wow what a pathetic response. Why should gays have to be inconvenienced because their local officials are criminals? You blame those denied their rights, not the person refusing to do her job. You don't give a damn about gays wanting to get married, you're just trying to protect her authoritarian bigotry.


First off, that was far from a pathetic response. Second, (my apologies to any same-sex persons reading this) oh poor, helpless, inconvenienced gays; what tyranny and oppression you must have been put through, being faced with the daunting, exhausting and inhumane....joyous and excitement-filled drive 20 minutes down the road. What MUST have made that treacherous journey so much worse...is the amount of happiness and romance pouring from the car as the officially, newly engaged couple had plenty of areas to pull to the side of the road and embrace each other lovingly, locking lips with a passion that the Gods themselves could not quell.

Oh wait...you decided to stand there in the middle of that little room, cameras focused on you, screaming and yelling at a woman like a classless animal. Seems like the right choice given the situation right?

Sounds pretty stupid when presented with the two options now doesn't it? Who truly presented the pathetic response?

No, see if the Supreme Court would have properly followed separation of powers and sent the issue to congress for debate and vote for new law; the new law would have been correctly implemented which comes with the standard underlining of a Date To Comply / Time For Compliance. In general, this enacts the law upon signing, but places a stipulation on the new law stating a reasonable amount of time (grace period) given to come into full compliance with the new law for just this sort of reason. However, decisions from the Supreme Court do not generally afford this standard of practice as they are not legally allowed to create new laws, only interpret the wording of a disputed law; this was NOT the action taken by the left-leaning side of the court in this case which messed up the entire process.

Or even just showing maturity by not screaming in her face like a caveman simply because the news camera is 5 feet to your left and filming?

I like how in your view everyone but Kim Davis has to be mature. She knew she was breaking the law, she didn't care. She had options, she chose martyrdom. End of story.


Nice miss-characterization. Kim stood for her religious beliefs; presumably with the hopes of reasonable accommodations being granted. No reasonable individual would think she refused to sign same-sex licenses with the intent of performing this act of peaceful protest for the remainder of her term. Additionally, Kim acted in a very mature manner even during the worst of the verbal attacks, do you have footage of her ever screaming at an applicant or approaching them in any aggressive manner? Maturity. We both know the only option she was given was to quit on the spot, which again, shows lack of maturity.

Oh and your post about lawyers trying to invalidate the marriage licenses if Davis wasn't in jail - Lawyers can argue anything from here to the moon, doesn't mean it would work.

If you sign a contractual or legal document under another person's name without their express consent, it is forgery; if shown as a forgery, the documents in question would be null-and-void on the spot, and all agreements within said documents would be invalidated without prejudice.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:08:30 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:35:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:23:29 AM, TBR wrote:

No. I don't ignore it, I dismiss it outright. She was refusing to follow law, interfering with American citizens exercising their right. There is no compromise to allow her to break law, and deny rights. She had choices. 1) Do the job, follow the law. 2) Quit. 3) Face legal repercussions.

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

Not new law. Court ruling. Further, I have never heard any such thing. When laws change, and you break the laws, you are still guilty of breaking said law. I call bullsh1t on this one.


A court ruling which altered an entire 350+ year old culture and set of norms....which was debated numerous times over the years and always resulted in the same conclusion; marriage being between one man and one woman. Changing this debated understanding of marriage constitutes a new law.

What? You never heard of this? So when was Obamacare signed into law? And....when was the first day it was enforced? Yeah...exactly.


You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

What? Really. Sue the SCOTUS because you are NOT complying with the court and constitution?

