Of course, proper nonviolent protest requires one to face the consequences of said disobedience. Freepers are not clear on this concept, and get their battle fury up again over a war they've already lost. But one could argue that's Freep in a nutshell...
Wonder what onedoug would say if this were some tenet of Sharia:
One either lives one’s faith, or one doesn’t.Ignoring the fact that this clerk has ordered her entire county to stand down, Personal Responsibility is re-fighting the gay wedding cake battle Freepers also lost:
God Bless Kim Davis.
Is this the only clerk in Kentucky who can issue marriage licenses? If not, seems to me the gays could get one at one of the clerks who’d be more than happy to issue it to them. If they don’t do that, I’m presuming that this is another “Bake the cake” scenario.Republican Wildcat throws out a ton of awful, awful legal arguments. Below is my favorite:
That’s another point I’m not sure her attorneys made - there is no valid law on the books for issuing licenses to anyone in this state as they were declared unconstitutional. Therefore, no licenses can be issued until and unless the laws are re-written to comply with the SCOTUS ruling. That has not occurred.SeekAndFind thinks Justice Kennedy saying Freedom of Speech is still a thing means there can be no consequences for disobeying the law:
Here’s another key section on religion from the Supreme Court's majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy:sarge83 actually seems to understand how civil disobedience works, if misunderstand were America's sympathies lie:
“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths , and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
I don't see how this clerk's action violate the decision of the Supreme Court based on what they themselves wrote.
This clerk needs to make sure if she is held in contempt and jailed she is videotaped being handcuffed and hauled to jail. So much for that great jurists Kennedy’s little by line about respecting people of faith. Was there ever a doubt it was nothing but a joke.kidd wonders about all those Muslim Official Pork Eaters and Hindu Cow Slaughterers:
Can we force feed pork to Muslims?Paladin2 seems to be up on a Supreme Court decision I must have missed:
Or make Hindus to kill cows?
ACLU: Trampling all over the first amendment to favor a contrived ruling.
What about the people who want to marry their dog?Paladin2 wants this Kentucky County to rise up and be a national embarrassment!
Her kocal Sheriff should arrest anybody trying to interfer with her private or public life.TBP argues the government has nothing to do with marriage:
If you work as a waiter and you refuse to serve food to ANYONE, would that be a problem?fwdude is all about that anti-gay Civil War:
Waiters are in private, service-oriented businesses.
The government does not need to be involved in marriage to make it valid. She just decided that since she cannot in good conscience issue marriage licenses to gays, she would just stop issuing any marriage licenses.
They’re different things.
It’s time for a militia to form to protect this brave woman from a totalitarian government.fwdude thinks the Supremacy Clause is a new thing:
State courts have essentially been disbanded and nullified under the new federal totalitarianism.Charles Henrickson seems to have forgotten the 14th Amendment entirely:
The county clerk is simply following the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. That law prohibits marriage between members of the same sex. The U.S. Supreme Court, in violation of the First and Tenth Amendments, has no business, none, telling Kentucky they can’t have such a law.
I'm vaguely curious, though not curious enough to actually look. Defending this woman's right to stick to her beliefs is pretty good. Praiseworthy in a way (personally, I think if you get paid to do a job you do all of it, beliefs nonwithstanding).
ReplyDeleteI assume they are being equally vehement in defense of the Muslim flight attendant put on administrative leave for not wishing to serve alcohol ....
Oh, wait ....
You have to admit, she probably knew that jail was a real possibility and she defied the order knowing that instead of stepping down. I'm willing to bet, though, that her religious beliefs do not necessitate her being a county clerk, or not doing her job and collecting her paycheck anyway.
DeleteRight, like when your in the military and you decide to become a pacifist, you can try to prevent anything from happening to help stop killing people, you totally get to keep doing that!
DeleteThey certainly did not defend the Muslim flight attendant, but they did manage to use her for a lengthy exercise in false equivalence to complain about their trampled religious rights by ignoring the fact that the flight attendant works for an airline company and the clerk represents the government.
Delete"...One either lives one’s faith, or one doesn’t. ..."
ReplyDelete...well since "no gay marriage" (in fact no homosexuality, period) IS a tenet of Sharia Law - props to onedoug as the first FRetard to join CAIR.
Clerk jailed for refusing judge's order?
ReplyDeleteOH, THE CRAZY IS ON!!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3332639/posts#comment
I love how threads like that one are filled with Freepers calling on someone else to do something.
DeleteTypical impotent Freepers.
DeleteAlways getting others to do their dirty work while they hide behind the anonymity of the internet.
Somebody should DO something!
DeleteMeh - you want to calm the Freepers down fast, point out that she's a Democrat.
DeleteThis is great stuff!!!
DeleteA bunch of angry old people with no more than a junior college-level understanding of the Constitution lob all kinds of straw men arguments, fail miserably in their inferences, and then blame liberals for trying to undermine their desire for authoritarian-Christian rules.
"What about the people who want to marry their dog?"
ReplyDeleteAnd they wonder why they're losing this issue in the court of public opinion.
They're basically saying that if you're gay and you want to marry your loved one, you're no different than someone suffering from bestiality.
Not exactly. They are saying that sexual attraction takes place between two adults of opposite biological sexes or else it is a paraphilia and therefore analogous to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia etc. etc.
DeleteFReepers are on the wrong side of history but the APA classified homosexuality as a "Sociopathic personality disturbance" from 1952 to 1974 and that is well within living memory for a lot of them.
I am against making fun of someone's appearance just on general principle, but because this is about the notoriously shallow Free Republic, I have to ask:
ReplyDelete-- Why are so many men apparently waiting in line to marry this scoldy-looking, dried-up Kentucky belle? Is Kentucky that hard up for marriageable women? She's on her fourth husband, and not for the first time.
-- Guilty or not guilty? It sure looks like that tired old game went right out the window with this one.