SCOTUS orders thrice-divorced KY county clerk to issue marriage license

[Bengalholic]

To watch that scene...the highly over-dramatic Davis being led from jail by the hand of the attention mongering Huckabee...while Eye of the Tiger plays in the background...WTF? I'm sorry, but how can anyone take these people even semi-seriously? Even if you agree with their 'views'...Davis and the Huckster are just odd people, although I could envision them as a damn good comedy duo!

[Belsnickel]

What concerns me the most about all of this is how many folks we have that don't understand the separation from your individual beliefs from that of your office, and that your individual beliefs do not mean you can ignore the duties of your office. Kim Davis isn't the only one doing this and it's frightening to me how many people are so willing to back these people up.

This is not a theocracy and as a government official you are to follow government policies and laws. Yet we have people backing these government officials up, and it is people that one would hope would know better. I've said before I am against anti-discrimination laws, especially at the federal level, but the government is absolutely not allowed to discriminate. If your beliefs are not in line with that then you need to step aside because you cannot fulfill your duties as a government official.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 06:30 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: To watch that scene...the highly over-dramatic Davis being led from jail by the hand of the attention mongering Huckabee...while Eye of the Tiger plays in the background...WTF? I'm sorry, but how can anyone take these people even semi-seriously? Even if you agree with their 'views'...Davis and the Huckster are just odd people, although I could envision them as a  damn good comedy duo!

It all started with Trump's announcement speech. From the ridiculous decision to hold it in his ***** hotel to randomly playing a 10 second clip of "Keep On Rockin' The Free World" after he officially declared, it set off a race to the bottom for attention in politics.

Before you know it we had Lindsey Graham putting his phone in a blender and Ben Carson endorsing drone strikes on illegal immigrants.

Why not have some homophobic inbred looking 4 time divorcee blare "Eye of the Tiger" while she gets compared to Abe Lincoln by a presidential candidate for violating somebody's legal rights?

It's all part of the clown car...

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 06:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What concerns me the most about all of this is how many folks we have that don't understand the separation from your individual beliefs from that of your office, and that your individual beliefs do not mean you can ignore the duties of your office. Kim Davis isn't the only one doing this and it's frightening to me how many people are so willing to back these people up.

This is not a theocracy and as a government official you are to follow government policies and laws. Yet we have people backing these government officials up, and it is people that one would hope would know better. I've said before I am against anti-discrimination laws, especially at the federal level, but the government is absolutely not allowed to discriminate. If your beliefs are not in line with that then you need to step aside because you cannot fulfill your duties as a government official.

She is standing up for religious freedom.Which, as usual, means the freedom to violate people's rights.
 
I saw somebody on Facebook compare this psychotic pervert to Martin Luther King.

Needless to say, that person is no longer on my Facebook.

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2015, 06:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What concerns me the most about all of this is how many folks we have that don't understand the separation from your individual beliefs from that of your office, and that your individual beliefs do not mean you can ignore the duties of your office. Kim Davis isn't the only one doing this and it's frightening to me how many people are so willing to back these people up.

This is not a theocracy and as a government official you are to follow government policies and laws. Yet we have people backing these government officials up, and it is people that one would hope would know better. I've said before I am against anti-discrimination laws, especially at the federal level, but the government is absolutely not allowed to discriminate. If your beliefs are not in line with that then you need to step aside because you cannot fulfill your duties as a government official.

You have to understand that the fact that she's Christian and that she's fighting against gay marriage is what drives them.

As far as they're concerned, the Supreme Court acted unlawfully when it struck down these gay marriage bans.

Replace her with a Muslim man saying he respects Sharia law over Mans law and they'd flipped their stance.

[jakefromstatefarm]

[GMDino]

[*bfine32*]

Would folks have the same POV if a Mayor of a major US city refused to follow Federal Laws?

I know I would.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-08-2015, 06:30 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: To watch that scene...the highly over-dramatic Davis being led from jail by the hand of the attention mongering Huckabee...while Eye of the Tiger plays in the background...WTF? I'm sorry, but how can anyone take these people even semi-seriously? Even if you agree with their 'views'...Davis and the Huckster are just odd people, although I could envision them as a  damn good comedy duo!

