|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 02 2015 02:32 Slaughter wrote:
Yea I read it would take a special session to have her removed or something because of where they are with their legislature.
Btw the couples who are suing are asking only for financial penalties and not to give her jail time.
The jail time is a consequence of repeatedly failing to follow court orders, not because their lawyer asks for it.
|
If she receives jail time for failing to comply with the order, it will be because the judge is super annoyed or wants to avoid the issue in the future. But she needs to be removed from the office if she won't issue the license.
|
On September 02 2015 02:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 02:32 Slaughter wrote:
Yea I read it would take a special session to have her removed or something because of where they are with their legislature.
Btw the couples who are suing are asking only for financial penalties and not to give her jail time. The jail time is a consequence of repeatedly failing to follow court orders, not because their lawyer asks for it.
The judge pretty much has discretion in this case on punishment and in these cases it is not unusual for the party suing to urge the judge for a lesser punishment.
|
|
|
@TPM
Federal judge summons Kentucky county clerk AND her entire staff to explain why she should not face stiff fine or jail time for refusing the court's order to issue same-sex marriage licenses, with special video bonus of her refusing a license to a gay couple this morning after the Supreme Court declined to bail her out.
|
I applaud the county clerk. The Supreme Court abused their power by trying to redefine marriage so it is the duty of everyone who recognizes the Supreme Court's abuse of power to refuse to bow before the Supreme Court's abuse of power.
|
On September 02 2015 04:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:@TPM Show nested quote +Federal judge summons Kentucky county clerk AND her entire staff to explain why she should not face stiff fine or jail time for refusing the court's order to issue same-sex marriage licenses, with special video bonus of her refusing a license to a gay couple this morning after the Supreme Court declined to bail her out.
I am sort of in awe that her entire staff is also going along with this. Good on the judge for reminding them that they are all accountable and that she can’t fall on the sword for them alone.
On September 02 2015 04:47 Ravianna26 wrote:
I applaud the county clerk. The Supreme Court abused their power by trying to redefine marriage so it is the duty of everyone who recognizes the Supreme Court's abuse of power to refuse to bow before the Supreme Court's abuse of power.
The same thing was said by someone about interracial marriage. And literally ever other law or ruling that told people they couldn't have legally protected bigotry.
|
United States41989 Posts
On September 02 2015 04:47 Ravianna26 wrote:
I applaud the county clerk. The Supreme Court abused their power by trying to redefine marriage so it is the duty of everyone who recognizes the Supreme Court's abuse of power to refuse to bow before the Supreme Court's abuse of power.
That's not how arguments work. It was agreed that this was a difficult question but that there had to be an answer. The Supreme Court's job was to debate the issue and come up with that answer. You can't then decide that you know better than them and continue as before if they picked an answer you didn't like. Not if you're an official forming part of the state that the Supreme Court decided it for.
Hell, you might as well have said "coinflip then, heads gays can marry, tails they can't" and then gone "coinflips are dumb, gays can't marry" if it came up heads.
|
On September 02 2015 04:47 Ravianna26 wrote:
I applaud the county clerk. The Supreme Court abused their power by trying to redefine marriage so it is the duty of everyone who recognizes the Supreme Court's abuse of power to refuse to bow before the Supreme Court's abuse of power.
What is the original definition of marriage and who defined it?
|
On September 02 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:The same thing was said by someone about interracial marriage. And literally ever other law or ruling that told people they couldn't have legally protected bigotry.
The real issue regarding refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is that the marriage license is considered blasphemous* by major religions. Do the clerks have the right, under either freedom of speech or freedom of religion, to refuse to certify a statement that their religion considers blasphemous? Or is that trumped by the couples' right to marry without undue inconvenience?
*The definition of blasphemy is incosistent between cultural groups; I use it here to mean 'insulting or disrespectful to (a) god'. I'm not talking about heresy, which would simply be in contradiction to the religion's teachings.
|
On September 02 2015 05:07 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:The same thing was said by someone about interracial marriage. And literally ever other law or ruling that told people they couldn't have legally protected bigotry. The real issue regarding refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is that it's considered blasphemous by major religions. Do the clerks have the right, under either freedom of speech or freedom of religion, to refuse to certify a statement that their religion considers blasphemous? Or is that trumped by the couples' right to marry without undue inconvenience?
The Courts have all ruled they do not have the right to withhold government services due to their personal religious beliefs. You can't collect a government pay check and then make your own rules on who gets what.
And I would also point out it has nothing to do with inconvenience. If one clerk can do it, they can all do it.
|
On September 02 2015 05:07 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:The same thing was said by someone about interracial marriage. And literally ever other law or ruling that told people they couldn't have legally protected bigotry. The real issue regarding refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is that it's considered blasphemous* by major religions. Do the clerks have the right, under either freedom of speech or freedom of religion, to refuse to certify a statement that their religion considers blasphemous? Or is that trumped by the couples' right to marry without undue inconvenience? *The definition shifts between cultural groups; I use it here to mean 'insulting or disrespectful to (a) god'. I'm not talking about heresy, which would simply be in contradiction to the religion's teachings.
You're forgetting a key component; do the clerks have a right to employment as clerks to the extent that they can effectuate their religious rights as individuals under no color of law or governance? The answer is no.
|
Isn't it possible for her to shove the work onto one of her coworkers or something so she doesn't have to participate but her office still does its job.
