• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Willing to Die to Deny SSM

Chagos said:
That mean you've hiked the Appalachian trail, ever?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

As a side, we had a first class about a year, year and a half ago hike the trail (all the way) with her family. Took months.
 
calamity said:
I see it as a long war. Will the feds have the balls to send marshals into Eastern KY? Maybe. Will it end the issue? No. These people will dig their heels in and holler, "My religious rights are being violated!"
Click to expand...

And there were those who claimed the same thing about interracial marriage. Once you start hitting them where it hurts, like forcing them to pay attorney fees or other costs incurred for having to postpone weddings/marriages or for having to fight the matter in court, and forcing them to pay, they won't fight that hard (and yes, this happened with interracial marriage).

https://www.aclu.org/news/nc-interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-1970s-speaks-out-against-sb-2

"In 1977, a federal court ordered a magistrate to perform their marriage, and the two magistrates who originally refused were ordered to pay legal fees."

How exactly is "I will not be involved in the marriage of a same sex couple due to my religious beliefs" different from "I will not be involved in the marriage of an interracial couple due to my religious beliefs", besides "well I agree with one belief but not the other"?
 
roguenuke said:
The conditions were not changed, no more than those who had to provide marriage licenses 50 years ago for interracial couples in pretty much the same places did. Laws change, including who might be legally able to enter into a marriage, despite their personal beliefs.

I don't think government employees should have unions, especially not those elected or appointed to those positions. The people should be who they are beholden to, who they turn to when they feel they are being mistreated by others within government.
Click to expand...
Its rather comical that in the same breathe you say the conditions havent changed you say they have indeed changed changed. Then you follow it up with your opinion which is all well and good but is a-not our reality and b-not relevant to how unions work.
 
VanceMack said:
Its rather comical that in the same breathe you say the conditions havent changed you say they have indeed changed changed. Then you follow it up with your opinion which is all well and good but is a-not our reality and b-not relevant to how unions work.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep posting these lie as if anybody will beliefe them. The comedy around here is the facts that multiple posters have poster that destroy your false claims and prove the factually wrong.:lamo
Your lie was proven to be wrong, you can admit that fact or continue to deny it and have many more posters destroy it and mock it.

Fact remains nothing as changed

Before SSM clerks must issue marriage licenses, after SSM that reamins true

I will ask you all my questions again and keep DIRECTLY CHALLENGING YOU until you answer them

A.) show us where it was legal for clerks to deny marriages, violate others rights and break the law based on thier faith?
B.) what morality were you referring too?
C.) why does your opinion of immoral acts matter to this topic?

Facts > than your false claims
 
VanceMack said:
If you work in a shop with union representation, that would not be the case and was my point.
Click to expand...

That's actually not true. Even in a union shop, employees must obey the law.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's actually not true. Even in a union shop, employees must obey the law.
Click to expand...
In a Union shop, management must clear pretty much every change AND make allowances where change to status quo is incompatible. Hell...we had to get union agreements to switch phone numbers or move peoples desks. And at the end of the day...the clerk was hired under a certain set of circumstances and unless there is some record to indicate otherwise, has not prior to the change had any problems. A union would and should rep the employee.
Occasionally, even the ACLU reps people they disagree with, not because they agree with them, but because they look beyond their own politics and ideology and do the right thing.
 
AGENT J said:
oh so when you said REGION is not following federal law and that region is outlined on your map and it includes 25 million people you only really meant two clerks and NOT the region????

got it!


so we are back to the fact that your claim was 100% factually wrong LMAO
your post fails and gets destroyed again as usual :)
Click to expand...
Well, don't misquote me.
 
roguenuke said:
And there were those who claimed the same thing about interracial marriage. Once you start hitting them where it hurts, like forcing them to pay attorney fees or other costs incurred for having to postpone weddings/marriages or for having to fight the matter in court, and forcing them to pay, they won't fight that hard (and yes, this happened with interracial marriage).

https://www.aclu.org/news/nc-interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-1970s-speaks-out-against-sb-2

"In 1977, a federal court ordered a magistrate to perform their marriage, and the two magistrates who originally refused were ordered to pay legal fees."

