how can this be

[MTregre]

I don't usually jump into these kinds of threads, but I want to throw out a couple of ideas to ponder on. I am not calling you out by any means, but your post serves as a good stepping stone.

People keep saying the court order to allow same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. I just don't get it. This country tries to separate church and state as much as possible. Most people would argue that it is a good thing because they don't want the other religion, whatever that may be, influencing laws that could affect them. I imagine most people would say they are a Christian, or at least something close. These people would not want the Muslim faith to influence laws that they would have to follow. That being said, allowing same-sex couples to marry LEGALLY UNDER THE LAW in the United States gives more freedom to more people. The Supreme Court took away precedents that were set (mostly due to religion) to allow more people to have the same freedoms that other people previously had. No where did the court state that churches have to let people they don't want to unite through marriage marry in their church. The court is NOT interfering with any religion. They are just allowing same-sex couples to reap the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples already had access to.

As for the lady that got arrested - she was arrested for not following a direct court order. She was not doing her job and got called out on it. It doesn't matter what she wasn't doing in her job in my opinion, if you don't do your job you get fired. I have certain duties that I must do at work, and whether I agree with them or not, I must do them. If not, I am going to be told to get out. If my company came out with a new policy that I didn't agree with, I would express my discontent, and then either adhere to it, or leave (or be fired).

On to the subject of same-sex couples being married under the law: I don't understand why people care. It doesn't affect me in the slightest whether anyone gets married - gay or not. I don't get why people are so up in arms about the US allowing anyone to get married under the law. It doesn't really affect anyone other than the people getting married. Besides, most of the people I know that are married recommend me to wait absolutely as long as possible to get married and many even say it's a bad idea...so if someone wants to do that to themselves, why not let them?

Bu the problem is they want to force acceptance. It wont be long before all business and churches HAVE to also comply. I don't understand why people, who can clearly read history over the past two decades don't see the goal is one of force not equality. IF the activist truly wanted equality they would have fought for the removal of marriage from the tax code and the government.

The example you state about your employer is the reason for many employment laws and frankly the Constitution. You are not required to comply with new rules that challenge conscience. Granted, this particular issue would hardly ever apply to nearly any employment situation (her being elected), you are not simply required to go along with work place rules you find immoral or unjust. Hell, even the Military has tackled that.

 

[general mills]

I agree that many are trying to force acceptance of this issue. I do not feel that is the case with this woman. In her position, her job is to comply with these laws whether she agrees with them or not, and if she has a strong religious objections to her duties, she needs to find another job, or accept the alternative. She is not a private business, which, in my opinion should not be forced on this issue. To me her dilemma and the dilemma of that bakery for example are two different issues. A police officer will still have to arrest a pro-life activist if they are outside the boundaries of the law even though the officer may be religiously pro life and anti abortion. Accept it, get out, or face the consequences, you took an oath. A private security guard can refuse to detain a pro life activist and risk only his job, and the employer of the security guard may refuse to force pro life activists who may be breaking the law off of his property with said private security if they chose, risking public opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud her conviction, and hope things turn out well for her, and I am not judging her actions as morally right or wrong, but her arrest is an appropriate action. Her role is not to decide of a law is right or wrong, but to serve the public by complying with it.

The founding fathers should have stood up to the British government and not just given in, but every one of them were outlaws and also risked the noose if things did not go their way.

I am in no way saying that this issue is a constitutional issue or not, right or wrong, or should or should not be law, just looking at the facts of this particular incident.

 

[Emperor]

This very insignificant issue versus Hillary Clinton's clear violation of the federal espionage Act. This very insignificant Clerk of Court in Podunk Kentucky goes to jail, and what about Clinton?

Don't you all lose sight of the ball that matters. This kangaroo cartel in the White House and the US Justice Department are covering up for a major felony and a serious violation of the upper offices of the US. There is enough prima facie evidence to call a Grand Jury and you hear only crickets.

If this lying, deceitful, criminal bitch skates on this, this is a seriously slippery slope for this country.

 

[MTregre]

I agree that many are trying to force acceptance of this issue. I do not feel that is the case with this woman. In her position, her job is to comply with these laws whether she agrees with them or not, and if she has a strong religious objections to her duties, she needs to find another job, or accept the alternative. She is not a private business, which, in my opinion should not be forced on this issue. To me her dilemma and the dilemma of that bakery for example are two different issues. A police officer will still have to arrest a pro-life activist if they are outside the boundaries of the law even though the officer may be religiously pro life and anti abortion. Accept it, get out, or face the consequences, you took an oath. A private security guard can refuse to detain a pro life activist and risk only his job, and the employer of the security guard may refuse to force pro life activists who may be breaking the law off of his property with said private security if they chose, risking public opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud her conviction, and hope things turn out well for her, and I am not judging her actions as morally right or wrong, but her arrest is an appropriate action. Her role is not to decide of a law is right or wrong, but to serve the public by complying with it.

