Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy

[wolves_wanderer]

jimmybobby said:

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

Irony alert.

You are missing the point that her job is merely to issue a licence to people who are legally allowed to marry. Her personal views on the subject are completely beside the point. What about if she had a problem with middle-aged people getting married, as the Christian view of marriage is that it is primarily to procreate?

[SamHH]

Foppo said:

She does want to do her job,except issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

Wanting to do a job except for the part you don't like sounds the same as not wanting to do the job. But even conceding for the sake of argument that you're correct, my statement could be rephrased: Davis should resign if she doesn't want to do every part of the job any more. What's wrong with that?

[Mrr T]

SamHH said:

Foppo said:

She does want to do her job,except issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

Wanting to do a job except for the part you don't like sounds the same as not wanting to do the job. But even conceding for the sake of argument that you're correct, my statement could be rephrased: Davis should resign if she doesn't want to do every part of the job any more. What's wrong with that?

On that basis I assume you agree that Obama should also resign?

[rscott]

Mrr T said:

SamHH said:

Foppo said:

She does want to do her job,except issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

Wanting to do a job except for the part you don't like sounds the same as not wanting to do the job. But even conceding for the sake of argument that you're correct, my statement could be rephrased: Davis should resign if she doesn't want to do every part of the job any more. What's wrong with that?

On that basis I assume you agree that Obama should also resign?

What parts of the job does he not want to do then?

[Mrr T]

rscott said:

Mrr T said:

SamHH said:

Foppo said:

She does want to do her job,except issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

Wanting to do a job except for the part you don't like sounds the same as not wanting to do the job. But even conceding for the sake of argument that you're correct, my statement could be rephrased: Davis should resign if she doesn't want to do every part of the job any more. What's wrong with that?

On that basis I assume you agree that Obama should also resign?

What parts of the job does he not want to do then?

He chose not to enforce some legal requirements of Obama Care and is now not enforcing immigration law.

[pincher]

For what reason? Religious beliefs?

[rohrl]

Doesn't the president have all sorts of executive powers and veto powers which don't apply to a county clerk?

I think all this Obama stuff is completely irrelevant anyway and an obvious attempt to deflect away from Davis.

[pincher]

rohrl said:

I think all this Obama stuff is completely irrelevant anyway and an obvious attempt to deflect away from Davis.

[Mrr T]

rohrl said:

Doesn't the president have all sorts of executive powers and veto powers which don't apply to a county clerk?

I think all this Obama stuff is completely irrelevant anyway and an obvious attempt to deflect away from Davis.

The US President can veto legislation and must introduce the Federal to Congress so by funding or not funding Federal programs he may effect the ability to implement Laws.

However, many argue that his actions on immigrations (DAP) for example is a clear attempt to act in contravention of the laws passed by the Senate and Congress.

I do not understand why my comments about the actions of Obama and Kim Davies are irrelevant.

Both are elected officials who have sworn an oath to up hold the laws of the US.

Kim Davis has refused on religious reasons to up hold a law made by 5 judges and has spent time in jail.

Obama has refused to implement laws which has been passed by the legislature for political reasons but still sits in the White House.

[jimmybobby]

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

Irony alert.

You are missing the point that her job is merely to issue a licence to people who are legally allowed to marry. Her personal views on the subject are completely beside the point. What about if she had a problem with middle-aged people getting married, as the Christian view of marriage is that it is primarily to procreate?

And by issuing the license she is endorsing their sexual preference which is against her religious beliefs. Without her endorsement they cannot legally get married.

[jimmybobby]

SamHH said:

jimmybobby said:

Ok lets put it like this. You work for the prison service your job is to incarcerate people. Then one day you come into work and they have changed the law and you now as part of your job you are also expected to both take them to be executed and on occasion carry out executions as well.

All the government has done is change the law but in turn it has changed your job and you have had to go from mere jailor to executioner.
Failure to either execute the prisoner or prepare them for and take them to their execution is a dismissible offence for failure to carry out your duty.

As such you can of course quit your job however the market for professional trained jailors is pretty slim since its a gov run organisation and as such you will possibly suffer personal and financial hardship.

What do you do? Do you accept that you now have to kill people as part of your job even thought the idea is abhorrent to you? Do you quit your job?

I'm not sure what point this hypothetical is meant to raise, but returning to the actual facts, yeah, Davis should resign if she doesn't want to do the job any more. What's wrong with that?

The point of the prison officer analogy was to point out that if you decide to follow a career path where you know what you will have to do as part of your job and then someone changes a law that makes a part of your job/career untenable to your personal belief it through no fault of your own that you are put in a very difficult position.

