Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 generalgrog wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.

GG

You pledge an oath to uphold the law of the land.

If you can't understand that, we can't help you.

KK III

For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.

Gg

Agreed, so now she has the option of resigning or letting her officers provide those certificates.

 generalgrog wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.

GG

You pledge an oath to uphold the law of the land.

If you can't understand that, we can't help you.

KK III

For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.

Gg

For the 2500th time, the proper thing to do in that instance is quit and find another job.

 agnosto wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).


Sorry, off-topic.

Paul wrote one of the Five Books of Moses?

Off topic, but if I were a gay man who had trouble with my pick-up game yet really, really wanted to get nailed, hard, whenever I went to the club, then that is the tattoo I would get to make it happen.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).


Sorry, off-topic.

Paul wrote one of the Five Books of Moses?

Off topic, but if I were a gay man who had trouble with my pick-up game yet really, really wanted to get nailed, hard, whenever I went to the club, then that is the tattoo I would get to make it happen.

yeah goes to show that agnosto..doesn't know what he's talking about.

GG

Dont think the laws changing invalidates an oath, or else all elected officials would be restating their oaths constantly

 generalgrog wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.

GG

You pledge an oath to uphold the law of the land.

If you can't understand that, we can't help you.

KK III

For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.

Gg

But having to alter your oath every time the law changes would be a massive waste of red tape.

Be like the motherland, drop oaths altogether.

 generalgrog wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).


Sorry, off-topic.

Paul wrote one of the Five Books of Moses?

Off topic, but if I were a gay man who had trouble with my pick-up game yet really, really wanted to get nailed, hard, whenever I went to the club, then that is the tattoo I would get to make it happen.

yeah goes to show that agnosto..doesn't know what he's talking about.

GG

Slow your roll, hombre, I admitted to getting two books of the bible confused in my head (point still relevant just reference was off) later on the same page. Have no idea why you're so hostile but maybe a keyboard break might help? I got bent out of shape in another thread a week or so ago so I know it happens.

On topic.

When someone takes an oath of office, they need not retake the oath every time a law or court interpretation changes the application of the law. If that were the case, police, judges, court officials and congress persons would forever be retaking oaths, laws and court decisions which affect the application of law occur very frequently.

Edit:
Ninja'd, several times.

 generalgrog wrote:
Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.

GG

According to your logic whenever any change is made in any aspect of the law, all the police officers and armed forces personnel in the USA, and all the air traffic controllers, border agency etc, have the right not to carry out whatever change in the law has just been made.

Does that mean I can't wipe poop of someone's read end until I take my oath again?

I will notify my supervisor right away!

Rambling about disco and dogs is about as off topic as you can get in this thread. Don't. I've deleted the posts in question.

Is George Wallace Kim Davis still blowing the horn?

 generalgrog wrote:
For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.

Laws change. That doesn't change the content of her oath.


Jobs change. I don't get to stop doing my job because some aspect of it changed to something I don't like.


If some aspect of her job has changed, due to a change in the law, into something that she feels she can not do, then that job is no longer a suitable job for her to hold onto.


I mean, I'm all for the idea that I can just start telling all and sundry that my conscience won't let me do my job, while I carry on collecting a paycheck. That would be awesome.

But it woudl also be completely and utterly ridiculous. The day I'm no longer comfortable doing my job is the day I go and find another job.

Screw this bigot and her hurt religious conscience. I have searched every avenue i9n my heart to find sympathy, but there is none left.

She's a bigot standing up for her right to be a bigot. Religious convictions are secondary here to duty and basic human respect. In modern society, religious convictions should not trump duty and basic human decency for anyone who makes their living off the public dole when they are "in uniform".

 generalgrog wrote:
Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.

GG

You don't understand how oaths work. It isn't a pledge to uphold the laws as long as you still like those laws. If that's all it was then it wouldn't need an oath.

I mean, just read what you wrote - "circumstances have changed since she made that oath". It sounds like part of a movie speech when the weasel character announces he's betraying the good guys.

 sebster wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.