How exactly is "I will not be involved in the marriage of a same sex couple due to my religious beliefs" different from "I will not be involved in the marriage of an interracial couple due to my religious beliefs", besides "well I agree with one belief but not the other"?
Click to expand...

Legally there is no difference. Religiously there may be a world of difference. I would not know. I'm not religious.
 
calamity said:
Legally there is no difference. Religiously there may be a world of difference. I would not know. I'm not religious.
Click to expand...

Then legally hit them where it hurts, as was done in the past, by making them pay fees, court costs, fines, expenses, whatever it takes, and putting them in jail as necessary, which seemed to work just fine in the past to dissuade such protests based on religious objections.
 
VanceMack said:
Its rather comical that in the same breathe you say the conditions havent changed you say they have indeed changed changed. Then you follow it up with your opinion which is all well and good but is a-not our reality and b-not relevant to how unions work.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what the conditions of employment are for a court clerk? They begin the job under the condition that laws change. That is not a change in condition to their employment, just a change in the laws.

Even for union workers, as you keep trying to compare county clerks to, if a law was passed that all people who work greater than 10 feet up had to wear a helmet and elbow pads (provided by the employer) to perform work at that level, then union or not, the workers would have to wear a helmet and elbow pads to perform work at 10 feet and up. The employer didn't change the condition of work, rather the law itself changed, which changed the requirements the person working must work under. That is the "change" that occurred here.

So address that actual change rather than this pathetic drive towards trying to make some comparison to union workers, who do still have to endure changes that their unions may not approve of, but tough diddlies.
 
VanceMack said:
In a Union shop, management must clear pretty much every change AND make allowances where change to status quo is incompatible. Hell...we had to get union agreements to switch phone numbers or move peoples desks. And at the end of the day...the clerk was hired under a certain set of circumstances and unless there is some record to indicate otherwise, has not prior to the change had any problems. A union would and should rep the employee.
Occasionally, even the ACLU reps people they disagree with, not because they agree with them, but because they look beyond their own politics and ideology and do the right thing.
Click to expand...

The ACLU represents people who are actually being discriminated against, having their real civil liberties repressed. The link I posted earlier is from the ACLU, who supported the Persons against the magistrates who were refusing them a marriage based on their religious freedom.
 
calamity said:
Well, don't misquote me.
Click to expand...

Translation: never did you are claiming ANOTHER lie and you are still dodging and running from the fact your quoted statement was 100% factually wrong :D
 
calamity said:
Legally there is no difference. Religiously there may be a world of difference. I would not know. I'm not religious.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing religion factually doesnt matter to this topic as far as the law and our rights are concerned. Its meaningless.
 
roguenuke said:
She needs to stop. She is making herself look like more and more of an idiot with everything she says. She doesn't have the authority to speak for God, nor does God matter to doing your job as a government employee.
Click to expand...

I actually hope she never stops, this way she ends up fired, fined and in jail for sure and it can be an example for any other that want to choose to be criminals and **** on peoples rights.
 
roguenuke said:
Do you understand what the conditions of employment are for a court clerk? They begin the job under the condition that laws change. That is not a change in condition to their employment, just a change in the laws.

Even for union workers, as you keep trying to compare county clerks to, if a law was passed that all people who work greater than 10 feet up had to wear a helmet and elbow pads (provided by the employer) to perform work at that level, then union or not, the workers would have to wear a helmet and elbow pads to perform work at 10 feet and up. The employer didn't change the condition of work, rather the law itself changed, which changed the requirements the person working must work under. That is the "change" that occurred here.

So address that actual change rather than this pathetic drive towards trying to make some comparison to union workers, who do still have to endure changes that their unions may not approve of, but tough diddlies.
Click to expand...

