News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[TRUTIDE]

Some folks are in dire need of a lesson on what the Constitution really says and means and that is not given by a politician.

They used to teach it in Highschool. Buy you a book or there are legitimate resources on the Internet.

 

[Jon]

They used to teach it in Highschool. Buy you a book or there are legitimate resources on the Internet.

buy you an English book first

 

[mittman]

no one is stopping you, her or anyone else from professing or practicing any belief. To say otherwise is to either grossly misunderstand what is happening or a lie.

Sure they are. I could give you several examples that have happened within the last few years, but that will continue to throw the thread off of the issue at hand. I will give you just one. There is a particularly loud LGBT rights advocate in our area that knows me very well. I live in a pretty solid bastion of religious belief where the vast majority believe very closely with me. I was having a bible study with a friend of my daughter in a nice little public park. She happened to be driving by and saw me. Knowing me, and seeing what I was doing she stopped her car, got out and informed me that I was not allowed to do this in a public place paid for by her tax money, that she would disrupt until I stopped, then started in on my daughter and her friend with her own views.

you start this paragraph fairly reasonably then end in garbage. Live by whatever moral code you want but that does not give you the right to make anyone else live by your code no matter what you think is true

You agreed, then disagreed

More "garbage":

I agree completely that I don't have the right to FORCE anyone to. I assume that is what you imply by "make". I don't want Christianity to turn back into the dark days of 12th century inquisition, or torture chambers for those that believe a different theology. Even if they were effective in causing someone to state a belief, I think it internally convinces them otherwise. That said, someone who believes they should not lie, steal and take advantage of their position (religious or not) are better candidates for public office than those that don't believe they are held to those moral objectives (religious or not). I THINK it is pretty evident that religious people are more likely to hold to those objectives. I KNOW I am more likely now that when I wasn't. Whether you think it is garbage or not it worries me.

 

[KentuckianaBFan]

DT_popc: on TideFans.com

 

[bamabelle1991]

buy you an English book first

Then pick up a book on Constitutional Law.

TRUTIDE, you need to brush up on your knowledge of the functions of State and Federal government. A State can pass all the laws they want, but if they are unconstitutional--which is the case here--SCOTUS (That pesky 3rd branch of the government) will strike them down. It's all part of the Check and Balance system.

If Kim Davis can't do her job, then she needs to be removed from office or she needs to resign. Same goes for the Muslim grocery store clerk who can touch the ham or bacon. Can't do you JOB? Find another one.

 

[mittman]

Not been in this thread, read a little here and there, too much stuff to make my BP rise to a low rolling boil. Just a couple things I'd like to ask/point out.
Why did the government get involved in what was a RELIGIOUS ceremony to begin with? Issuing "licenses" to allow a man and woman to be joined in a RELIGIOUS ceremony?
Why does it matter to the government? (I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with "married" status and the IRS.)

I agree completely. Someone mentioned Roger Williams in a similar thread awhile back. I think we and he would get along famously in this regard. This woman would not be in any conflict (whether or not one considers it feigned) at all whatsoever. Like I said before, those that implemented these shouldn't have, but I doubt they EVER thought this would happen.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Not been in this thread, read a little here and there, too much stuff to make my BP rise to a low rolling boil. Just a couple things I'd like to ask/point out.
Why did the government get involved in what was a RELIGIOUS ceremony to begin with? Issuing "licenses" to allow a man and woman to be joined in a RELIGIOUS ceremony?
Why does it matter to the government? (I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with "married" status and the IRS.)

Because that was s what government does.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Then pick up a book on Constitutional Law.

TRUTIDE, you need to brush up on your knowledge of the functions of State and Federal government. A State can pass all the laws they want, but if they are unconstitutional--which is the case here--SCOTUS (That pesky 3rd branch of the government) will strike them down. It's all part of the Check and Balance system.

If Kim Davis can't do her job, then she needs to be removed from office or she needs to resign. Same goes for the Muslim grocery store clerk who can touch the ham or bacon. Can't do you JOB? Find another one.

agree completely with the first paragraph. Regarding the 2nd, keep her on if a reasonable accommodation can be made in accordance with the civil rights act (the same act that makes segregation in "public" venues illegal). That may mean moving the employee to a different area and a key portion is "reasonable". Kim Davis is the government when on the public dole.

 

[92tide]

just bringing this back as the final sentence seems to explain a lot of what we are seeing in this thread

 

[Jon]

Sure they are. I could give you several examples that have happened within the last few years, but that will continue to throw the thread off of the issue at hand. I will give you just one. There is a particularly loud LGBT rights advocate in our area that knows me very well. I live in a pretty solid bastion of religious belief where the vast majority believe very closely with me. I was having a bible study with a friend of my daughter in a nice little public park. She happened to be driving by and saw me. Knowing me, and seeing what I was doing she stopped her car, got out and informed me that I was not allowed to do this in a public place paid for by her tax money, that she would disrupt until I stopped, then started in on my daughter and her friend with her own views.

