John 3:16

rsc2a said:
Let's see how her defenders would scream if a postal clerk refused to deliver mail from the SBC, Focus on the Family, or Samaritan's Purse on religious grounds.

I'm proud of the progress you're making.  You didn't mention the divorce, or bars she frequented in her unconverted state, nor did you murmur "I'm thankful that I am not as thee....".  Attaboy, there's hope.
 
rsc2a said:
Let's see how her defenders would scream if a postal clerk refused to deliver mail from the SBC, Focus on the Family, or Samaritan's Purse on religious grounds.

Sure. Delivering "mail" is the same as granting a marriage license......

Why didn't you use an accurate comparison?

Lets see how her detractors would scream if a ICE worker decided to enforce federal law by rounding up all illegal immigrants in LA county and dumping them at the border?
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
Let's see how her defenders would scream if a postal clerk refused to deliver mail from the SBC, Focus on the Family, or Samaritan's Purse on religious grounds.

I'm proud of the progress you're making.  You didn't mention the divorce, or bars she frequented in her unconverted state, nor did you murmur "I'm thankful that I am not as thee....".  Attaboy, there's hope.

He only loves those that love him. He's glad she's in jail.

I can see both sides of the argument. I'm upset they put her in jail. Neither sides want this type of punishment for her. That sorry judge is just expressing his ego.
 
praise_yeshua said:
I can see both sides of the argument. I'm upset they put her in jail. Neither sides want this type of punishment for her. That sorry judge is just expressing his ego.

That's pretty much my opinion as well.
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
Let's see how her defenders would scream if a postal clerk refused to deliver mail from the SBC, Focus on the Family, or Samaritan's Purse on religious grounds.

I'm proud of the progress you're making.  You didn't mention the divorce, or bars she frequented in her unconverted state, nor did you murmur "I'm thankful that I am not as thee....".  Attaboy, there's hope.

Just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean she suddenly has more credibility.

As to your slander of me, I'll ask you to provide the quotes where I said such. Because if they don't exist, I'd like to point out that you are doing the work of Satan.

P.S. Those quotes don't exist.
 
ALAYMAN said:
3 simple points of rebuttal:

1) I was merely taking exception to your speculation as to her motive, that of one seeking attention rather than following her conscience.  Preliminary facts seem to point otherwise. 

Then why did she choose to fight instead of resign?

You are correct, I am speculating on her motive, but if my employer had asked me to do something I believe was unethical as a part of a new job description, I would resign rather than sue the company.

ALAYMAN said:
2) What you call "personal rights" should not be taken so dismissively, as religious liberty is one of the cornerstones of our republic, and the inherent assumption you (and others) passively or tacitly are endorsing is that religion should be kept within the confines of the 4 walls of the church house, out of the public/secular sphere.  Plenty of prior American case law says otherwise.  The Apostle Paul resorted to his own "personal rights" as a Roman citizen in the matter of religious trifles.

But when 'religious liberty' crosses at the intersection of another's 'personal liberty', something has to give. The government by Constitutional law should take the side of personal liberty because religious behavior (in this case, religious discrimination) should not be endorsed by the government. The same way a Muslim DMV clerk cannot deny women a license to drive based on his allegiance to Allah.

ALAYMAN said:
3)  As you already acknowledged, Ms Davis has offered a compromise some time ago, allowing the state to exercise its prerogatives to grant marriage licenses without having her name on them.  Instead of accepting an amicable compromise, the judge, who happens to be in a VERY conservative region about an hours drive from me, threw the book at her for contempt.  He could have fined her, but in the vein of the sexual revolution that is engulfing the country, he is making an example of her.  Mater has already pointed out the hypocrisy of imposing such a stiff sentence.  She will be incarcerated until she agrees to tow the liberal line, which could be indefinitely.  Real criminals do less time for worse.  Sounds a bit harsh to me, and odd that professed Christians would be in the corner of such rogue and hostile actions.

I agree about the harshness by the sentence and would agree Ms. Davis is being treated unfairly, especially since the charge is contempt of court. But from how I understand it, she still does have the option to resign her position which she refuses to do. So although I don't know anything about the judge, his (apparently high) ego or his political stance, it isn't about her not towing 'the liberal line' but rather her defiance against him. He didn't demand she change her beliefs or politics, but rather conform to the law which is about NOT DISCRIMINATING against a particular group of people.

In the end, it is about the judge not allowing the government to be represented by the use of religious discrimination. Seems Constitutional to me.

 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/why_is_the_kentucky_clerk_in_jail.html

Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8 in California thereby refusing to follow his oath to uphold the laws of California, but he?s not in jail.

Obama and Holder both swore to uphold the laws of this great nation but both refused to follow the DOMA law yet neither are in jail.

There are many mayors of sanctuary cities that openly declare their refusal to follow immigration laws yet none of them are in jail.

The DNC has knowingly hired an illegal alien, thereby breaking the law, yet no charges have yet been filed.

A key tenet of the law is that it applies to everyone.

In spite of that, Kim Davis is in jail even though the people of Kentucky voted to prohibit gay marriage while Jerry Brown isn?t. Why?

