Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

by **Eol Sha** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:20 pm

The Black Forrest wrote:
Eol Sha wrote:On that, I agree. I didn't agree with the decision to arrest and I still don't agree with it.

Contempt of Court is a valid reason.

They do give you a chance to avoid it. She basically said OH YEA God says I don't have to listen to you.

She got to think about it behind bars for a little bit.

Meh. As I stated dozens upon dozens of pages ago, I still didn't like it. Regardless of the reason or what she was doing.

by **Eol Sha** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:20 pm

Arngeir wrote:It was ridiculous that she was jailed. Fired, I could understand, but jailed?

She can't be fired. She's an elected official.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:21 pm

Arngeir wrote:It was ridiculous that she was jailed. Fired, I could understand, but jailed?

Again she is elected so she cannot be fired. She refused to obey a legal court order, and was thus held in contempt of court. She was held their until she either complied or was no longer in a position where it mattered. She complied, sorta.

I wonder if we should put in big letters on every page that she cannot be fired since she is elected.

by **The Black Forrest** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:21 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Highfort wrote:
What she believes is correct is not to do her job whilst retaining her position and being paid for it; the government finds that to be wrong and thus puts her in jail. Literally, the dumbest argument from you I've seen yet is the above bolded bit.

If she believed raping homosexuals was correct, would the government be wrong for forcing her not to rape them?

Raping is a physical action harming someone. Davis never touched them and that is an invalid example. Just read the first amendment please! I can tell you have no idea what it's about, as you clearly don't believe in basic freedoms.

You haven't heard of sex cults? California had a big one about 10 or so years ago. That's is the point. If the Religion says it's ok the by your argument, the goverment can't do anything about it.

You keep talking about the 1st Amendment, but your examples are not showing you understand it. Hint: It's not about a national religion.

by **The Alma Mater** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:22 pm

Eol Sha wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:Contempt of Court is a valid reason.

They do give you a chance to avoid it. She basically said OH YEA God says I don't have to listen to you.

She got to think about it behind bars for a little bit.

Meh. As I stated dozens upon dozens of pages ago, I still didn't like it. Regardless of the reason or what she was doing.

What would a better solution have been then ? Jailing was following existing law.. should they have invented new laws just for her ?

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:23 pm

The Alma Mater wrote:
Eol Sha wrote:Meh. As I stated dozens upon dozens of pages ago, I still didn't like it. Regardless of the reason or what she was doing.

What would a better solution have been then ? Jailing was following existing law.. should they have invented new laws just for her ?

A fine was an option, but the judge was of the opinion that a fine would not be sufficient to ensure her compliance.

by **The Black Forrest** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:24 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
Highfort wrote:
What if my religion requires that conservatives be spit-roasted and then consumed? Would I still have my religious freedom to do that?

Would that include Conservative leaners?....Don't eat me

Hmmmmmm a hint of conservatism!

A couple shots of Tabasco and we might have something.

Do us a favor and go clean out that really large pot.

by **Othelos** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:26 pm

Arngeir wrote:It was ridiculous that she was jailed. Fired, I could understand, but jailed?

she's an elected official, she can't be easily fired.

by **The Alma Mater** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:27 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
What would a better solution have been then ? Jailing was following existing law.. should they have invented new laws just for her ?

A fine was an option, but the judge was of the opinion that a fine would not be sufficient to ensure her compliance.

Could they have given the fine to a gay rights group ?

by **The Black Forrest** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:28 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:The government is supposed to be secular.

Admit it, they're not. They are supposed to be, but they've failed at that. Just like everything else they touch

And yet we have Gay marriage.......

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:28 pm

The Black Forrest wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Would that include Conservative leaners?....Don't eat me

Hmmmmmm a hint of conservatism!

A couple shots of Tabasco and we might have something.

Do us a favor and go clean out that really large pot.

Just for the laughs.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:32 pm

The Alma Mater wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
A fine was an option, but the judge was of the opinion that a fine would not be sufficient to ensure her compliance.

Could they have given the fine to a gay rights group ?

Not sure what you mean. If you mean had the fine paid to a gay rights group, no idea.

by **The Black Forrest** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:34 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Neu California wrote:
It was obvious they were parodying your position, to show how ridiculous it was. They were never serious about it.