This woman is annoying. I am so sick of this sudden surge of christians all of a sudden discovering their religious rights and pounding everyone over the head as if the brain damage will make us all forget that they are just using it as a shield for their prejudice.
|
Hmm... then I'd like to have your evaluation of a couple of other, hypothetical circumstances:
1) A state education agency requires all science teachers to tell their class that there is no God in the first lesson of each year. Some teachers refuse to do so.
2) A postal-system worker refuses to print the initial run of stamps with an image of Prophet Muhammad on them. When the stamps eventually do get printed, many post office employees refuse to sell them.
|
Her co-workers are refusing as well or she is forcing them due to threat of termination. It sounds like she runs that office. And I am also annoyed at the surge of Christians who insist on being unable to co-exist with others. There is a long list of sins in the world, issuing a gay marriage license is on the low end.
But its not about that. Its about her having the power and refusing to give it up.
On September 02 2015 05:23 Buckyman wrote:
Hmm... then I'd like to have your evaluation of a couple of other, hypothetical circumstances:
1) A state education agency requires all science teachers to tell their class that there is no God in the first lesson of each year. Some teachers refuse to do so.
2) A postal-system worker refuses to print the initial run of stamps with an image of Prophet Muhammad on them. When the stamps eventually do get printed, many post office employees refuse to sell them.
1) That is dumb and that lesson plan wouldn't exist. No science teacher is going to talk about god during a class. And no school is going request he say that.
2) Someone else can sell the stamps if its a huge issue. Just like someone can cover for him during prayer. It isn't denying anyone rights.
|
On September 02 2015 05:23 Buckyman wrote:
Hmm... then I'd like to have your evaluation of a couple of other, hypothetical circumstances:
1) A state education agency requires all science teachers to tell their class that there is no God in the first lesson of each year. Some teachers refuse to do so.
2) A postal-system worker refuses to print the initial run of stamps with an image of Prophet Muhammad on them. When the stamps eventually do get printed, many post office employees refuse to sell them.
1. Curriculum standards and requirements vary state by state, but in all likelihood, the teachers' collective bargaining agreement would include language that either 1) affixes penalties for a failure to conform with curriculum requirements or 2) immunizes teachers from reprimand relative to ideological disagreements with curriculum.
2. Again, this is going to involve a collective bargaining agreement. However, unlike teachers, postal workers perform work less susceptible to an individual's personal views, and it is almost certain that all detractors would simply be reprimanded and then fired if they continue to fail to perform their duties.
|
On September 02 2015 05:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 05:23 Buckyman wrote:
Hmm... then I'd like to have your evaluation of a couple of other, hypothetical circumstances:
1) A state education agency requires all science teachers to tell their class that there is no God in the first lesson of each year. Some teachers refuse to do so.
2) A postal-system worker refuses to print the initial run of stamps with an image of Prophet Muhammad on them. When the stamps eventually do get printed, many post office employees refuse to sell them.
1. Curriculum standards and requirements vary state by state, but in all likelihood, the teachers' collective bargaining agreement would include language that either 1) affixes penalties for a failure to conform with curriculum requirements or 2) immunizes teachers from reprimand relative to ideological disagreements with curriculum. 2. Again, this is going to involve a collective bargaining agreement. However, unlike teachers, postal workers perform work less susceptible to an individual's personal views, and it is almost certain that all detractors would be simply be reprimanded and then fired if they continue to fail to perform their duties.
The only issue would be if the postal workers refused to sell the stamps on the basis of fear of retribution/attack from terrorists, i.e. Charlie Hebdo.
If they refused on basis of religious beliefs, then yeah - they would be relieved of their position.
|
On September 02 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:There is a long list of sins in the world, issuing a gay marriage license is on the low end.
Depends on who you ask - "Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious, or even the most serious, sin by the major creeds and Church theologians" (Wikipedia/Blasphemy)
On September 02 2015 05:35 JinDesu wrote:If they refused on basis of religious beliefs, then yeah - they would be relieved of their position.
...and this would likely lead to a huge a religious discrimination lawsuit.
|
On September 02 2015 05:23 Buckyman wrote:
Hmm... then I'd like to have your evaluation of a couple of other, hypothetical circumstances:
1) A state education agency requires all science teachers to tell their class that there is no God in the first lesson of each year. Some teachers refuse to do so.
2) A postal-system worker refuses to print the initial run of stamps with an image of Prophet Muhammad on them. When the stamps eventually do get printed, many post office employees refuse to sell them.
Main question here is:
1) Why is the government not being secular? Fairly certain forcing someone to admit there is no God goes against their second amendment right.
2) Why is the US postal service printing stamps that will piss off a couple of hundred million people, including allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, as well as other friendly countries like Morocco and Algeria, Malaysia and Indonesia, and further antagonize enemy nations that really do not need more fuel thrown on their fire of hatred for the USA? However, IF the US Postal service were to go full postal, they can presumably force their employees to do their jobs or get fired.
|
2 temp bans in 4 posts is actually impressive stuff. You've really gotta be trying!
At this point the clerk lady is in for a penny in for a pound. She's going to ride this until she gets jailed and removed from her job. At which point people will start throwing money at her poor persecuted soul. This has absolutely nothing to do with religious convictions as anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can tell you. She's an old troll filled with hatred that is looking for attention and money at the end of the day.
Btw, no self respecting science teacher would flat out say "there is no god" anyway. Odds are there isn't as there is no actual evidence of one. But it can never ever be definitively proven there 100% is no god, its scientifically impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
