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.

 Ouze wrote:
Sure, but I hoped it wouldn't have gone this far.

Everybody does. Only the most egregious judges would use the contempt power when any other remedy exists.

It is almost literally like a parent telling a child they have to stay in their room until they eat their vegetables.

So I read his woman has been (justly) convicted of contempt of court and jailed, no word on fines.

Yeah, we talked about that a few posts back. You're missing about half a page.

The other clerks are deciding their fates now.

Yeah sorry for missed the last page

Good on the judge. "Do your job"
"No"
"Ok. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Indiegogo, and do not collect crowd funding. Anyone else wanna feth with my decision?"

Ok what am I missing. It used to be if someone wanted to take a stand they would resign on principle. Why has she not resigned? A resignation would reflect she cannot morally fulfill her duties, now that that has changed.

In turn how does she morally keep an entire region from having marriages? That seems to foment the sin of coveting thy neighbor's butt and committing adultery. She's in league with...STAN!!! er wait no... SATAN!

 Frazzled wrote:
Ok what am I missing. It used to be if someone wanted to take a stand they would resign on principle. Why has she not resigned? A resignation would reflect she cannot morally fulfill her duties, now that that has changed.

In turn how does she morally keep an entire region from having marriages? That seems to foment the sin of coveting thy neighbor's butt and committing adultery. She's in league with...STAN!!! er wait no... SATAN!

It's clear she doesn't want to do the responsible thing, and it really hasn't been about doing the right thing. She wants to have her cake and eat it to. She wants to do the whole "I'm taking a moral stand" thing, but she doesn't want to give up that sweet sweet government paycheck for it either, at least not until relief in the form of some other opportunity (donor group, fox news speaking fees, etc) comes about.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Good on the judge. "Do your job"
"No"
"Ok. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Indiegogo, and do not collect crowd funding. Anyone else wanna feth with my decision?"

Aye, this is a pretty solid way of dealing with this. This clerk is trying to generate drama and draw attention to herself, and while jail may aid in that, it's also skipping the "make me money" part.

Could it be that she didn't want to give up the 20+ years she put into that position....not fully realizing that 5 lawyers in Washington would force her to make a decision of conscience.

Why should she give up those 20+ years of service because of 5 lawyers in DC ?

The easy thing would be to resign. I applaud her for taking a stand.

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.


GG

 generalgrog wrote:

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.


GG

Didn't take long, did it.

 generalgrog wrote:

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.

that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.

And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.

Dont even engage Grog, its not worth the effort

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.

that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.

And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.

I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.


GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Could it be that she didn't want to give up the 20+ years she put into that position....not fully realizing that 5 lawyers in Washington would force her to make a decision of conscience.

Why should she give up those 20+ years of service because of 5 lawyers in DC ?

The easy thing would be to resign. I applaud her for taking a stand.

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.


GG

How the can you argue "taking a stand" when you are specifically NOT permitting any legal marriages in your jurisdiction? Thats about as asininely stupid as it gets (not you, her argument).

Grog actually means false Christian ministers. Real Christians value Jesus's ruling about loving your fellow man. "Christians" who oppose that viewpoint are not real Christians. They're pretenders and false practitioners. But GG won't let that get in his way.

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.

that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.

And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.

Indeed. The priest from my old church will not marry anyone unless it is inside his church AND he's had at least 2x 1-hour marriage counseling/prayers with them.

They aren't obliged to do jack gak. This bs with the clerk changes nothing. Apples and potatoes.

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.

that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.

And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.

Does the fact that, at the time she took office, it was not the law of the land have any bearing?

And surely these couples could have gone to another county? Its not like one stick in the mud is stopping all gay marriages everywhere.

 generalgrog wrote:
Could it be that she didn't want to give up the 20+ years she put into that position....

Sure, but elected government employees do not get to use their religious beliefs to justify not doing their job. If they have problem with fulfilling their duties due to private religious beliefs, you resign. You do not get to occupy to position and simply refuse to perform its duties.

Why should she give up those 20+ years of service because of 5 lawyers in DC ?

Because ultimately she's the one refusing to perform her duties, she's not being prevented from doing so by lawyers in DC.