She was wrong, do it again and stand your ground and call the police. If she persists in annoying you get a restraining order. There are no laws I am aware that would prohibit you from peaceably assembling for any reason. The person you reference here is an ignorant bully. If I were at that park with my kids I would happily defend your right to be there and tell this lady to go pound sand.

Now if you worked for the Parks Department and were putting on a bible class for the town, then she would be correct. Do you understand the distinction yet?

You agreed, then disagreed

More "garbage":

I agree completely that I don't have the right to FORCE anyone to. I assume that is what you imply by "make". I don't want Christianity to turn back into the dark days of 12th century inquisition, or torture chambers for those that believe a different theology. Even if they were effective in causing someone to state a belief, I think it internally convinces them otherwise. That said, someone who believes they should not lie, steal and take advantage of their position (religious or not) are better candidates for public office than those that don't believe they are held to those moral objectives (religious or not). I THINK it is pretty evident that religious people are more likely to hold to those objectives. I KNOW I am more likely now that when I wasn't. Whether you think it is garbage or not it worries me.

Religious people are more likely to claim moral superiority but the statistics don't back up the religious being more moral than the non religious. In fact all the numbers show quite the opposite. If you'd like to discuss it, start a new thread

 

[mittman]

She was wrong, do it again and stand your ground and call the police. If she persists in annoying you get a restraining order. There are no laws I am aware that would prohibit you from peaceably assembling for any reason. The person you reference here is an ignorant bully. If I were at that park with my kids I would happily defend your right to be there and tell this lady to go pound sand.



Religious people are more likely to claim moral superiority but the statistics don't back up the religious being more moral than the non religious. In fact all the numbers show quite the opposite. If you'd like to discuss it, start a new thread

I am not so sure she was wrong. I didn't have a permit to do so, and she knows the local statutes better than I do. That is not said in sarcasm. I agree how she handled it was a bullying manner. It was only to illustrate that it is happening no matter where you are.

Well, I don't claim any moral superiority. Quite the opposite, I know I fail a lot. Let's just make a pact. I won't make you believe, and you won't make me be unconcerned.

 

[Jon]

I am not so sure she was wrong. I didn't have a permit to do so, and she knows the local statutes better than I do. That is not said in sarcasm. I agree how she handled it was a bullying manner. It was only to illustrate that it is happening no matter where you are.

Well, I don't claim any moral superiority. Quite the opposite, I know I fail a lot. Let's just make a pact. I won't make you believe, and you won't make me be unconcerned.

I don't know where you live, I don't know your local laws and I am certainly not a lawyer but I can not for the life of me understand how she could possibly be right in her actions. Unless it was a very specific spot in a park that requires permits or reservations to use, a local park near me has an outdoor theater area that you can request for specific uses but has no permit required, I still say she was wrong. This is a public park which by very definition is a place of public accommodation. You should be able to host a small group to anything legal in that space. I'd check your local laws. And I'll add just because someone illegally (in my opinion) scared you off it doesn't mean that it is legally happening anywhere else in this country. I'd challenge you to find non-anecdotal sources of your claims. An in advance I will not accept any claim from the notorious liar Todd Starnes of Fox News.

 

[2003TIDE]

buy you an English book first

LMAO

 

[mittman]

I don't know where you live, I don't know your local laws and I am certainly not a lawyer but I can not for the life of me understand how she could possibly be right in her actions. Unless it was a very specific spot in a park that requires permits or reservations to use, a local park near me has an outdoor theater area that you can request for specific uses but has no permit required, I still say she was wrong. This is a public park which by very definition is a place of public accommodation. You should be able to host a small group to anything legal in that space. I'd check your local laws. And I'll add just because someone illegally (in my opinion) scared you off it doesn't mean that it is legally happening anywhere else in this country. I'd challenge you to find non-anecdotal sources of your claims. An in advance I will not accept any claim from the notorious liar Todd Starnes of Fox News.

Northwest Alabama.

When I said I wasn't sure she was wrong, I didn't say it to imply she is right in her actions, but I am not sure I was legally assembling either. What that means has also changed a great deal in a short period of time. I could probably have called a city official, lawyer, policeman whatever, but it would not have changed anything. She is on a quest and will not be deterred. It may be that she wants to get thrown in jail and cause a lawsuit and is instigating for that purpose. That is not something I will expose anyone to, especially my own congregation if I can help it.