No...context friend....context. We are talking about empathy shown by local jurisdiction in using judicial privilege to throw away the case and come to an agreeable compromise due to a law of that magnitude being enacted literally overnight. Unreasonably denying a grace period and compromise to a citizen whose life was flipped literally overnight by the SCOTUS ruling could be very well argued locally as inhumane treatment by a decent lawyer.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:14:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:08:30 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:35:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:23:29 AM, TBR wrote:

No. I don't ignore it, I dismiss it outright. She was refusing to follow law, interfering with American citizens exercising their right. There is no compromise to allow her to break law, and deny rights. She had choices. 1) Do the job, follow the law. 2) Quit. 3) Face legal repercussions.

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

Not new law. Court ruling. Further, I have never heard any such thing. When laws change, and you break the laws, you are still guilty of breaking said law. I call bullsh1t on this one.


A court ruling which altered an entire 350+ year old culture and set of norms....which was debated numerous times over the years and always resulted in the same conclusion; marriage being between one man and one woman. Changing this debated understanding of marriage constitutes a new law.

What? You never heard of this? So when was Obamacare signed into law? And....when was the first day it was enforced? Yeah...exactly.


You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

What? Really. Sue the SCOTUS because you are NOT complying with the court and constitution?

No...context friend....context. We are talking about empathy shown by local jurisdiction in using judicial privilege to throw away the case and come to an agreeable compromise due to a law of that magnitude being enacted literally overnight. Unreasonably denying a grace period and compromise to a citizen whose life was flipped literally overnight by the SCOTUS ruling could be very well argued locally as inhumane treatment by a decent lawyer.

If what you want is me to say I have empathy for her, I don't. She had choices. At the end, her choice was to ignore the court, the constitution, and the law.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:16:43 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:43:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:53:40 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:48:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

Where was Kim Davis's empathy and compassion for the gays whose rights she denied?

Where was the empathy from all the same-sex couples refusing even the simplest of solutions....driving 20 minutes down the road to the next town for a marriage license? Or even just showing maturity by not screaming in her face like a caveman simply because the news camera is 5 feet to your left and filming?

Also they would have to drive over to the next COUNTY not town. And what if that county clerk was just as ignorant as Kim Davis? Would they have to drive out of State?

Well, we should consult the all knowing source of information for that answer....history. In 1973, a jolly ol' chap named Martin Cooper invented this amazing device which allowed people to begin transporting our bulky home telephones in our pockets while we traveled. It also allowed telephone conversations to be held between two parties miles apart, without any cables attached. Today we still carry these, cellular telephones, much smaller of course, and they even include the added benefit of on demand internet access, which would allow quick acquisition of all issuers of marriage licenses in the area, including phone numbers.

In short....call the next county over.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:26:35 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:51:16 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:


Seeing how you dodged my question as to why gays or anyone should have to abide by the criminality and or religiosity of government officials - yea your response is still pathetic.

The easiest solution would have been to allow her subordinates to sign the licenses in their own names, but no, that didn't happen. Davis chose to be a martyr.

Also SCOTUS decisions don't have to be ratified by Congress. If Congress has problem with the decision they have to amend the Constitution.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:28:39 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:16:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:43:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:53:40 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:48:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

Where was Kim Davis's empathy and compassion for the gays whose rights she denied?

Where was the empathy from all the same-sex couples refusing even the simplest of solutions....driving 20 minutes down the road to the next town for a marriage license? Or even just showing maturity by not screaming in her face like a caveman simply because the news camera is 5 feet to your left and filming?

Also they would have to drive over to the next COUNTY not town. And what if that county clerk was just as ignorant as Kim Davis? Would they have to drive out of State?

In short....call the next county over.

And if they refused too? Where does it end? Try to answer my original question.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:29:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:14:00 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:08:30 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:35:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:23:29 AM, TBR wrote:

No. I don't ignore it, I dismiss it outright. She was refusing to follow law, interfering with American citizens exercising their right. There is no compromise to allow her to break law, and deny rights. She had choices. 1) Do the job, follow the law. 2) Quit. 3) Face legal repercussions.

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

Not new law. Court ruling. Further, I have never heard any such thing. When laws change, and you break the laws, you are still guilty of breaking said law. I call bullsh1t on this one.