GG

You don't understand how oaths work. It isn't a pledge to uphold the laws as long as you still like those laws. If that's all it was then it wouldn't need an oath.

I mean, just read what you wrote - "circumstances have changed since she made that oath". It sounds like part of a movie speech when the weasel character announces he's betraying the good guys.

This deal is getting worse all the time...



But you know what, Lando had no love for the Empire yet he still did his job.

And then joined an armed uprising against the Empire. Not sure that's the way we'd want this to turn out, eh?

So latest news is she's still getting her 80k a year to do nothing? Your tax dollars at work folks

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So latest news is she's still getting her 80k a year to do nothing? Your tax dollars at work folks

Not mine, she is a county official and I don't even live in her state. It is great campaign ad material for whomever decides to run agsinst her in the next election.

More importantly? She makes $80K a year, her office staff are mostly her own relatives, and the median income in her county is less than $40K a year.

While $80k isn't a huge amount of money somewhere like NYC, LA or Seattle, it is apparently *mighty* fine living where she's at.

 Psienesis wrote:
More importantly? She makes $80K a year, her office staff are mostly her own relatives, and the median income in her county is less than $40K a year.

While $80k isn't a huge amount of money somewhere like NYC, LA or Seattle, it is apparently *mighty* fine living where she's at.

No gak. Her county should be embarrassed they pay their officials that much and the voters should be pissed.

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
More importantly? She makes $80K a year, her office staff are mostly her own relatives, and the median income in her county is less than $40K a year.

While $80k isn't a huge amount of money somewhere like NYC, LA or Seattle, it is apparently *mighty* fine living where she's at.

No gak. Her county should be embarrassed they pay their officials that much and the voters should be pissed.

I wouldn't really like to work in a mindless, dead end job like hers... I guess that is why I am rewarded for 9 years of training and education with an enjoyable, worthwhile and challenging job that pays OK (but nowhere near 80K) I guess

I wish I had her bootstraps!

 generalgrog wrote:

For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.

Gg

I'm a Federal employee. I can tell you, straight out, that the "circumstances of her oath" flat out did not change. Even if they did (they didn't), that doesn't matter. Soldiers don't get to leave just because we enter a new war, public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client, government employees don't get to ignore their duties because the administration changed. It's bull and you know it.

public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,

Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.

 Frazzled wrote:

public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,

Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.

Can they? Wow, I thought that wasn't allowed because otherwise you could end up with some criminals which nobody will represent which breaks the whole fair trial thing.

 Frazzled wrote:

public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,

Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.

wow. I stand corrected on that one.

Presumably they are replaced by another public defender? I mean, what if every defender refuses to represent someone? They're entitled to representation, after all. OT I know.

Most states have ethical laws that allow an attorney to refuse to represent an individual that they find repugnant. People in the PD's office are going to have pretty specific, if any, lists of things they find deal breakers in a client, but I know in Ohio you really can't force an attorney to take a client.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,

Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.

Can they? Wow, I thought that wasn't allowed because otherwise you could end up with some criminals which nobody will represent which breaks the whole fair trial thing.

NO you can refuse to represent someone, else that would be what is called forced servitude.

Now if you are a public defender your services may no longer be needed, but thats up to the department I guess (don't know much about public defenders)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Most states have ethical laws that allow an attorney to refuse to represent an individual that they find repugnant. People in the PD's office are going to have pretty specific, if any, lists of things they find deal breakers in a client, but I know in Ohio you really can't force an attorney to take a client.

Exactly.

Further, the attorney could always quit.

 Frazzled wrote:

public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,

Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.

Yeah but this woman didn't walk out, she just stuck to her well-remunerated job and refused to do it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,

Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.

Yeah but this woman didn't walk out, she just stuck to her well-remunerated job and refused to do it.

Agreed, and therein is the problem.

So, any update? Are they issuing licenses now?
Kentucky should turn around and just abolish the whole thing, but thats bank, and those licenses gotta earn...

Interesting twist?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b5527e5b41974f1dabb9bd638f36e695/attorney-kentucky-clerk-interfered-judges-order