NATION

PASSWORD

Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Deuxtete
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1112
Founded: Aug 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Deuxtete » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:20 pm

Vaikneland wrote:Ugh this annoys me so much. You can't throw someone in jail to practice their religion. Read the Bill if Rights please. If you have an issue with it, GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY. No one wants you here anyway.

She wasnt jailed "to" practice her religion, or even for practicing her religion. She was jailed for contempt, she was held in contempt for failing to comply with the judges orders, the order was to execute her legal duties as an agent of the state and not infringe on the civil rights of others.
The bill of rights doesn't afford her the right as an agent of the state to use religion as reason to violate the civil rights of another, as a matter of fact it doesn't provide anyone the right to violate the civil rights of another. So get the fuck out of my country...since you obviously can't be bothered to learn even the most remedial facts about the liberty you clearly would see shit on.
If I ****** you, you unequivocally deserve to be *********.
Ifreann is my favorite poster. Ben Carson for President
Telegram me to suggest or offer your opinion on internet media sources, npr is my primary news but on the internet I'm not always sure who is trust worthy.

User avatar
Mondoncon
Envoy
 
Posts: 240
Founded: Feb 23, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Mondoncon » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:20 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Mondoncon wrote:Marriage has changed in definition enough times that your argument is, shall we say... A thousand years dead.

Define marriage then. Where do you go for marriages, and who marries you? A church. And a priest. What do those things involve, sir? RELIGION

You're talking about weddings, because marriage is between two people and the state. Through a clerk. Which is what Kim Davis is. You have no idea how funny this is.
Que?

User avatar
Vaikneland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 570
Founded: Feb 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vaikneland » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:20 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:Where does the constitution say that it doesn't apply in the workforce?

The Constitution always mentions the government.

WORK. FORCE. Generally. Yes she was in the government, but it doesn't say "you have religious freedoms unless you're in the government."
Pro: Conservative, Capitalism, Right-Wing parties, LGBT, small government, Israel, military, small minimum wage, police, freedom from taxation, 2nd Amendment, Constitution,

Neutral: religion, Palestine, abortion [to some extent]

Anti: Communism, Socialism, Leftists, gun control, high minimum wage, high income tax, Obama, SANDERS, Hillary, legalizing marajuana, welfare, race card


Trump 2016 Born Right

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 40542
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:21 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
Nope, she is being ordered to obey the law of the land, namely the constitution, and to perform her duty as an elected government official. Government officials always have their rights limited when they are on the job. It is part of what being a government employee means. While she is not on the job she can do whatever the hell she wants (well no she cannot murder even if her religion says it is OK), but while she is one the job she represents the government and thus her religious actions are limited.

Where does the constitution say that it doesn't apply in the workforce?


Not sure I understand the question. If you mean where does the constitution say it doesn't apply to government employees try the first amendment where it says that the government cannot recognize a religion.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:21 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:Maybe you should catch up with the rest of the class before raising your hand.

Maybe you should read your nations constitution as well before you raise your hand.

He's demonstrated far greater uunderstanding of the constitution than you have.
Not only was she violating the fourteenth amendment, she was alsoviolating the first.
As a court clerk, she's an agent of the government. Her choosing to use her government position to enforce her religious valuesupon others violates the separation of church and state proscribed in the first amendment.
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Vaikneland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 570
Founded: Feb 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vaikneland » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm

Mondoncon wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:Define marriage then. Where do you go for marriages, and who marries you? A church. And a priest. What do those things involve, sir? RELIGION

You're talking about weddings, because marriage is between two people and the state. Through a clerk. Which is what Kim Davis is. You have no idea how funny this is.

Kim Davis is the connection if the Christian church. Forcing her to marry someone does not follow the constitution. And yet people complain about how we have no freedom anymore.
Pro: Conservative, Capitalism, Right-Wing parties, LGBT, small government, Israel, military, small minimum wage, police, freedom from taxation, 2nd Amendment, Constitution,

Neutral: religion, Palestine, abortion [to some extent]

Anti: Communism, Socialism, Leftists, gun control, high minimum wage, high income tax, Obama, SANDERS, Hillary, legalizing marajuana, welfare, race card


Trump 2016 Born Right

User avatar
Stellonia
Minister
 
Posts: 2160
Founded: Mar 29, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Stellonia » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm

Dyakovo wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:Maybe you should read your nations constitution as well before you raise your hand.

He's demonstrated far greater uunderstanding of the constitution than you have.
Not only was she violating the fourteenth amendment, she was alsoviolating the first.
As a court clerk, she's an agent of the government. Her choosing to use her government position to enforce her religious valuesupon others violates the separation of church and state proscribed in the first amendment.

The separation of church and state is not established by the First Amendment.

User avatar
Highfort
Minister
 
Posts: 2910
Founded: May 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Highfort » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Geilinor wrote:The Constitution always mentions the government.

WORK. FORCE. Generally. Yes she was in the government, but it doesn't say "you have religious freedoms unless you're in the government."