A court ruling which altered an entire 350+ year old culture and set of norms....which was debated numerous times over the years and always resulted in the same conclusion; marriage being between one man and one woman. Changing this debated understanding of marriage constitutes a new law.

What? You never heard of this? So when was Obamacare signed into law? And....when was the first day it was enforced? Yeah...exactly.


You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

What? Really. Sue the SCOTUS because you are NOT complying with the court and constitution?

No...context friend....context. We are talking about empathy shown by local jurisdiction in using judicial privilege to throw away the case and come to an agreeable compromise due to a law of that magnitude being enacted literally overnight. Unreasonably denying a grace period and compromise to a citizen whose life was flipped literally overnight by the SCOTUS ruling could be very well argued locally as inhumane treatment by a decent lawyer.

If what you want is me to say I have empathy for her, I don't. She had choices. At the end, her choice was to ignore the court, the constitution, and the law.

Ex Post Facto Law -- Argued as extenuating circumstances and unreasonable expectations of a government official.

I understand and fully respect your right to your opinion and feelings on whether or not a reasonable compromise should have been negotiated with Kim -- but opinions and feelings do not mean that we should remove morals and ethics from our decisions as a nation. That's my opinion.

I mean heck, that angry man yelling at her on TV....have the mayor go appoint him partners with Kim and let him sign the same-sex documents. Two polar opposite views working side-by-side, ensuring equality in the U.S. marital system together. What progress...and what a statement that would have been....again, in my opinion.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:30:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:16:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:43:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:53:40 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:48:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:38:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Every new law and regulation comes with judicial freedom and judgement on a per case basis, in order to freely apply relief and / or compromise to give all citizens fair opportunity to make all life changes needed to come into full compliance with the law.

You may display to the world your lack of empathy, compassion and understanding to persons you don't agree with, but this action by the courts in this situation, opens the courts to massive lawsuits.

Where was Kim Davis's empathy and compassion for the gays whose rights she denied?

Where was the empathy from all the same-sex couples refusing even the simplest of solutions....driving 20 minutes down the road to the next town for a marriage license? Or even just showing maturity by not screaming in her face like a caveman simply because the news camera is 5 feet to your left and filming?

Also they would have to drive over to the next COUNTY not town. And what if that county clerk was just as ignorant as Kim Davis? Would they have to drive out of State?

Well, we should consult the all knowing source of information for that answer....history. In 1973, a jolly ol' chap named Martin Cooper invented this amazing device which allowed people to begin transporting our bulky home telephones in our pockets while we traveled. It also allowed telephone conversations to be held between two parties miles apart, without any cables attached. Today we still carry these, cellular telephones, much smaller of course, and they even include the added benefit of on demand internet access, which would allow quick acquisition of all issuers of marriage licenses in the area, including phone numbers.

In short....call the next county over.

Gay couples waited a hell of a long time to stop being treated unfairly. Your dismissive attitude."go for a drive" is unacceptable. Kim could have kept to her principals and quit.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:36:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:26:35 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:51:16 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:


Seeing how you dodged my question as to why gays or anyone should have to abide by the criminality and or religiosity of government officials - yea your response is still pathetic.


I didn't dodge anything....compromised should have been negotiated by the judge.

The easiest solution would have been to allow her subordinates to sign the licenses in their own names, but no, that didn't happen. Davis chose to be a martyr.


Legally, they could not sign in their own names due to their position and jobs, only Kim was legally able to sign those documents. They would have had to sign as Kim Davis, still placing her as the authorizing person.

Also SCOTUS decisions don't have to be ratified by Congress. If Congress has problem with the decision they have to amend the Constitution.

Again, the supreme court violated separations of power when they enacted this law. Instead, they should have simply passed the issue down to congress to properly debate, design and enact the law, which would have included all standard protections a new law entails for all citizens.