The sentence I deleted was that she moved here to do this and was assigned to the area by a national organization to do this specific thing. I only know that from others that have told me. I am not sure what you would consider non anecdotal. I don't go around the country looking for religious discrimination, and I doubt you would accept anything those that do would report. Everything I have said is my own experience, and by definition is anecdotal.

 

[Tidewater]

Then pick up a book on Constitutional Law.

TRUTIDE, you need to brush up on your knowledge of the functions of State and Federal government. A State can pass all the laws they want, but if they are unconstitutional--which is the case here--SCOTUS (That pesky 3rd branch of the government) will strike them down. It's all part of the Check and Balance system.

If Kim Davis can't do her job, then she needs to be removed from office or she needs to resign. Same goes for the Muslim grocery store clerk who can touch the ham or bacon. Can't do you JOB? Find another one.

I believe the Clerk is in the wrong and should issue the licenses or resign.

That said, the Founders (the men who ratified the Constitution) spent a good deal more time debating the separation of powers between the states and the general government (the horizontal line in the diagram below) than the separations of powers between the branches of the general government (the vertical lines in the diagram). Read Elliot's Debates if your curious about that. Indeed, the inviolability of the horizonal line was the condition upon which the Constitution was ratified.

Federal Legislative │Federal Executive │Federal Judicial
─────────────────────────────────────────
...............................State

Further, the diagram could just as easily have been drawn this way:

...............................State
─────────────────────────────────────────
Federal Legislative │Federal Executive │Federal Judicial


Since each government was sovereign within its respective sphere.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I am not so sure she was wrong. I didn't have a permit to do so, and she knows the local statutes better than I do. That is not said in sarcasm. I agree how she handled it was a bullying manner. It was only to illustrate that it is happening no matter where you are.

Well, I don't claim any moral superiority. Quite the opposite, I know I fail a lot. Let's just make a pact. I won't make you believe, and you won't make me be unconcerned.

Local laws be damned....if that happened then she was wrong and no one should have to put up with such harassment in public. You have as much right to use a public park for whatever you want as anyone else. That woman needs to get a clue.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Northwest Alabama.

When I said I wasn't sure she was wrong, I didn't say it to imply she is right in her actions, but I am not sure I was legally assembling either. What that means has also changed a great deal in a short period of time. I could probably have called a city official, lawyer, policeman whatever, but it would not have changed anything. She is on a quest and will not be deterred. It may be that she wants to get thrown in jail and cause a lawsuit and is instigating for that purpose. That is not something I will expose anyone to, especially my own congregation if I can help it.

The sentence I deleted was that she moved here to do this and was assigned to the area by a national organization to do this specific thing. I only know that from others that have told me. I am not sure what you would consider non anecdotal. I don't go around the country looking for religious discrimination, and I doubt you would accept anything those that do would report. Everything I have said is my own experience, and by definition is anecdotal.

You don't have to go looking for a fight, but if someone brings it to you...Legal precedent is pretty clear on this issue. I;'m not a lawyer and don't play one on TideFans, but this one is very clear-cut.

 

[mittman]

Local laws be damned....if that happened then she was wrong and no one should have to put up with such harassment in public. You have as much right to use a public park for whatever you want as anyone else. That woman needs to get a clue.

You don't have to go looking for a fight, but if someone brings it to you...Legal precedent is pretty clear on this issue. I;'m not a lawyer and don't play one on TideFans, but this one is very clear-cut.

I don't want this thread to continue to be about me and that incident. As I posted a while back, we have already "Jumped the Shark" So this is the last I will say on it. It is not something I am going to be the one to fight. I can accomplish what I believe I need to do in a cave if need be. It was just to illustrate to a poster a single point. Sorry it derailed everything so far.

 

[81usaf92]

You seemed to use the "have patience" line of thinking and I said rights should be recognized immediately. Why wait?

Ok compare the military's reaction to gay rights and then compare civilians reaction. Dadt was a slow assimilation that was basically a separate but equal bill that worked when the military eventually repealed it. The sudden shock of gay rights amongst civilians wasn't as smooth of a transition and got 10 times more opposition than it should've gotten.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Ok compare the military's reaction to gay rights and then compare civilians reaction. Dadt was a slow assimilation that was basically a separate but equal bill that worked when the military eventually repealed it. The sudden shock of gay rights amongst civilians wasn't as smooth of a transition and got 10 times more opposition than it should've gotten.

Succinctly put, the public will just have to deal with it. Public sentiment is not a reason to deny rights. That would be an endorsement of the "tyranny of the majority". That is precisely why we are a democratic constitutional republic and NOT a democracy.