Post: #51

No matter what anyones views are, we can't have government workers refusing to perform their mandated duties due to personal beliefs, and expecting to continue in that position, period. What happens when its a muslim woman who's the clerk, and decides she won't serve Christians? Or a redneck who won't serve blacks? I don't care what you believe at home, stamp the damn paper or quit the job if your conscience can't bear it. You aren't being forced to do anything, you can leave anytime. The same people saying she should be allowed to refuse this are no doubt the same ones that would complain about a muslim getting special prayer break privileges- but it's exactly the same thing. It goes both ways.

As a government worker, you do not get to decline your duties due to the scripture of whatever spirit you whisper to. Everyone should be glad and relieved we live in a country with a mostly secular government. You may wish that wasn't the case, especially in situations like these, but you would quickly change your mind when the "wrong" religion gained power in your city, state, or even the country.

I think it's extremely short sighted to be willing to throw out the separation of church and state because we dislike gay marriage. The State should have no part in religion, and vise versa. Too few people appreciate this crucial part of our great constitution.

Post: #52

(09-03-2015 08:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If you break the rules at work you get fired. She didn't commit any criminal offenses (no violation of life or property) yet goes to jail instead of being fired?

The beginning of the fagstapo.

She holds an elected office. So she doesn't really have a boss like most of the rest of us. Therefore, termination with immediate effect isn't going to happen here. The faggots were discriminated against by a public official. They took their dispute to the courts which is appropriate. It ultimately landed in federal court. The judge ordered her to perform her job. She refused to comply with a perfectly legal order from the court to perform the job she was elected to and swore that she would perform. She's in jail because her actions essentially told the judge to go fuck himself. Judges generally don't like that.

Post: #53

(09-04-2015 03:11 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 08:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If you break the rules at work you get fired. She didn't commit any criminal offenses (no violation of life or property) yet goes to jail instead of being fired?

The beginning of the fagstapo.

She holds an elected office. So she doesn't really have a boss like most of the rest of us. Therefore, termination with immediate effect isn't going to happen here. The faggots were discriminated against by a public official. They took their dispute to the courts which is appropriate. It ultimately landed in federal court. The judge ordered her to perform her job. She refused to comply with a perfectly legal order from the court to perform the job she was elected to and swore that she would perform. She's in jail because her actions essentially told the judge to go fuck himself. Judges generally don't like that.

Would a mayor be thrown in jail for not doing his job? Is Hillary in jail for ignoring 3 federal judges? Is Obama? No, and they actually broke the law...repeatedly. She's not breaking any law. KY law still holds that a license is issued to a female and the governor refuses to update the law in a special session.

And she's not denying anyone their rights. In the event of a clerk not being available, ANY clerk or county judge can issue the license.

The remedy for this situation in KY is clear - impeachment, NOT imprisonment.

This woman is being targeted specifically to make a point. The degenerates wanting a license could go to the next county or have the judge executive sign it. But they insist that the one person who has a problem with it be the one to sign it. It's not about equal rights it's about acceptance and winning their victory over Christianity.

Post: #54

As a religious guy, I can co-sign GlobalMan's post. However, the challenge in maintaining a completely secular society is in regulating social behavior, which historically stems from Christian values and in practice stems from Christian traditions. I think we can all agree that the enforced secularism of the 1960's (feminism, gay rights, multiculturalism) and breakdown of the traditional American values that made the country powerful and prosperous has had unintended consequences, allowing the reigns to fall in the hands of people who'd otherwise be institutionalized as moral degenerates and shunned from society.

Social behavior must be regulated. It's the immune system of a nation and people. As America becomes more ethnically and ideologically "vibrant" it's important now more than ever to retain some sort of moral backbone in society. With that being said, this can only be done through the enactment and enforcement of laws and regulations. Government workers (as opposed to politicians) have a legal obligation to follow and enforce the laws and regulations enacted by politicians, and it's a violation of public trust to refuse these job responsibilities. I can commend her as a Christian and certainly sympathize, but at the end of the day, she holds an elected government position. Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

Post: #55

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Would a mayor be thrown in jail for not doing his job? Is Hillary in jail for ignoring 3 federal judges? Is Obama?