I got a chuckle from the "Heil Hitler" salute.

Would have been funny to see her say "don't worry....while in jail I met the 5th love of my life, and we're getting married - THE LORD works in mysterious ways!!!!"

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 10:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would folks have the same POV if a Mayor of a major US city refused to follow Federal Laws?

I know I would.

As in, what, declining to issue a business license to same sex couples?

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 06:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What concerns me the most about all of this is how many folks we have that don't understand the separation from your individual beliefs from that of your office, and that your individual beliefs do not mean you can ignore the duties of your office. Kim Davis isn't the only one doing this and it's frightening to me how many people are so willing to back these people up.

This is not a theocracy and as a government official you are to follow government policies and laws. Yet we have people backing these government officials up, and it is people that one would hope would know better. I've said before I am against anti-discrimination laws, especially at the federal level, but the government is absolutely not allowed to discriminate. If your beliefs are not in line with that then you need to step aside because you cannot fulfill your duties as a government official.

You seem pretty adamant about this. Do you feel the Mayor of San Francisco should step down?

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2015, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You seem pretty adamant about this. Do you feel the Mayor of San Francisco should step down?

Context?

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 10:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Context?

Refusing to follow Federal Law

Answer?

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2015, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Refusing to follow Federal Law

I assumed you had an actual case of this happening in San Francisco and wanted to read up on it.

Like Davis, if they refused to follow the federal law  by denying rights to citizens and repeatedly ignored a court order, they should be impeached. If it was a federal law that I strongly believed was unconstitutional and was infringing upon the rights of citizens, I might argue otherwise. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 11:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I assumed you had an actual case of this happening in San Francisco and wanted to read up on it.

Like Davis, if they refused to follow the federal law  by denying rights to citizens and repeatedly ignored a court order, they should be impeached. If it was a federal law that I strongly believed was unconstitutional and was infringing upon the rights of citizens, I might argue otherwise. 

Oh, I was just moved by the whole "Elected Officials cannot let their personal views influence their duty to follow Federal Laws." But apparently there are qualifiers.

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2015, 11:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I was just moved by the whole "Elected Officials cannot let their personal views influence their duty to follow Federal Laws." But apparently there are qualifiers.

I applied the same criteria to both. If you're infringing upon the rights of citizens, there's no excuse.

If you're trying to protect the rights of citizens, I may be supportive. 

The most important role of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens. 

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Refusing to follow Federal Law

Answer?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/07/politics/mike-huckabee-kim-davis-gavin-newsom-gay-marriage/

Is that what you're referring to?

If so, that's probably not a good example. As the link mentions and if I remember right, when the courts ordered Newsom to stop honoring people's civil rights, he went back to oppressing them as the courts ordered.

The Rowan clerk, on the other hand, was the opposite. She was ordered to start honoring their right to get married, which she declined.

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 11:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I applied the same criteria to both. If you're infringing upon the rights of citizens, there's no excuse.

If you're trying to protect the rights of citizens, I may be supportive. 

The most important role of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens. 

Citizens you say? So you're kinda wishy washy about elected officials choosing whether or to follow Federal Law?
Seems you and a few others in this thread that suggest an elected official must follow the rules don't see eye to eye.

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 11:20 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/07/politics/mike-huckabee-kim-davis-gavin-newsom-gay-marriage/

Is that what you're referring to?

If so, that's probably not a good example. As the link mentions and if I remember right, when the courts ordered Newsom to stop honoring people's civil rights, he went back to oppressing them as the courts ordered.

The Rowan clerk, on the other hand, was the opposite. She was ordered to start honoring their right to get married, which she declined.

Oh, I absolutely agree Ms Davis should fulfill the duties of her position as mandated by Federal Law. But I am finding out it is kind of a gray line in many folks view. Folks seemed so adamant about it earlier.

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2015, 11:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Citizens you say? So you're kinda wishy washy about elected officials choosing whether or to follow Federal Law?
Seems you and a few others in this thread that suggest an elected official must follow the rules don't see eye to eye.

I'm not really sure how it's wishy washy to say that any elected official who violates the rights of citizens should face some punishment. 

And I find that the majority of people do not see eye to eye on every issue.