I can't be serious when I'm surrounded by ignorant people on the internet who have no education based on government unlike me, who is taking three courses on how different types of government works. Also, i plan on fleeing what the United States has become, because frankly, I'm not liking how things are headed here, and I'm smart and I'll leave a place where I'm not suited for. All you guys can do is destroy and flip a thing in your path.

You are taking three courses. Nice. Makes you an expert eh? Our ignorant collection has practicing lawyers, military, future lawyers, ex DoD, professors, teachers, rumored to have the media and possibly a few goverment types.

The US like any country evolves over time. You either adapt or disappear.

So don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

Seriously, nobody believes the "I'm fleeing the first chance I get" declarations. We really old timers have heard that one many times.

by **The Black Forrest** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:36 pm

Arngeir wrote:It was ridiculous that she was jailed. Fired, I could understand, but jailed?

Well for the umpteenth time. She can't be fired as she was elected.

She was jailed for Contempt of Court.

by **USS Monitor** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:52 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:
That's nice, but the law is the law. Sometimes it is influenced by Judeo-Christian values and sometimes it is not, but that doesn't matter. It only matters what the law actually says.

That and it isn't actually based on Judeo-Christian values. It isn't really based on Christian values either.

In this case, it's based on some people that just finished dealing with the Civil War trying to prevent it from happening again.

by **USS Monitor** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:04 pm

The Black Forrest wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:I can't be serious when I'm surrounded by ignorant people on the internet who have no education based on government unlike me, who is taking three courses on how different types of government works. Also, i plan on fleeing what the United States has become, because frankly, I'm not liking how things are headed here, and I'm smart and I'll leave a place where I'm not suited for. All you guys can do is destroy and flip a thing in your path.

You are taking three courses. Nice. Makes you an expert eh? Our ignorant collection has practicing lawyers, military, future lawyers, ex DoD, professors, teachers, rumored to have the media and possibly a few goverment types.

The US like any country evolves over time. You either adapt or disappear.

So don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

Seriously, nobody believes the "I'm fleeing the first chance I get" declarations. We really old timers have heard that one many times.

Leaving the country isn't as simple as it sounds. I tried it for a while, but you have to deal with visas and work permits, and, at least in my case, the language barrier. When I came back to the US, I wasn't planning to stay, but then I liked New England more than I thought I would and I was too lazy to leave again.

by **Ethel mermania** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:35 am

Someone needs to go back to jail

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/ ... -kentucky/

by **Herrebrugh** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:42 am

Ethel mermania wrote:Someone needs to go back to jail

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/ ... -kentucky/

I hope so.

by **The Huskar Social Union** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:57 am

Herrebrugh wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Someone needs to go back to jail

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/ ... -kentucky/

I hope so.

Seconded.

Well.. thirded.

by **Amuaplye** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:01 am

She deserves to go to jail. It violates US Law instituted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

by **Dyakovo** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:04 am

Arngeir wrote:It was ridiculous that she was jailed. Fired, I could understand, but jailed?

Elected official, can't be fired and jail is the normal consequence of contempt of court, so not ridiculous at all.

by **Dyakovo** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:06 am

The Black Forrest wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:Raping is a physical action harming someone. Davis never touched them and that is an invalid example. Just read the first amendment please! I can tell you have no idea what it's about, as you clearly don't believe in basic freedoms.

You haven't heard of sex cults? California had a big one about 10 or so years ago. That's is the point. If the Religion says it's ok the by your argument, the goverment can't do anything about it.

You keep talking about the 1st Amendment, but your examples are not showing you understand it. Hint: It's not just about a national religion.

Ftfy

by **Eol Sha** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:56 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
Eol Sha wrote:Meh. As I stated dozens upon dozens of pages ago, I still didn't like it. Regardless of the reason or what she was doing.

What would a better solution have been then ? Jailing was following existing law.. should they have invented new laws just for her ?

No. Just because I don't have an alternate solution doesn't mean that I have to like the fact that she was arrested.

by **Herrebrugh** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:57 am

Eol Sha wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
What would a better solution have been then ? Jailing was following existing law.. should they have invented new laws just for her ?

No. Just because I don't have an alternate solution doesn't mean that I have to like the fact that she was arrested.

It's her own damn choice.

by **Eol Sha** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:01 am

Herrebrugh wrote:
Eol Sha wrote:No. Just because I don't have an alternate solution doesn't mean that I have to like the fact that she was arrested.

It's her own damn choice.

*shrug* I still don't like it.

Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

Who is online