The easy thing would be to resign. I applaud her for taking a stand.

That would be both the easy and responsible thing.

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.


GG

This is an elected public official refusing to do her job and violating a court order to do so, not a private citizen engaged in private religious ceremonies.

Why should they go elsewhere? They live there, pay taxes there.

5 of the clerks agreed they would issue licenses.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Does the fact that, at the time she took office, it was not the law of the land have any bearing?

And surely these couples could have gone to another county? Its not like one stick in the mud is stopping all gay marriages everywhere.

No.

I'm a government employee, a manager, and an attorney. I'm bound by more rules, regulations, and policies than most people can even imagine.

You swear an oath the law the land. If it changes, you don't get a personal little exemption. You sack up or you leave.

What no officer of the court can do, under any circumstances, is refuse to acknowledge the law. You can disagree to your hearts content, but you cannot make a public spectacle of not following the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.

That's so far from anything that's been allowed to happen that it's borderline delusional.

The ACLU would be over a case like that in a heart beat.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Grog actually means false Christian ministers. Real Christians value Jesus's ruling about loving your fellow man. "Christians" who oppose that viewpoint are not real Christians. They're pretenders and false practitioners. But GG won't let that get in his way.

LOL....so 100% of all Christian, Jjewish, and Islamic ministers before 1960 were false ministers?

nice logic fail there..

But you actually help to prove my point. The atheist state... declares that anyone not performing gay marriage is a "false minister" and thus loses the right to marry at all. Or any 'false ministers" will be jailed for not marrying gays.

The end is truly nigh...


GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.

That's so far from anything that's been allowed to happen that it's borderline delusional.

The ACLU would be over a case like that in a heart beat.

20 years ago you(well maybe not you..but many people would) would have called me delusional if I suggested that there would be gay marriage in the USA.

GG

But you actually help to prove my point. The atheist state... declares that anyone not performing gay marriage is a "false minister" and thus loses the right to marry at all. Or any 'false ministers" will be jailed for not marrying gays.

The end is truly nigh...


GG

She's not performing marriages against her will. She's the county clerk. Its her job to issue licenses. She's not issuing ANY licenses. Her accepting a paycheck is fraudulent activity.


And so it begins:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/03/mike-huckabee-kim-davis/

I told you guys to not engage him

 generalgrog wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.

that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.

And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.

I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.


GG

I will point you to the Book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 and 2:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

So, either you believe that the governments are in power because God allows them to be, or you don't, and think you can act against what the Bible has mandated because... reasons?

Time for a friendly reminder: Rule Number One = Be Polite!

 Psienesis wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.

that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.

And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.

I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.


GG

I will point you to the Book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 and 2:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

So, either you believe that the governments are in power because God allows them to be, or you don't, and think you can act against what the Bible has mandated because... reasons?

so martin luther king was evil for civil disobedience? You sound like the rednecks from the 1960's who called king a rabble rouser and, a hypocrite.

making a stand against an immoral law, is different than not paying your taxes.

GG

And what is exactly is the immoral law here? Oh yeah, I remember, it's the equal protection clause.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And what is exactly is the immoral law here? Oh yeah, I remember, it's the equal protection clause.

Again, how is it moral to deny wedding licenses to an entire jurisdiction for everyone?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And what is exactly is the immoral law here? Oh yeah, I remember, it's the equal protection clause.

Again, how is it moral to deny wedding licenses to an entire jurisdiction for everyone?

If people can't get married, then they're fornicating out of wedlock!

We need to stop this! Issue licenses before we start having a lot of bastards born!

 generalgrog wrote:
Could it be that she didn't want to give up the 20+ years she put into that position....not fully realizing that 5 lawyers in Washington would force her to make a decision of conscience.

Why should she give up those 20+ years of service because of 5 lawyers in DC ?

The easy thing would be to resign. I applaud her for taking a stand.

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.


GG

She only converted to Christianity about two years ago.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And what is exactly is the immoral law here? Oh yeah, I remember, it's the equal protection clause.

Again, how is it moral to deny wedding licenses to an entire jurisdiction for everyone?

Good point. I hadn't really thought about it in that direction.