This I believe is considered a strawman argument. KY Hamplanet is not in jail for breaking the law, she's in jail for contempt of court.

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  No, and they actually broke the law...repeatedly.

Irrelevant.

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  She's not breaking any law. KY law still holds that a license is issued to a female and the governor refuses to update the law in a special session.

She is in contempt of court. And Federal law supersedes state law. Don't believe me?

Quote:The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

This is high school civics BTW.

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  And she's not denying anyone their rights. In the event of a clerk not being available, ANY clerk or county judge can issue the license.

She most certainly is violating the rights of the fags in that county. The supreme court said anal marriage is OK, and she's not giving marriage licenses for anal marriage. She's denied their right to equal protection and due process under the 14th amendment. KY Hamplanet was given the option to allow her deputy county clerks to sign off on anal marriage, but she wouldn't hear of it. She doesn't want her name on any anal marriage document. But as the court clerk, her name is going to be on any official document the office issues. But none of this shit really matters because she's in contempt.

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  The remedy for this situation in KY is clear - impeachment, NOT imprisonment.

She's not in jail for failing to do her job, she's in jail for contempt. She failed to follow a legal order from the judge. Whether or not she'll be impeached is anyone's guess. That's a sidenote for the county to deal with.

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  This woman is being targeted specifically to make a point. The degenerates wanting a license could go to the next county or have the judge executive sign it. But they insist that the one person who has a problem with it be the one to sign it. It's not about equal rights it's about acceptance and winning their victory over Christianity.

When she was elected she was sworn into office. She most likely swore to uphold all state and federal laws, and to uphold the constitution. If her personal beliefs do not permit her to perform the duties of the job she was elected to and swore to do, then she should resign. The only person on a crusade is her.

Post: #56

Porshe, what if the federal judges fail in their oath to uphold the constitution?

Post: #57

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:11 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 08:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If you break the rules at work you get fired. She didn't commit any criminal offenses (no violation of life or property) yet goes to jail instead of being fired?

The beginning of the fagstapo.

She holds an elected office. So she doesn't really have a boss like most of the rest of us. Therefore, termination with immediate effect isn't going to happen here. The faggots were discriminated against by a public official. They took their dispute to the courts which is appropriate. It ultimately landed in federal court. The judge ordered her to perform her job. She refused to comply with a perfectly legal order from the court to perform the job she was elected to and swore that she would perform. She's in jail because her actions essentially told the judge to go fuck himself. Judges generally don't like that.

Would a mayor be thrown in jail for not doing his job? Is Hillary in jail for ignoring 3 federal judges? Is Obama? No, and they actually broke the law...repeatedly. She's not breaking any law. KY law still holds that a license is issued to a female and the governor refuses to update the law in a special session.

And she's not denying anyone their rights. In the event of a clerk not being available, ANY clerk or county judge can issue the license.

The remedy for this situation in KY is clear - impeachment, NOT imprisonment.

This woman is being targeted specifically to make a point. The degenerates wanting a license could go to the next county or have the judge executive sign it. But they insist that the one person who has a problem with it be the one to sign it. It's not about equal rights it's about acceptance and winning their victory over Christianity.

Thank you for laying out the specifics and showing how horribly political and facist this imprisonment is.

There are so many paths that this scenario could take. There could be a hearing in which she was able to be legally represented. She could be impeached (although that would be a state procedure and not a Federal one). That particular county in Kentucky could lose its Federal funding that it receives for roads and schools. For fucks sake, there has not even been a grand jury or an indictment.

This is draconian.

If she broke the law, issue an arrest warrant and set bail. But just throw her in jail, WTF???

Post: #58

(09-04-2015 05:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Porshe, what if the federal judges fail in their oath to uphold the constitution?

It's up to Congress to decide if Federal judges fail to uphold their oath, and it's up to Congress to impeach them if necessary. But I suspect you're trying to turn this back into "she's in jail for being against anal marriage." That's not the case. She's in jail because she refused to obey a lawful order from a Federal judge. It's called contempt. She could be released immediately if she complies with the order or she resigns.