If you didn't believe in the death penalty and decided to become a prison officer knowing that it would not require you to be involved in killing people then after spending time and effort training and working your way up the ladder in your career someone decided to change/amend a law making the death penalty legal without consulting yourself or other prison staff, it was not your choice and is against your beliefs and puts you at odds with a job/career you have worked towards through no actions of your own.

It means all your hard work and efforts are in effect down the drain. It means potentially major upheaval in your and your families life. It is an extreme analogy but i think the only way to get the point across.

[wolves_wanderer]

jimmybobby said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

Irony alert.

You are missing the point that her job is merely to issue a licence to people who are legally allowed to marry. Her personal views on the subject are completely beside the point. What about if she had a problem with middle-aged people getting married, as the Christian view of marriage is that it is primarily to procreate?

And by issuing the license she is endorsing their sexual preference which is against her religious beliefs. Without her endorsement they cannot legally get married.

And round we go again. I, and others, have explained very simply why you're wrong so I will bow out and see if anyone else can be bothered.

[ViperDave]

jimmybobby said:

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

Well you have hardly put forward a convincing argument that can not be easily dismissed at the rate of my typing speed, Mrr T at least has put forward arguments that require thought, research and a possible seed of doubt, with the research of reading parts of the constitution, ways of interpreting it and the judgement which i have actually found quite interesting and a worthwhile debate. I just wish he would provide a link to a basis of his Obama obsession.

But you seem to have fallen into the same trap that Kim Davis has, in that she thinks her office is far more important than it is and that her signature has more meaning that it does.

To say that she signs her approval to the marriage license is incorrect, as approval implies she has some discretion and she gets to decide who gets a license and who doesn't. It is the law which decides who gets the license, if the applicants comply with the law and meet its standards they get the license, She claims that she is however upholding the greater law, that of her God. But again in her position and by swearing to uphold the constitution she has agreed to put aside her higher God's law in favor of the constitution which says she can not establish religion. I understand she has also claimed that because the oath she took was sworn in god name she again believes God's law is re-introduced, but I'd suggest that swearing A under penalty of god's law is not the same as gods law applying to A, God law applies to the person taking the oath in his name, A is not the subject of the god's law, the person swearing is.

[ViperDave]

Mrr T said:

The US President can veto legislation and must introduce the Federal to Congress so by funding or not funding Federal programs he may effect the ability to implement Laws.

However, many argue that his actions on immigrations (DAP) for example is a clear attempt to act in contravention of the laws passed by the Senate and Congress.

I do not understand why my comments about the actions of Obama and Kim Davies are irrelevant.

Both are elected officials who have sworn an oath to up hold the laws of the US.

Kim Davis has refused on religious reasons to up hold a law made by 5 judges and has spent time in jail.

Obama has refused to implement laws which has been passed by the legislature for political reasons but still sits in the White House.

Because you overlook the problem that just because Obama does or doesn't do something, it doesn't mean its related to what someone else does or doesn't do. Additionally kim davis was sent to jail for contempt because she defied a direct order from a judge, the fact the order was to issue the license is subsequent. I expect Obama has not been ordered by a higher authority to implement the laws you say he hasn't.

And just to make your blood boil a bit more the supreme courts decision was based on a single judge not 5, If just one of those five went the other way so would the judgement. But that is the US justice system for you and the reason why there are 9 judges, but I dare say you wouldn't be any happier if it was a whole Nation voting to break away from a union, a nation who voted to stay by 10%, you'd probably be calling sour grapes and a do over.

[pincher]

jimmybobby said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

Irony alert.

You are missing the point that her job is merely to issue a licence to people who are legally allowed to marry. Her personal views on the subject are completely beside the point. What about if she had a problem with middle-aged people getting married, as the Christian view of marriage is that it is primarily to procreate?

And by issuing the license she is endorsing their sexual preference which is against her religious beliefs. Without her endorsement they cannot legally get married.

What about her colleagues that don't share the same religious beliefs and would be happy to issue said license, but have been forbidden from doing so by Davis?

[ViperDave]

jimmybobby said:

The point of the prison officer analogy was to point out that if you decide to follow a career path where you know what you will have to do as part of your job and then someone changes a law that makes a part of your job/career untenable to your personal belief it through no fault of your own that you are put in a very difficult position.

If you didn't believe in the death penalty and decided to become a prison officer knowing that it would not require you to be involved in killing people then after spending time and effort training and working your way up the ladder in your career someone decided to change/amend a law making the death penalty legal without consulting yourself or other prison staff, it was not your choice and is against your beliefs and puts you at odds with a job/career you have worked towards through no actions of your own.