Your religious freedoms in the work force end when it comes to other people. If you cannot carry out your worker duties as a result of your religion you are most welcome to find work elsewhere; the only thing the workplace cannot do is expressly reject or fire you because of your religion.

Kim Davis was not fired or jailed because of her religion. Kim Davis was jailed because she refused to do her fucking job: issue marriage certificates for legal marriages. Gay marriage is legal; if she doesn't want to issue licenses she should have resigned and found a new fucking job.
Last edited by Highfort on Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
First as tragedy, then as farce

User avatar
Furry Alairia and Algeria
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21009
Founded: Apr 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Furry Alairia and Algeria » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Mondoncon wrote:Marriage has changed in definition enough times that your argument is, shall we say... A thousand years dead.

Define marriage then. Where do you go for marriages, and who marries you? A church. And a priest. What do those things involve, sir? RELIGION

the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

I don't see religion in that clause anywhere.

the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

So....
In memory of Dyakovo - may he never be forgotten - Дьяковожс ученик


I do not reply to telegrams, unless you are someone I know.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 40542
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Geilinor wrote:The Constitution always mentions the government.

WORK. FORCE. Generally. Yes she was in the government, but it doesn't say "you have religious freedoms unless you're in the government."


While she works for the government, while she represents the government she is in essence the government, thus the first amendment section mentioning not recognizing a religion applies to her. The second she is not in the office it no longer applies, but while she is in a government office doing her job as a government employee that is exactly what it says.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Neu California
Minister
 
Posts: 3299
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neu California » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Mondoncon wrote:Marriage has changed in definition enough times that your argument is, shall we say... A thousand years dead.

Define marriage then. Where do you go for marriages, and who marries you? A church. And a priest. What do those things involve, sir? RELIGION


Or a government official in the right capacity. I don't know why you think you need a priest to get married, because, legally, you don't
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little"-FDR
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist"-Dom Helder Camara
He/him
Aspie and proud
I'm a weak agnostic without atheistic or theistic leanings.
Endless sucker for romantic lesbian stuff

Ostroeuropa refuses to answer this question:
Neu California wrote:do women deserve equal rights in your opinion?

User avatar
Vaikneland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 570
Founded: Feb 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vaikneland » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm

Stellonia wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:He's demonstrated far greater uunderstanding of the constitution than you have.
Not only was she violating the fourteenth amendment, she was alsoviolating the first.
As a court clerk, she's an agent of the government. Her choosing to use her government position to enforce her religious valuesupon others violates the separation of church and state proscribed in the first amendment.

The separation of church and state is not established by the First Amendment.

Yeah...
Pro: Conservative, Capitalism, Right-Wing parties, LGBT, small government, Israel, military, small minimum wage, police, freedom from taxation, 2nd Amendment, Constitution,

Neutral: religion, Palestine, abortion [to some extent]

Anti: Communism, Socialism, Leftists, gun control, high minimum wage, high income tax, Obama, SANDERS, Hillary, legalizing marajuana, welfare, race card


Trump 2016 Born Right

User avatar
Furry Alairia and Algeria
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21009
Founded: Apr 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Furry Alairia and Algeria » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:22 pm

Stellonia wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:He's demonstrated far greater uunderstanding of the constitution than you have.
Not only was she violating the fourteenth amendment, she was alsoviolating the first.
As a court clerk, she's an agent of the government. Her choosing to use her government position to enforce her religious valuesupon others violates the separation of church and state proscribed in the first amendment.

The separation of church and state is not established by the First Amendment.

Establishment clause. I already bought this up, how have you not stopped to look? My god.
In memory of Dyakovo - may he never be forgotten - Дьяковожс ученик


I do not reply to telegrams, unless you are someone I know.

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41695
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Postby Cannot think of a name » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:23 pm

Mondoncon wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:Define marriage then. Where do you go for marriages, and who marries you? A church. And a priest. What do those things involve, sir? RELIGION

You're talking about weddings, because marriage is between two people and the state. Through a clerk. Which is what Kim Davis is. You have no idea how funny this is.

I think he has a fair idea, in fact I think that's his intent. Like the guy who dresses up in the catchers gear and runs in front of all the dudes with paintball guns, except in his head he's going, "Suckers" for some reason.
"...I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." -MLK Jr.

User avatar
Mondoncon
Envoy
 
Posts: 240
Founded: Feb 23, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Mondoncon » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:23 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Mondoncon wrote:You're talking about weddings, because marriage is between two people and the state. Through a clerk. Which is what Kim Davis is. You have no idea how funny this is.

Kim Davis is the connection if the Christian church. Forcing her to marry someone does not follow the constitution. And yet people complain about how we have no freedom anymore.

She's an official of the state, not the church. Try again.
Que?

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:23 pm

Stellonia wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:He's demonstrated far greater uunderstanding of the constitution than you have.
Not only was she violating the fourteenth amendment, she was alsoviolating the first.
As a court clerk, she's an agent of the government. Her choosing to use her government position to enforce her religious valuesupon others violates the separation of church and state proscribed in the first amendment.