Post: #59

No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

Post: #60

(09-04-2015 05:35 AM)Truckn Wrote:  Thank you for laying out the specifics and showing how horribly political and facist this imprisonment is.

There are so many paths that this scenario could take. There could be a hearing in which she was able to be legally represented. She could be impeached (although that would be a state procedure and not a Federal one). That particular county in Kentucky could lose its Federal funding that it receives for roads and schools. For fucks sake, there has not even been a grand jury or an indictment.

This is draconian.

If she broke the law, issue an arrest warrant and set bail. But just throw her in jail, WTF???

There's nothing draconian or fascist about this. If you are in a court case, and the presiding judge(with legal authority) tells you to do A, B, or C, and you do none of the above, you are in contempt. They may opt to give you a second chance, as they did with this woman (they gave her an alternative solution). However, if you still refuse to comply, you will eventually find yourself in jail.

Post: #61

delete

Post: #62

I can accept her getting fired for not doing her job, but jailing her is pure facism and fearmongering from the gay lobby. What will come next? Will they jail priests who refuse to marry gays? Will they jail everyone who refuses to wear rainbow flag and suck a cock at work?

Post: #63

(09-03-2015 09:35 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 08:05 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 07:53 PM)robreke Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 07:17 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  She is denying people's rights by not issuing them marriage licenses in accordnce with the law. Her religious views are immaterial.

Look at it from the other side; If she was allowed to do this, then the citizens of other counties could elect County Clerks to nullify the law of the land.

That would not end well.

Yeah, but jail !?

Agree.

Hotwheels, for a local example...no one tried to jail Scott Walker and...whats the name of the senate leader?...for allegedly breaking senate procedural law...they went ahead and tried to recall them. Though the Madison liberals would have loved it, it wasn't even an option.

The Dems in both houses ran and hid out of state to avoid being arrested for refusing to show up to "work" IIRC. (In WI a few years ago)

What other option is there other than jail for this broad? She refused to follow a judicial order.

I like her gumption, but she is wrong.

I think there were recall petitions on some of the Dems who fled the state but they never got enough signatures? Memory is foggy.

On the Kentucky clerk...its not that I disagree with her jail time, its that its an indefinite sentence. If the judge was like "30 days in jail, then another contempt charge if you don't change your mind or resign" that would have been much more rational than just locking her up until she recants on her beliefs.

Post: #64

(09-04-2015 05:53 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

The prohibition of gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. They are the final word on the subject. I'm not sure what is to be nullified.

Post: #65

(09-04-2015 06:22 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 05:53 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

The prohibition of gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. They are the final word on the subject. I'm not sure what is to be nullified.

Marriage isn't a right

Post: #66

(09-04-2015 02:48 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  As a government worker, you do not get to decline your duties due to the scripture of whatever spirit you whisper to. Everyone should be glad and relieved we live in a country with a mostly secular government. You may wish that wasn't the case, especially in situations like these, but you would quickly change your mind when the "wrong" religion gained power in your city, state, or even the country.

Totally agree. Allowing her to do this(not doing her job) with impunity would have set a bad precedent.

She either going to resign or be fired/impeached. Then another clerk who will perform the job will be elected and those same homosexuals she turned away will get their licenses.


So while I agree with her stance on gay marriage, she accomplished nothing. Resignation would've been the best course of action.

Post: #67

(09-04-2015 06:28 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 06:22 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 05:53 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

The prohibition of gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. They are the final word on the subject. I'm not sure what is to be nullified.

Marriage isn't a right

The ruling never said that it was a right. The ruling only said that the prohibition of same sex marriage was unconstitutional for the reasons I already stated. It does not grant people the privilege of getting anal married.

Post: #68

(09-04-2015 05:55 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 05:35 AM)Truckn Wrote:  Thank you for laying out the specifics and showing how horribly political and facist this imprisonment is.