Why does a ruling by 5 rich lawyers on the Supreme Court that everyone knows has no basis in the Constitution mean that Americans has to bow down and obey when our leaders rulers, including our president, can pick and choose what laws they follow?

 
praise_yeshua said:
Smellin Coffee said:
praise_yeshua said:
Smellin Coffee said:
praise_yeshua said:
Smellin Coffee said:
praise_yeshua said:
Her Lawyer made the case that the marriage license could be issued without her and that her name could be removed from the certificates. The judge refused to even consider it. They could have had what they wanted without throwing her in jail or forcing her to violate her conscience.

You need to look at the case again.

And this is the issue with the Judge. Judges don't like being stood against. I know. I watched My Cousin Vinny just last week!  ;D

Yeah. They call that ego. Too many judges basing their opinions on ego and not the best interest of all parties involved.

And yes, I agree with you.

Both parties could have resolved it differently without jail time so it is a clash of egos at this point.

So you're saying her decision was based on "ego"?

No. I would have respect for her had she chose to resign instead of making it a legal battle. But creating additional headlines are many times that of a need for noterierty. The choice to make it a legal issue instead of resigning seems to indicate a need or desire for a stroked ego. I have no issue that she took the stand.

She doesn't have to resign. They can remove her from office.

Justice Scalia said this would happen in his descent.

Speaking of Scalia, if he's consistent, he would be for her resignation as well:

    (W)hile my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of ?the machinery of death.? My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .

(I)n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty? and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.

God?s Justice and Ours by Antonin Scalia
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
This has probably already been said (I don't want to go back and read every post, sorry), but Ted Cruz raised an excellent point.

The mayor of SF is disobeying federal law by making SF a sanctuary city.

Obama has disobeyed federal laws left and right, including his own Obamacare (and immigration law, etc.).  And there is even a court order for the Obama administration to stop, which Obama has disobeyed.

I could go on, but those two are enough.

Why aren't these people in jail?  Why aren't the same politicians calling for them to resign if they don't want to do their jobs?

Because the system is based on and rigged toward liberal idiocy by liberal id**ts (to spare liberal feelings). Liberal idiocy is based on liberal hypocrisy....redundancy abounds, I know.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
This has probably already been said (I don't want to go back and read every post, sorry), but Ted Cruz raised an excellent point.

The mayor of SF is disobeying federal law by making SF a sanctuary city.

Obama has disobeyed federal laws left and right, including his own Obamacare (and immigration law, etc.).  And there is even a court order for the Obama administration to stop, which Obama has disobeyed.

I could go on, but those two are enough.

Why aren't these people in jail?  Why aren't the same politicians calling for them to resign if they don't want to do their jobs?

Because the system is based on and rigged toward liberal idiocy by liberal id**ts (to spare liberal feelings). Liberal idiocy is based on liberal hypocrisy....redundancy abounds, I know.

Because if you call him out you're a racist. Therefore ppl are scared of him. And this is why we need Trump in office, he will tell the left to get lost.
 
IMG_2396.JPG
 
Smellin Coffee said:
praise_yeshua said:
Smellin Coffee said:
praise_yeshua said:
Smellin Coffee said:
praise_yeshua said:
Smellin Coffee said:
praise_yeshua said:
Her Lawyer made the case that the marriage license could be issued without her and that her name could be removed from the certificates. The judge refused to even consider it. They could have had what they wanted without throwing her in jail or forcing her to violate her conscience.

You need to look at the case again.

And this is the issue with the Judge. Judges don't like being stood against. I know. I watched My Cousin Vinny just last week!  ;D

Yeah. They call that ego. Too many judges basing their opinions on ego and not the best interest of all parties involved.

And yes, I agree with you.

Both parties could have resolved it differently without jail time so it is a clash of egos at this point.

So you're saying her decision was based on "ego"?

No. I would have respect for her had she chose to resign instead of making it a legal battle. But creating additional headlines are many times that of a need for noterierty. The choice to make it a legal issue instead of resigning seems to indicate a need or desire for a stroked ego. I have no issue that she took the stand.

She doesn't have to resign. They can remove her from office.

Justice Scalia said this would happen in his descent.

Speaking of Scalia, if he's consistent, he would be for her resignation as well:

    (W)hile my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of ?the machinery of death.? My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .

(I)n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty? and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.

God?s Justice and Ours by Antonin Scalia

He was speaking of a judge. Not a county clerk. Yes. The judge is required to judge based on the law. The clerk can protest the law. The clerk is not a servant of the law in the same manner as a judge. Apples to Oranges.

Either way. There are many judges ignoring the law....Scalia would tell you the same.
 
Tim said:
The Rogue Tomato said:

Wonder what would happen if the clerk refused for another reason other than "religious" .... or, if she was muslim not Christian.

What if she said, "I find this against human nature and fear the consequences on society"

In short - what would have happened if she wasn't a Christian.

That is an interesting thought..... I bet if she was Muslim..... see wouldn't be in jail.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Tim said:
The Rogue Tomato said:

Wonder what would happen if the clerk refused for another reason other than "religious" .... or, if she was muslim not Christian.

What if she said, "I find this against human nature and fear the consequences on society"

In short - what would have happened if she wasn't a Christian.

That is an interesting thought..... I bet if she was Muslim..... see wouldn't be in jail.

Yep, to all three!

If she was Muslim and doing this, they would be scared of her. Those two homosexuals probably went to her because they knew her belief system.
 
Top