The founding fathers should have stood up to the British government and not just given in, but every one of them were outlaws and also risked the noose if things did not go their way.

I am in no way saying that this issue is a constitutional issue or not, right or wrong, or should or should not be law, just looking at the facts of this particular incident.

Oh I agree, arrest was the only option in this case. That should be clear, it was the Judges call. But she's been branded a bigot for not agreeing with X.
I'm still not agreeing the examples are applicable however.

Considering the issue could have been resolved in the matter of minutes and a few pieces of paper, I think the truly hateful one is somewhere around that courtroom bench.

 

[Cochise]

Oh I agree, arrest was the only option in this case. That should be clear, it was the Judges call. But she's been branded a bigot for not agreeing with X.
I'm still not agreeing the examples are applicable however.

Considering the issue could have been resolved in the matter of minutes and a few pieces of paper, I think the truly hateful one is somewhere around that courtroom bench.

She attempted to use her authority power to withhold a right from an entire minority group based on her personal opinion and dislike of that group. That is the very definition of a bigot.

 

[whitsend]

When did marriage become a right?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

Would you be for letting a pedophile marry a child?
If not, then by YOUR definition, you are a bigot.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[rtr_rtr]

When did marriage become a right?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

 

[rtr_rtr]

Would you be for letting a pedophile marry a child?
If not, then by YOUR definition, you are a bigot.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Would you be for allowing a 5 year old unrestricted access to purchasing / owning / carrying a firearm? If not, why do you hate the 2nd ammendment?

 

[whitsend]

Would you be for allowing a 5 year old unrestricted access to purchasing / owning / carrying a firearm? If not, why do you hate the 2nd ammendment?

Nope.
Nor am I for allowing a pedophile to marry a child.

But by Cochise ' definition, which I disagree with, your statement would be true.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[rtr_rtr]

Nope.
Nor am I for allowing a pedophile to marry a child.

But by Cochise ' definition, which I disagree with, your statement would be true.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Where did he say something about extending the right to marry to those without the ability to consent to marriage? Why does saying "the right to marriage" imply that pedophiles can marry kids but saying "the right to keep and bear arms" doesn't imply that minors have the same privileges with regard to firearm ownership that adults do?

 

[rtr_rtr]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The Supreme Court disagrees. One opinion happens to matter a bit more than the other

 

[whitsend]

Where did he say something about extending the right to marry to those without the ability to consent to marriage? Why does saying "the right to marriage" imply that pedophiles can marry kids but saying "the right to keep and bear arms" doesn't imply that minors have the same privileges with regard to firearm ownership that adults do?

Who is to says kids shouldn't have the right to consent to marriage?
NMBLA would say they do.

Since you and I both agree that they don't, are we bigots?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

The Supreme Court disagrees. One opinion happens to matter a bit more than the other

But is the Supreme Court always right?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[rtr_rtr]

But is the Supreme Court always right?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

They are not bestowed with the ability to speak ex cathedra, and if they were acting in cases in which there was a clear black and white decision, the court wouldn't serve much purpose at all. "Are they always right" is also a bit of a weak argument in that it can be applied equally to literally any of their rulings. Regardless, the majority of Americans happen to agree with their decision regarding gay marriage

 

[rtr_rtr]

Who is to says kids shouldn't have the right to consent to marriage?
NMBLA would say they do.

Since you and I both agree that they don't, are we bigots?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Their objective lack of ability to consent, as is precedent for most medical decision making and I'm sure many other things

 

[whitsend]

Regardless, the majority of Americans happen to agree with their decision regarding gay marriage

Actually, when the people have voted on it they have said that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

31 states, including California, passed a Constitutional Amendment not allowing same sex marriage. Only one state that put it to a vote rejected it.

The facts don't lie.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

Back on topic.

Arrest was not the only option. If she is failing to do her duty as an elected official, she should be impeached.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=23150
63.030 Petition for impeachment.
(1) Any person may, by written petition to the House of Representatives, signed by
himself, verified by his own affidavit and the affidavits of such others as he deems
necessary, and setting forth the facts, pray the impeachment of any officer.
(2) The House shall refer the petition to a committee, with power to send for persons
and papers, to report thereon.


The voters of her county can call for a recall election.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=27630
118.365 (7) Petitions for recall elections or elections on public questions shall be filed as
required with the county clerk not later than the second Tuesday in August
preceding the day fixed by law for holding a regular election.

I have seen no reports that anyone is perusing either of these options.

If this was just about the couple wanting to get married, they could have gone to another court house and got a license.
But this is about forcing acceptance of a lifestyle on those who disagree with it.

 

[rtr_rtr]

Actually, when the people have voted on it they have said that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

31 states, including California, passed a Constitutional Amendment not allowing same sex marriage. Only one state that put it to a vote rejected it.

The facts don't lie.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

When were they passed?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

I've also replied to each element of your posts. Picking and choosing just one bit of mine is kind of annoying