There are so many paths that this scenario could take. There could be a hearing in which she was able to be legally represented. She could be impeached (although that would be a state procedure and not a Federal one). That particular county in Kentucky could lose its Federal funding that it receives for roads and schools. For fucks sake, there has not even been a grand jury or an indictment.

This is draconian.

If she broke the law, issue an arrest warrant and set bail. But just throw her in jail, WTF???

There's nothing draconian or fascist about this. If you are in a court case, and the presiding judge(with legal authority) tells you to do A, B, or C, and you do none of the above, you are in contempt. They may opt to give you a second chance, as they did with this woman (they gave her an alternative solution). However, if you still refuse to comply, you will eventually find yourself in jail.

What you just described sure sounds draconian to me. It may be the law of the land, but it's draconian. In a separate case, the same process was used to jail a man for 14 years without a trial (for failing to pay alimony that he claims he doesn't have the ability to pay). Draconian.

Post: #69

(09-04-2015 09:12 AM)Grodin Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 05:55 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 05:35 AM)Truckn Wrote:  Thank you for laying out the specifics and showing how horribly political and facist this imprisonment is.

There are so many paths that this scenario could take. There could be a hearing in which she was able to be legally represented. She could be impeached (although that would be a state procedure and not a Federal one). That particular county in Kentucky could lose its Federal funding that it receives for roads and schools. For fucks sake, there has not even been a grand jury or an indictment.

This is draconian.

If she broke the law, issue an arrest warrant and set bail. But just throw her in jail, WTF???

There's nothing draconian or fascist about this. If you are in a court case, and the presiding judge(with legal authority) tells you to do A, B, or C, and you do none of the above, you are in contempt. They may opt to give you a second chance, as they did with this woman (they gave her an alternative solution). However, if you still refuse to comply, you will eventually find yourself in jail.

What you just described sure sounds draconian to me. It may be the law of the land, but it's draconian. In a separate case, the same process was used to jail a man for 14 years without a trial (for failing to pay alimony that he claims he doesn't have the ability to pay). Draconian.

Agreed, 8th amendment of the constitution is that the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime as an interpretation of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Putting this lady in jail for an indefinite time (now 18 months) for a 1st offence contempt of court is insane. For example, the MAX sentence for simple assault in Tennessee is a day shy of 12 months and/or a $2500 fine.

Post: #70

(09-03-2015 02:45 PM)zaqan Wrote:  The fagscists have taken over.
God help us.

(09-03-2015 01:03 PM)Eirykr Wrote:  Whatever your views on the issue, it isn't civil disobedience when you actually are the State.
Bitch clearly doesn't understand how this works.

I love how the same people who want other government officials to disobey laws of their choice are now saying she should implement the so-called law anyway. This is the problem with societies. Should the Gestapo have enforced the roundups or should one officer somewhere look the other way and risk jail by violating bad laws? It is insane. If a law is bad, it should be disobeyed, not mindlessly enforced.

There's a fair bit of difference between giving some fags a marriage license and hunting down and exterminating a race of people. Let's be real here. And as others have said, if she really felt so strongly about it she could step down.

Post: #71

Americans have a cult-like devotion to "the law", that's why you are seeing extreme shit like this. It's hard to explain but you have to live here to understand it. I mean, just to give an example they expel college kids and ruin their employment prospects for some dumb shit like "academic dishonesty".

Also "I am just doing my job"....where have I heard that before?

Nuremberg.

Post: #72

Honestly, converting to Islam is looking better and better every day. The SJW fags don't even think of messing with them because they won't roll over and give in whenever someone attacks them. They fucking fight back.

Post: #73

(09-04-2015 04:51 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Would a mayor be thrown in jail for not doing his job? Is Hillary in jail for ignoring 3 federal judges? Is Obama?

This I believe is considered a strawman argument. KY Hamplanet is not in jail for breaking the law, she's in jail for contempt of court.

This isn't a straw man because both Hillary and Obama are currently in contempt of 3 federal judges ordering them to comply with legal requests to produce documents and enforce laws - the exact same situation she is in. It only proves that there is more than one outcome of contempt. The first and only step needn't be jail time.

(09-04-2015 04:51 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:52 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  And she's not denying anyone their rights. In the event of a clerk not being available, ANY clerk or county judge can issue the license.

She most certainly is violating the rights of the fags in that county. The supreme court said anal marriage is OK, and she's not giving marriage licenses for anal marriage. She's denied their right to equal protection and due process under the 14th amendment. KY Hamplanet was given the option to allow her deputy county clerks to sign off on anal marriage, but she wouldn't hear of it. She doesn't want her name on any anal marriage document. But as the court clerk, her name is going to be on any official document the office issues. But none of this shit really matters because she's in contempt.

Would their rights be denied if she simply called in sick that day? Or was on vacation? No, because there are mechanisms in place to account for it. Same here, none of these fags are being denied a marriage license, they are refusing to follow the mechanism in place specifically to force her to go along with it and make some sick point. There is probably 1 fag couple looking to get married in Rowan county a year. This shouldn't be an issue at all, she should just direct them to the judge excutive's office as prescribed by procedure.

That should be the fix until she is impeached.

I get that she's in contempt. I get that she's refusing to let her clerks sign the license. But contempt doesn't always mean jail time and there are other ways for these fags to get a license.

And that's the exact thing the judge ruled today. The other clerks and judge executive can issue the license and Kim was released. Bunning (the judge) knows he overstepped, he knows there were other procedures to follow but he wanted to make an example out of her.


Edit: Looks like I'm wrong, she's still in jail for now. But the licenses are being issued.

Post: #74

-She is an official that was elected before the SCOTUS ruling
-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage
-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution
-The dissenting opinion for the gay marriage case stated that the decision had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution
-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names
-She has been imprisoned for "contempt of court" (not actually breaking a law in the first place before going before the judge) without due process and will remain so until she starts signing gay marriage licenses

-The governor of Texas telling the citizens of his state to disobey the Federal Law on Marriage; Nothing happens to him.
-Mayors of sanctuary cities refusing to follow Federal Immigration Law; Nothing happens to them.
-The President of the United States refuses to do his job as executive of the United States and follow Federal Immigration law; Nothing happens to him.
-SCOTUS disobeys the Constitution; Nothing happens to them.
-A little old woman follows her oath and refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper; She is imprisoned without due process.

Consensus: The branches of government are cowards for not using their checks and balances to go after these known traitors, but instead go against a little old woman. Due process and equality under the law are all but gone.
Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a healthy respect for the law.

If you think it is unacceptable for a state official to follow her oath that she swore and refuse to follow the federal government, then by logical consistency you would not tolerate soldiers in the military refusing to execute un-constitutional orders. For example; I'm sure most people here agree that a solder is in the right for refusing to execute an unarmed citizen. Please, let's have an ethical framework that offers logical consistency instead of making Ad Hoc arguments.

Post: #75

(09-04-2015 06:08 AM)Mage Wrote:  I can accept her getting fired for not doing her job, but jailing her is pure facism and fearmongering from the gay lobby. What will come next? Will they jail priests who refuse to marry gays? Will they jail everyone who refuses to wear rainbow flag and suck a cock at work?

I think you're missing the main point in this specific circumstance. She is not working in a private business. She does not have a right to refuse service to anyone. She not running a restaurant. As a county clerk she must issue a license to anyone who has followed the correct procedure and is within the law. She is an agent of the State. She is obligated to do the duties of her job, impartially. Or she can refuse, and resign.

She wasn't just thrown in jail. She was ordered to follow the law, as she must in her position, and she refused- for quite a while. The issue went to court, it was affirmed she must issue licenses to anyone who qualify, impartially. She still refused, a court order no less. So, she's now in contempt of court. This is standard, fair procedure, all laws have been followed. Except by the clerk, repeatedly.

This is nothing even close to facism. The only hint of facism going on is the type of country the clerk would like- one where your religious beliefs determine whether you will get service from government workers. That is facism.

I don't care for gay marriage, just as most people here. But, it's now legal, and it became legal not by an Act of Obama, but a lengthy court process and a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Anyway, the bitch has been divorced THREE times..but of course that's not too much for her conscience to bear.