She actually is an elected official, so she can't be fired... impeached after the next legislative (but it's Kentucky, so you know that won't happen)> However, she can be jailed and/or fined.
 
calamity said:
Yep, equal protection clause of the 14th guarantees that gays have a right to marry just like straights.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Anthony Kennedy based his diktat on substantive due process--the same justification use forty years earlier for Roe v. Wade. He tacked on a brief and incoherent equal protection justification at the end that convinced no one except those who want to be gulled. In fact it is so odd and unconvincing that Chief Justice Roberts commented in his dissenting opinion that it violates a rule the Court regularly observes, which is not to invoke other bases for resolving an issue when one has already resolved it.

And, the First ensures that the state will make no law establishing a religion. Hence, Kentucky redneck county clerk in the OP cannot use his state job to impose his religious belief that gays should not marry on everyone else.
Click to expand...

I don't think that argument goes anywhere. If you know of any case law precedent for it, I'd like to read it.
 
Many people in this country are getting an education in minority civil rights and liberties. Passing a law and having the Courts deliver their judgment is only part of the battle. The rest is a hard, long slog of actually forcing people to comply.

Sadly, for a number of groups, the troubles *never* end, despite legal requirements to do so.
 
What I find ironic about Kim Davis being so concerned about Gay Marriage is she has been divorced 3 times, and is currently on her 4th marriage.
 
matchlight said:
I don't think so. Anthony Kennedy based his diktat on substantive due process--the same justification use forty years earlier for Roe v. Wade. He tacked on a brief and incoherent equal protection justification at the end that convinced no one except those who want to be gulled. In fact it is so odd and unconvincing that Chief Justice Roberts commented in his dissenting opinion that it violates a rule the Court regularly observes, which is not to invoke other bases for resolving an issue when one has already resolved it.



I don't think that argument goes anywhere. If you know of any case law precedent for it, I'd like to read it.
Click to expand...

Yeah...this Davis lunatic is a real defender of marriage. :roll:
Local TV reporter Victor Puentes says he has pulled up court records showing that Davis herself has been married four times. She has so much respect for marriage, she's going to do it until she gets it right!
Click to expand...

The only thing she's defending is the right to discriminate.
 
calamity said:
Yeah...this Davis lunatic is a real defender of marriage. :roll:
Click to expand...

I see you dodged my question, as I expected you to. I'll ask it again: What case law supports your claim? Specific citations, please.
 
matchlight said:
I see you dodged my question, as I expected you to. I'll ask it again: What case law supports your claim? Specific citations, please.
Click to expand...
14th Amendment, specifically this part of it.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Click to expand...
 
Summerwind said:
Hmm, so what does happen to elected officials who refuse to obey the law, I'm guessing that ultimately the DOJ will come in a charge him or something.
Click to expand...

They get held in contempt of court and their asses get thrown in jail.
 
calamity said:
14th Amendment, specifically this part of it.
Click to expand...

What? I asked you to cite authority to support this Establishment Clause claim, which you made in #14:

"And, the First ensures that the state will make no law establishing a religion. Hence, Kentucky redneck county clerk in the OP cannot use his state job to impose his religious belief that gays should not marry on everyone else."

Your response is to cite both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, throwing in for good measure the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the same amendment. What on earth are you talking about? The 14th Am. Pr&I Clause has been almost a dead letter ever since the Court pretty much read it out of existence in 1873 in the Slaughter-House Cases.

I don't think the Establishment Clause has a damned thing to do with the action that is the subject of this thread. A strong argument can be made that it was a misreading of the Constitution ever to incorporate the Establishment Clause and apply it to the states at all. As I've written about on other threads, Justice Thomas made that argument very forcefully in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow in 2004, and Justice Stewart and others had made it decades earlier.

It is the other religion clause in the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause, that may be involved indirectly in some of these cases where a person refuses to comply with a legal requirement on the ground it violates his beliefs. The Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that some states have passed are modeled on the federal RFRA the Supreme Court upheld in the Hobby Lobby case last year. Like it, they restore the strict "compelling interest" standard for government actions that substantially affect a person's right to the free exercise of religion which the Supreme Court had applied in the 1960's and '70's, but later abandoned. How effective state RFRA's may be in these cases involving religious objections to homosexuality is another question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom