Post: #101

(09-05-2015 02:35 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The reason why she is in jail and being punished is because she's going against a leftist cause.

A cause which, in the case of anal marriage, Americans in several states REJECTED via popular referendum.

You're re-arguing the gay marriage issue, when as a legal matter it's settled. I would prefer it wasn't legalized, but as it is we have to look at this lady's situation with that in mind.

A county clerk, or any other government employee, does not have any right at all to refuse service based on religious belief, impose a religious test, or impose their beliefs on others. The homos are not restricting/removing/trampling any right of the clerk, she has no right to refuse service based on personal belief as an agent of the State, she never has, for any reason, not just this reason. They are not imposing their beliefs on her, they are not restriction her religious freedom. On the flip side, she is denying service based on religious belief, denying the religious freedom (or freedom from religion) of the homos. Its homos today, but set this precedent and it can be a muslim woman refusing service for a different reason tomorrow.

The woman is jailed because she's refusing a court order and she's in contempt of court. Every proper legal avenue has been followed. You don't get to choose when to follow a legal, valid court order. She could have resigned, and not be in jail. She could have followed the law, and not be in jail. She could have accepted the judges compromise offer to not have her signature on the form, and not be in jail, but she refused. She has put herself where she is.

In this instance its gay marriage, so many people here are coming to her defense based on that, but they are not considering the very important protections we have, the same one preventing this woman from imposing her religious beliefs is the same one preventing the Koran from being taught in public schools. That is extremely important in my opinion.

Some people seem to want State religion, a theocracy. It sounds good when its an issue you agree with..but its a nightmare scenario in others, and I'm grateful to the founders and their wisdom, creating a secular state.

Post: #102

(09-05-2015 04:13 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(09-05-2015 02:35 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The reason why she is in jail and being punished is because she's going against a leftist cause.

A cause which, in the case of anal marriage, Americans in several states REJECTED via popular referendum.

You're re-arguing the gay marriage issue, when as a legal matter it's settled. I would prefer it wasn't legalized, but as it is we have to look at this lady's situation with that in mind.

A county clerk, or any other government employee, does not have any right at all to refuse service based on religious belief, impose a religious test, or impose their beliefs on others. The homos are not restricting/removing/trampling any right of the clerk, she has no right to refuse service based on personal belief as an agent of the State, she never has, for any reason, not just this reason. They are not imposing their beliefs on her, they are not restriction her religious freedom. On the flip side, she is denying service based on religious belief, denying the religious freedom (or freedom from religion) of the homos. Its homos today, but set this precedent and it can be a muslim woman refusing service for a different reason tomorrow.

The woman is jailed because she's refusing a court order and she's in contempt of court. Every proper legal avenue has been followed. You don't get to choose when to follow a legal, valid court order. She could have resigned, and not be in jail. She could have followed the law, and not be in jail. She could have accepted the judges compromise offer to not have her signature on the form, and not be in jail, but she refused. She has put herself where she is.

In this instance its gay marriage, so many people here are coming to her defense based on that, but they are not considering the very important protections we have, the same one preventing this woman from imposing her religious beliefs is the same one preventing the Koran from being taught in public schools. That is extremely important in my opinion.

Some people seem to want State religion, a theocracy. It sounds good when its an issue you agree with..but its a nightmare scenario in others, and I'm grateful to the founders and their wisdom, creating a secular state.

I would extend that to say "Some people seem to want the RETURN of state religion, a theocracy". The references to god in the pledge of allegiance, founding documents, inscriptions on government buildings, former school prayer etc indicates that mixing in christian religion in america was part of was this country used to be. If America was truly secular, generations before us would have been outraged at the first mention of a 'prayer breakfast'

Post: #103

(09-05-2015 04:39 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I would extend that to say "Some people seem to want the RETURN of state religion, a theocracy". The references to god in the pledge of allegiance, founding documents, inscriptions on government buildings, former school prayer etc indicates that mixing in christian religion in america was part of was this country used to be. If America was truly secular, generations before us would have been outraged at the first mention of a 'prayer breakfast'

They should of been outraged just like they should of been outraged by slavery based on the fact that one of the primary reasons for declaring independence from England was... We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ... Thomas Jefferson But the irony of that was lost on some even the most learned men of the day.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. "

By the way the phrase "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 so I would argue that if we are to "return" to anything it should be to the clear separation between the secular government our founding fathers intended and any "church"...mono theocratic or otherwise

Post: #104

(09-05-2015 05:24 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(09-05-2015 04:39 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I would extend that to say "Some people seem to want the RETURN of state religion, a theocracy". The references to god in the pledge of allegiance, founding documents, inscriptions on government buildings, former school prayer etc indicates that mixing in christian religion in america was part of was this country used to be. If America was truly secular, generations before us would have been outraged at the first mention of a 'prayer breakfast'

They should of been outraged just like they should of been outraged by slavery based on the fact that one of the primary reasons for declaring independence from England was... We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ... Thomas Jefferson But the irony of that was lost on some even the most learned men of the day.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. "

By the way the phrase "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 so I would argue that if we are to "return" to anything it should be to the clear separation between the secular government our founding fathers intended and any "church"...mono theocratic or otherwise

I would agree that the reason for independence was that "all men are created equal" but this related to equal representation not religion...england was ignoring the wishes of the colonies and imposing taxes as it felt fit. The US citizens did not have equal standing with their english counterparts, hence the equality statement. Religious freedom itself goes back to the founding of the colonies. Pennsylvania for example, founded by William Penn...a quaker, who led the founding of the colony because the quakers were persecuted and not allowed to practice in england. So, that colony at least was an actual kind of theocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...in_England

The first amendment also relates back to both Quaker and Puritan reasons for leaving england in the first place. Those 'religious freedom' statements were often in the constitutions of the early colonies. They wanted assurances that they could practice their religion without interference from the government and so they recreated it in the US constitution. Its not that the government was supposed to be secular or atheist, it was that it wasn't to be used as a weapon to oppress certain christian sects...just...like...its...being...used...today.

Post: #105

When Trump jails everyone complicit in sanctuary cities...

Post: #106

For me, the main point of this whole issue is this: The separation of church and State has been and is infinitely more crucial, valuable and important to our society than preventing a homo couple from getting a legal document. Infinitely.

Post: #107

Muslim Flight attendant complaining about being suspended for refusing to serve alcohol.

Worth watching, even if just to get outraged at the double standard: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel...index.html

Post: #108

Global Man:

Yea, I'm sure the founders would take the side of the people imprisoning this lady...

The Founders were agnostic or Christian, married, and if they were agnostic, still had a deep respect for Christianity and the religion of their countrymen.

The Separation of Church and State, states that the Government shall make no law with regards to religion. The Constitution never addresses marriage nor does it say anywhere in the constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to DEFINE marriage, by default this power goes to the States under the tenth amendment.

This woman's actions are constitutional in the same way that Rosa Parks action to sit at the front of the bus was constitutional. She is protesting State overreach that goes against the intentions of our founders.


Our Founders would be horrified at the intrusion of both state and federal governments into the institution of marriage and the widespread acceptance of deviancy.

The fact that you feel it necessary to invoke the wisdom of our Founders when you know damn well sure its a twisting of the obvious truth that our Founders would undoubtedly be siding with the county clerk standing as a rock against a wave of cultural degeneracy, shows the continued power of the document, The Constitution of the United States of America, and the pristine reputation of the brave men who formed it into being, that you, someone diametrically opposed to their goals of a limited government protecting the rights of their descendants against a future overbearing government, feel it necessary to claim that you would have their support.

They would despise you and your values.

Post: #109

(09-05-2015 11:41 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  Muslim Flight attendant complaining about being suspended for refusing to serve alcohol.

Worth watching, even if just to get outraged at the double standard: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel...index.html

No double standard regardless of the outcome. Public and private play by different rules.

You can bet that the airline is changing the application for flight attendants to include questioning them if they have any reservations about serving alcohol. If applicants say yes, they don't get hired. If they say no, and then they refuse to do it, they get fired for lying on their application.

The airline did fuck up by allowing her to work around the problem (by passing her workload off onto others.)

Quote:...and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

There's more entitlement in this statement than you'd see on an entire busload of welfare queens headed to the social services office on the first of the month.

If I had an airline all the flight attendants would be Thai or Latina (girls who accept that having their asses groped is a normal part of the work day.)

Post: #110

(09-06-2015 02:13 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  The Separation of Church and State, states that the Government shall make no law with regards to religion. The Constitution never addresses marriage nor does it say anywhere in the constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to DEFINE marriage, by default this power goes to the States under the tenth amendment.

The supreme court didn't define marriage in their ruling. They just said that same sex marriage cannot be prohibited as it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. This is actually the 5th or 6th time I've said this and no one has challenged me on it. And yet, people keep repeating the same Fox News talking points that are woefully incorrect. Why won't someone refute my statement, instead of serving plate after plate of word salad?

(09-06-2015 02:13 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  This woman's actions are constitutional in the same way that Rosa Parks action to sit at the front of the bus was constitutional. She is protesting State overreach that goes against the intentions of our founders.

No, she was abusing her publicly elected office to pursue her own religious and political agenda. Rosa Parks simply took a seat on the bus because she was tired from working that day. I'd bet this woman's "spiritual awakening" happened right around the same time when her mother (the previous county clerk who held the position for quite a while) made it clear she planned to retire and her daughter decided it was time the shed the image of town whore so she could fill the upcoming vacancy.

(09-06-2015 02:13 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Our Founders would be horrified at the intrusion of both state and federal governments into the institution of marriage and the widespread acceptance of deviancy.

No one really knows what the founding fathers would say.

Post: #111

Well, there is no authority under the constitution for the federal government to be involved in marriage, and the ruling has been interpreted as superseding state's constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Under the new Constitutional ruling, a gay person can now get married in Alabama, where as previously, 81% of the people voted on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In Kentucky* in 2012 lets say, under their constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, if a gay guy applies for a marriage license, he is denied, per their constitution, but this does not violate the equal protection clause or due process clause, because his right to get married to a woman is not being trampled on. He can still live with his boyfriend and have a wedding, the state simply didn't recognize it.

Because the new ruling has superseded these states constitutions, it has in effect defined marriage, and violated the tenth amendment by overstepping its powers as laid out in the constitution.

AND BY THE WAY, I DON'T HAVE CABLE AND HAVEN'T WATCHED A SHOW ON FOX NEWS SINCE 2008 SAVE THE RECENT DEBATE. WHAT IS WITH LIBERALS ACCUSING PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM OF WATCHING FOX NEWS? THERE ARE OTHER SOURCES FOR PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH THE BORG THAN THE STANDARD MAINSTREAM FOX NEWS CHANNEL WHICH IS ONLY SLIGHTLY TO THE RIGHT OF THE OTHER BIG NETWORKS AND ROUTINELY GETS ITS TALKING POINTS FROM THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT.

Sorry for the caps, I just don't get the obsession over this fox news slur.

Post: #112

Abusing her office, kind of like how Obama has been abusing his office by shipping drugs to gun cartels. Unbelievable the priorities of the modern day liberal. Send a clerk to prison in some Kentucky town but remain willfully ignorant of the crimes of the Democratic party establishment.

Post: #113

There has been some hope for everybody because of this gay marriage ruling though. Conservatives have started to talk about completely abandoning the states intrusion into marriage and family life altogether.

Post: #114

We do know what the founders would say or at least their reaction.

They wrote a lot.

They were huge supporters of Christian morality and traditional families. Early Americans fled extremely traditional and Christian Europe because Europe wouldn't tolerate their even more traditional interpretation of the bible.

Post: #115

It doesn't really matter what the founders liked or wanted at this point. They lived in a different time, world, and country and expected their descendants to share their principles and uphold them. And if not, to change the system to suit their needs. Americans failed to uphold the principles of its founders and its founding documents. They delegated that responsibility solely to judges, who are just men that are as corruptible as anyone else.

The long march through the institutions and various flavors of marxism destroyed the rule of law in this country.

The future now belongs to those with the strength, power, and will to take what they want. The left fundamentally understands this and has been waging total war by any means necessary.

The American right, by and large, still doesn't get it. You can be "principled" and fight with a blindfold on and both hands tied behind your back and continue to lose or you can take it off, untie yourself and fight, like them, by any means necessary to get what you want.

Believe me, I didn't like accepting this because I very much like the Constitution and the BoR and the liberties it was designed to protect. But most of them are so compromised and legally infringed that they've been rendered moot and will only continue to be disregarded in the future by people who don't give a shit about it. It's not a living document like the left likes to say to justify whatever they want to do. It's a dead document and its restoration is not possible at this point.

It sucks, I know, but that's the truth and you can trace the beginning of its death all the way back to nonsensical rulings on the interstate commerce clause.

It's time to move forward. I support what this woman is doing but she is one person. More concerted, intelligent efforts to combat this shit have to be made on every front in the future.

Post: #116

The wastelander, you're right.

I just wanted to set the record straight.

By the way, Trump is killing it with blacks. 30%+ in the latest poll where he's beating Hillary 45-40.

Hillary has started to attack him...it just comes across as pathetic.

Get ready for the smear campaign though. Democrats are going to worried blacks are leaving the plantation.

Post: #117

(09-06-2015 04:32 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  It doesn't really matter what the founders liked or wanted at this point. They lived in a different time, world, and country and expected their descendants to share their principles and uphold them. And if not, to change the system to suit their needs. Americans failed to uphold the principles of its founders and its founding documents. They delegated that responsibility solely to judges, who are just men that are as corruptible as anyone else.

The long march through the institutions and various flavors of marxism destroyed the rule of law in this country.

The future now belongs to those with the strength, power, and will to take what they want. The left fundamentally understands this and has been waging total war by any means necessary.

The American right, by and large, still doesn't get it. You can be "principled" and fight with a blindfold on and both hands tied behind your back and continue to lose or you can take it off, untie yourself and fight, like them, by any means necessary to get what you want.

Believe me, I didn't like accepting this because I very much like the Constitution and the BoR and the liberties it was designed to protect. But most of them are so compromised and legally infringed that they've been rendered moot and will only continue to be disregarded in the future by people who don't give a shit about it. It's not a living document like the left likes to say to justify whatever they want to do. It's a dead document and its restoration is not possible at this point.

It sucks, I know, but that's the truth and you can trace the beginning of its death all the way back to nonsensical rulings on the interstate commerce clause.

It's time to move forward. I support what this woman is doing but she is one person. More concerted, intelligent efforts to combat this shit have to be made on every front in the future.

This is a great point, if anyone ever wanted to see this as a microcosm...get divorced. There are laws and principles written on paper but they don't apply to you as a man and if you follow them to the letter you will get destroyed...they only way to win is to walk on the edge of those rules and principles.

Same here, as much as we can say "but the constitution!" Wastelander is right, that banner can only be waved if you are trying to push one of the new popular agendas, not defend the old.

Post: #118

Now the Homo-NAZIs are going after a sitting Judge whose primary job is NOT to issue marriage licenses - for refusing to to perform ANY marriages to avoid having to be forced to perform same sex marriages in violation of his religious beliefs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-judge...s-grounds/

The more the SameSexists go after Christian businesses and officials especially sitting Judges for not embracing their degenerate deviant lifestyles the sooner a civil war launched by Anti-Christians will be ended by Christian warriors.

Mike Huckabee "Kristen Davis in Federal Custody without bail makes it clear that war has been declared against Christianity".

Interesting that the LGBTQs gay loving same sexist activists are attacking Christians but not Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus. Could you imagine the reaction if the SeamSexists tried this crap with a Muslim Mosque and community.

Post: #119

The church sermon this morning spent some time on the kentucky clerk in jail. There was a biblical parable that I had missed that is very applicable.

Daniel and the lion's den. So, Daniel was appointed by a king as some sort of high level political leader, however he also had political enemies because he was interpreting dreams and gaining favor with the king. His enemies also knew that Daniel prayed to god in private and that the king had a law that no one was allowed to pray to any deity besides himself. His enemies rat him out, the king gives him a chance to recant and he refuses and so he's thrown into the lion's den to be killed.

Post: #120

(09-06-2015 02:13 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  They (the founders) would despise you and your values.

You know neither me nor my values, and you've misunderstood what I've said here.

Like a few others, you're re-arguing the legal merits and/or the desirability of gay marriage, when that is not what I'm talking about at all, and not what this is about. I'm approaching this specific situation with the knowledge that gay marriage is now legal. Its a settled matter legally. I'm not for gay marriage. However, its now legal. Approaching the situation of this lady from another perspective is disingenuous.

In addition to that, whether we are talking about gay marriage or any other issue, the lady, in her role as a government worker, cannot deny service based on her personal beliefs and/or those of the citizen seeking service. She has never had that ability/right whatever you want to call it. Not for any reason, ever. The fact that it's issuing gay marriage licenses in this instance does not change that. Are you under the impression that a representative of the State can refuse service based on personal belief?

She has not been jailed for her religious beliefs. She is completely free to practice whatever religion she chooses. What she can't do, and thankfully so, is decide who to give government service to based on her personal beliefs. Again, not just in this matter, but with any issue. There has been a legal battle with her for months, she was instructed she must follow the law. She refused, using an argument hat is not legally valid. More time went by, she still refused. She not only refused, she prevented her entire office from issuing licenses, she prevented people from doing so who otherwise would (and now are). She was offered a compromise by the judge of allowing her to not sign the documents, just allow her deputies to issue them. She refused. She was offered the option of resigning, she refused. She stated no licenses would be issued with her in charge. She, like you, is in essence re-arguing the already settled legal matter, not the legality of her action which is the actual issue. She has been given more leeway, for a longer period of time, than you or I could ever dream of when complying with a court order. She's now in contempt of court, and legally and rightfully so.

Whether or not gay marriage should be legal is one issue, but legality of an agent of the State denying a lawful service based on personal beliefs is a completely different one. And there's no question as to the legality of that- it isn't.

If a muslim county clerk refuses to issue liquor licenses for businesses because her conscience can't bear it, will you be rushing to her defense? You better, because that's the same new "right" you'd like to give the lady at issue here. That's the point some people are missing. The issue this time is gay marriage, but throw out the separation of church at State for this woman and there's no end to the hell we'd be opened up to.

The main issue here isn't really gay marriage- it's whether the State can impose a religious test. And it cannot. There are few things more important than that in the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion. Far more important than whether fags get a legal document. I stand by that.

Post: #121

It's interesting to watch this unfold and I think we are going to see a lot of evolution in legal codes regarding both religion and family law as a result of gay couples being married. The imagination goes wild thinking about the law going after religious orgs on these grounds (which I think is inevitable) and how nasty court battles between same sex couples will challenge the status quo with it's gender biases.

In this case though I'm more concerned with the use of civil contempt, which has always made me uneasy. The constitutionality of it has been challenged before but it seems that the consensus approves it's use, just not it's abuse. It seems to me that by it's very nature it's an invitation for abuse, similar to tactics like asset forfeiture and punitively large bail amounts. I don't know all the details of this case so I won't judge this as an abuse, but I am wary of civil contempt in general and I think others should be too. It's more commonly used to jail people who won't/can't pay fines, and then the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove if they are unable to pay those fines. It becomes a loophole for the return of debtors prisons and a mild form of indentured servitude.

Meanwhile Illiberals are cheering this decision like a grand victory, because in this case on of their boogeymen (a religious woman) is the one who's subject to this very questionable practice. They'd rather turn their focus to a very shaky argument against deporting immigrants because of the 14th amendment, but oh so willing to overlook the blatant due process violations when they are aimed at a more 'privileged' target.

Post: #122

(09-06-2015 03:15 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 02:13 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  They (the founders) would despise you and your values.

....

If a muslim county clerk refuses to issue liquor licenses for businesses because her conscience can't bear it, will you be rushing to her defense? You better, because that's the same new "right" you'd like to give the lady at issue here. That's the point some people are missing. The issue this time is gay marriage, but throw out the separation of church at State for this woman and there's no end to the hell we'd be opened up to.

....

I would support her recall or impeachment if she were an elected official. Do I think she should be ordered by the court to issue liqour liscences? No. Do I think she should be jailed for it? Hell no.

Post: #123

(09-06-2015 04:05 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  There has been some hope for everybody because of this gay marriage ruling though. Conservatives have started to talk about completely abandoning the states intrusion into marriage and family life altogether.

Was going to start a separate thread on this but I think I think I'll keep it here, here's an example of what you are talking about

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/polit.../29327433/

"One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement," Gipson said. "We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see pros and cons to that. I don't know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it's an option out there to be considered."

Post: #124

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Instead of "issuing" a "license", they should be accepting a record. No approval from officials, no signatures needed. Those wishing to get married fill out a form, sign it, and submit for the record.

Post: #125

Well, I at least agree with Globoman on that, government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

But regards to the gay marriage being a settled issue, its not settled legally.

I'm from Missouri. We had the Dred Scott case here. It was ruled blacks weren't human...The supreme court settled it!

I mean its ridiculous to say something is settled just because we have an idiotic supreme court.

The constitution is clear, it doesn't give the federal government jurisdiction or power over marriage. Kentuckians made it clear when they voted for their constitutional amendment making marriage between a man and a woman.

This woman is following the law and going to prison for it.

The supreme court can't just rule by dictatorship by just picking a case and then ruling an interpretation of the constitution that says the supreme court now runs the country. That's essentially what they've done, and it hasn't escaped me or millions of others.

This isn't over. The homos, the SJW's, the pedophiles, they all think they've won. We, their opponents have just started to take the field.