It means all your hard work and efforts are in effect down the drain. It means potentially major upheaval in your and your families life. It is an extreme analogy but i think the only way to get the point across.

st happens, and st happens a lot, there are people all over the world dedicating themselves to careers only to find the job they spent their life training for is no longer in demand or the same as when they started out, they just have to get on with it, move on etc

[jimmybobby]

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

Irony alert.

You are missing the point that her job is merely to issue a licence to people who are legally allowed to marry. Her personal views on the subject are completely beside the point. What about if she had a problem with middle-aged people getting married, as the Christian view of marriage is that it is primarily to procreate?

And by issuing the license she is endorsing their sexual preference which is against her religious beliefs. Without her endorsement they cannot legally get married.

And round we go again. I, and others, have explained very simply why you're wrong so I will bow out and see if anyone else can be bothered.

I find it amazing how you just don't get it as you are so absolute in your opinion of gay marriage you cannot see logic.

If your partner came to you and asked to take your car for a drive by allowing them to do so you are ENDORSING their actions. YOU are saying they are legally capable of driving. YOU are saying they are legally allowed to drive the car.

If they got pulled over by the police and were found to be driving without insurance or a license they would be asked who's car it was and if they had YOUR permission. YOU would then get in trouble for knowingly allowing them to drive your car.

YOU will have endorsed their actions. THEY would not have got pulled over if YOU had refused to let them take your car.

This woman is being asked to endorse Gay Marriage. It may be legal but in giving gay couples a marriage certificate she is ENDORSING the act of gay marriage by allowing them to get married. SHE is in effect saying its ok to be gay and its ok for a gay couple to get married even though it is against her personal/religious beliefs.

[ViperDave]

jimmybobby said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

Irony alert.

You are missing the point that her job is merely to issue a licence to people who are legally allowed to marry. Her personal views on the subject are completely beside the point. What about if she had a problem with middle-aged people getting married, as the Christian view of marriage is that it is primarily to procreate?

And by issuing the license she is endorsing their sexual preference which is against her religious beliefs. Without her endorsement they cannot legally get married.

And round we go again. I, and others, have explained very simply why you're wrong so I will bow out and see if anyone else can be bothered.

I find it amazing how you just don't get it as you are so absolute in your opinion of gay marriage you cannot see logic.

If your partner came to you and asked to take your car for a drive by allowing them to do so you are ENDORSING their actions. YOU are saying they are legally capable of driving. YOU are saying they are legally allowed to drive the car.

If they got pulled over by the police and were found to be driving without insurance or a license they would be asked who's car it was and if they had YOUR permission. YOU would then get in trouble for knowingly allowing them to drive your car.

YOU will have endorsed their actions. THEY would not have got pulled over if YOU had refused to let them take your car.

This woman is being asked to endorse Gay Marriage. It may be legal but in giving gay couples a marriage certificate she is ENDORSING the act of gay marriage by allowing them to get married. SHE is in effect saying its ok to be gay and its ok for a gay couple to get married even though it is against her personal/religious beliefs.

you over look the fact it as its the owners responsibility to ensure insurance is in place and by not doing so you haven't undertaken your obligation in law. The equivalent being kim davis not checking one of the applicants was not still married.

The analogy is more like the insurance is in place and your partner uses the car and your asserting that by doing so you are endorsing them having the radio on R1 when you think they should listen to R4, (i was going to use speeding as an example but realized that speeding is illegal and gay marriage no longer is)

[blinkythefish]

jimmybobby said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

Irony alert.

You are missing the point that her job is merely to issue a licence to people who are legally allowed to marry. Her personal views on the subject are completely beside the point. What about if she had a problem with middle-aged people getting married, as the Christian view of marriage is that it is primarily to procreate?

And by issuing the license she is endorsing their sexual preference which is against her religious beliefs. Without her endorsement they cannot legally get married.

The Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another, and, while issuing the license, she is (part of) the government. Her personal religious viewpoint becomes irrelevent because she is acting as the state; She is still free to hold her beliefs, just not to impose them on others.

Or are you proposing that the law is implemented in an ad hoc fashion according to the religious beliefs of the person doing the implementating at that time? If the personal endorsement of the issuer was a requirement, that is exactly where you would end up.

Edited by blinkythefish on Wednesday 16th September 15:21

[Mrr T]

pincher said:

What about her colleagues that don't share the same religious beliefs and would be happy to issue said license, but have been forbidden from doing so by Davis?

That's not entirely correct. She told colleagues not to issue licences because she believed the licences needed her stamp to be legal. They have now started issuing licences but the question of the legality of the licences without her stamp is still open to question.