The separation of church and state is not established by the First Amendment.

Yes, it is. Have you read the First Amendment?
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 40542
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:23 pm

Stellonia wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:He's demonstrated far greater uunderstanding of the constitution than you have.
Not only was she violating the fourteenth amendment, she was alsoviolating the first.
As a court clerk, she's an agent of the government. Her choosing to use her government position to enforce her religious valuesupon others violates the separation of church and state proscribed in the first amendment.

The separation of church and state is not established by the First Amendment.


It is established by the first amendment and by Supreme Court decisions since the amendment has been in place.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Vaikneland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 570
Founded: Feb 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vaikneland » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:23 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:WORK. FORCE. Generally. Yes she was in the government, but it doesn't say "you have religious freedoms unless you're in the government."


While she works for the government, while she represents the government she is in essence the government, thus the first amendment section mentioning not recognizing a religion applies to her. The second she is not in the office it no longer applies, but while she is in a government office doing her job as a government employee that is exactly what it says.

Where does the first amendment ever say that it doesn't apply to someone?! Please inform me about this miraculous statement!
Pro: Conservative, Capitalism, Right-Wing parties, LGBT, small government, Israel, military, small minimum wage, police, freedom from taxation, 2nd Amendment, Constitution,

Neutral: religion, Palestine, abortion [to some extent]

Anti: Communism, Socialism, Leftists, gun control, high minimum wage, high income tax, Obama, SANDERS, Hillary, legalizing marajuana, welfare, race card


Trump 2016 Born Right

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:23 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:How is being the county clerk part of her religion? That's what the Bill of Rights protects, your right to worship as you please. Name me a religion that includes the issuance of secular marriage licenses as part of its worship ceremonies.
marriage= religion. You're an idiot.

Marriage in the US is a secular institution. No church involvement is required for a marriage to be valid.
Last edited by Dyakovo on Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Furry Alairia and Algeria
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21009
Founded: Apr 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Furry Alairia and Algeria » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:23 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Stellonia wrote:The separation of church and state is not established by the First Amendment.

Yes, it is. Have you read the First Amendment?

Civil Issues Class hasn't reviewed it apparently.
In memory of Dyakovo - may he never be forgotten - Дьяковожс ученик


I do not reply to telegrams, unless you are someone I know.

User avatar
Mondoncon
Envoy
 
Posts: 240
Founded: Feb 23, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Mondoncon » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Mondoncon wrote:You're talking about weddings, because marriage is between two people and the state. Through a clerk. Which is what Kim Davis is. You have no idea how funny this is.

I think he has a fair idea, in fact I think that's his intent. Like the guy who dresses up in the catchers gear and runs in front of all the dudes with paintball guns, except in his head he's going, "Suckers" for some reason.

"heh heh... Wait, why are you all laughing?"
Que?

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Geilinor wrote:The Constitution always mentions the government.

WORK. FORCE. Generally. Yes she was in the government, but it doesn't say "you have religious freedoms unless you're in the government."

Elected officials can't pick and choose which laws to follow.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Highfort
Minister
 
Posts: 2910
Founded: May 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Highfort » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:25 pm

Vaikneland wrote:Where does the first amendment ever say that it doesn't apply to someone?! Please inform me about this miraculous statement!


Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

Please reread your Constitution before coming to the adult table to discuss, thank you.
First as tragedy, then as farce

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 40542
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:25 pm

Vaikneland wrote:
Mondoncon wrote:You're talking about weddings, because marriage is between two people and the state. Through a clerk. Which is what Kim Davis is. You have no idea how funny this is.

Kim Davis is the connection if the Christian church. Forcing her to marry someone does not follow the constitution. And yet people complain about how we have no freedom anymore.


Kim Davis has nothing to do with the Christian church while she is in the office. She might have a connection outside office, but while she is in the office she is solely a county clerk.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Vaikneland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 570
Founded: Feb 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Vaikneland » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:25 pm

Neu California wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:Define marriage then. Where do you go for marriages, and who marries you? A church. And a priest. What do those things involve, sir? RELIGION


Or a government official in the right capacity. I don't know why you think you need a priest to get married, because, legally, you don't

Well you clearly need to get through Christianity somehow. Also, I noticed you're a communist, and I can see why your vision is so clouded ;)
Pro: Conservative, Capitalism, Right-Wing parties, LGBT, small government, Israel, military, small minimum wage, police, freedom from taxation, 2nd Amendment, Constitution,

Neutral: religion, Palestine, abortion [to some extent]

Anti: Communism, Socialism, Leftists, gun control, high minimum wage, high income tax, Obama, SANDERS, Hillary, legalizing marajuana, welfare, race card


Trump 2016 Born Right

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Greater Cesnica, Ifreann, Raskana, Sklobia, Techocracy101010

Advertisement

Remove ads