# Supreme Court, maybe, maybe not



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Gov. Phil Bryant said Friday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage "usurps" states' long-held rights to self governance and he's studying the state's options.

"Gov. Bryant will continue to do all that he can to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi," spokeswoman Nicole Webb said.

Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves decried the ruling as "overreach of the federal government" that has expanded under the Obama Administration from the executive to the judicial branches.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/politicalledger/2015/06/26/bryant-gay-marriage/29327433/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MOREHEAD, KY. &#8212; Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis shut her blinds at work Tuesday to block the view of rainbow-clad protesters outside. They carried flowers and flags and signs saying "you don't own marriage." They chanted "do your job."

Moments later, she told a lesbian couple who walked in asking for a license to try another county.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/same-sex-marria...refuse-licenses/14747203/#sK7RZIPitj4a30Ud.99


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Texas county clerks may refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite last week&#8217;s supreme court ruling that established a nationwide right to same-sex marriage, the state&#8217;s attorney general Ken Paxton said on Sunday.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/texas-county-clerks-refuse-gay-marriage


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I think a lot of people have lost respect for the Supreme Court. Any time cases like the gay marriage come to the court, you can pretty much predict how the court will rule. They always rule based on their political/ideological leanings. 

As for these people denying to issue licenses, I am sure there will be lawsuits filed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> MOREHEAD, KY. â Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis shut her blinds at work Tuesday to block the view of rainbow-clad protesters outside. They carried flowers and flags and signs saying "you don't own marriage." They chanted "do your job."
> 
> Moments later, she told a lesbian couple who walked in asking for a license to try another county.
> 
> ...


The lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of two same sex and two heterosexual couples. For those of you who support this clerk, what other laws should she be able to ignore and what other duties should she be able to refuse?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> The lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of two same sex and two heterosexual couples. For those of you who support this clerk, *what other laws should she be able to ignore and what other duties should she be able to refuse?*


Any that insult her religious beliefs. If she suffers consequences for it I doubt she'll mind. Some things are more important than a law, like a soul.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Any that insult her religious beliefs. If she suffers consequences for it I doubt she'll mind. Some things are more important than a law, like a soul.


That's fine. Replace her with someone that can actually perform _all_ the duties of their job.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Just like the Obama administration the Supreme Court has trashed the Constitution. As the Constitution is the law of the land it is only proper, rightful, and legal to ignore their ruling. Any ruling that conflicts with other amendments is in itself unconstitutional. the supreme Court has sold out and is making political rulings, not legal rulings. They can call it anything they want but frosting a turd does not make it a cookie. I support those who hold that this is a violation of State rights.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's fine. Replace her with someone that can actually perform _all_ the duties of their job.


Step six in expunging Christian from interfering with the secular agenda.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> I support those who hold that this is a violation of State rights.


Do you (and others complaining about this case) feel the same way about the 2010 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Same old story for the sore losers in American history. When they like it, it's perfectly within the court's bounds and they're perfectly willing to leverage it over every other state. When they don't like it it's, "STATE RIGHTS STATE RIGHTS!" And you know what. Let's not pretend that expunging Christian interference in government is a bad thing. Secular is called fair. 

But get real, let's not forget recent history. Remember Hobby Lobby? How long ago was that? Man those liberal activists judges, I can't believe they would.....oh....allow Christian business owners to not provide the morning after pill to employees within their insurance policies. Hey. Is that a Christian agenda? Dangit why won't those activist judges stop expunging Secular from the Christian agenda? Why!?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Same old story for the sore losers in American history. When they like it, it's perfectly within the court's bounds and they're perfectly willing to leverage it over every other state. When they don't like it it's, "STATE RIGHTS STATE RIGHTS!" And you know what. Let's not pretend that expunging Christian interference in government is a bad thing. Secular is called fair.
> 
> But get real, let's not forget recent history. Remember Hobby Lobby? How long ago was that? Is your memory that short? Man those liberal activists judges, I can't believe they would.....oh....allow Christian business owners to not provide the morning after pill to employees within their insurance policies. Hey. Is that a Christian agenda? Dangit why won't those activist judges stop expunging Secular from the Christian agenda? Why!?


Just because they upheld the Constitution in one case does not give them the right to trash it in another.

The free exercise of religion is a constitutional right.
The constitution does not give the Federal government the power to determine marriage laws. That is therefore a States right.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Shoden said:


> Do you (and others complaining about this case) feel the same way about the 2010 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago?



Don't be ridiculous, It's apples and oranges. 

the second amendment was very clear in McDonald vs Chicago and the Supreme court ruled properly.

Please show me where the Constitution gives the power to the Federal government to determine marriage laws. 

On my marriage license I can not find it being issued by the Federal government. And you know why? Because it wasn't.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> Just because they upheld the Constitution in one case does not give them the right to trash it in another.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is a constitutional right.
> The constitution does not give the Federal government the power to determine marriage laws. That is therefore a States right.


But that's my point. YOU think they're trashing it. That's it. That's the end of the story. You don't like it, so you think they're trashing it. Because for some reason you think states have the right to decide what constitutes personal liberty. Even most of the conservatives I know aren't even with you on this. They don't necessarily like it, but they aren't freaking out. You're a minority. You're wrong. The Supreme Court did exactly what it should by protecting personal LIBERTY. If you're going to "save marriage" in your eyes, you're going to have to do it outside the scope of government.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's fine. Replace her with someone that can actually perform _all_ the duties of their job.



She was doing just fine till someone changed the rules. Should she be penalized ?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Step six in expunging Christian from interfering with the secular agenda.


If you say so, but I just think people should do their job. If a nurse doesn't think that a medication works and won't give it, despite a Dr ordering it, should she keep her job?

This isn't a christian thang, it's a do your job thang.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Don't be ridiculous, It's apples and oranges.
> 
> the second amendment was very clear in McDonald vs Chicago and the Supreme court ruled properly.
> 
> ...


It's a right granted in the Bill of Rights. Loving vs Virginia is the case most cited but there are others here: http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> Just because they upheld the Constitution in one case does not give them the right to trash it in another.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is a constitutional right.
> The constitution does not give the Federal government the power to determine marriage laws. That is therefore a States right.


It is true that the federal government has no authority to write marriage laws. That being said they DO have an obligation to make sure whatever laws the states make do not discriminate against any of our citizens.... states need to write their laws in such a manner that they will pass muster when held up against the Constitution. Can you say "equal protection under the law", or "No state shall pass any law that denies any citizen the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by all other citizens."


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Don't be ridiculous, It's apples and oranges.
> 
> the second amendment was very clear in McDonald vs Chicago and the Supreme court ruled properly.
> 
> ...


In McDonald vs Chicago, they didn't rule on the wording of the Second Amendment. They ruled on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment being applicable to the Second Amendment, and thereby extending the protection of the right to keep and bear arms from the federal level to the state level.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, they also used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but instead of applying it to a right explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights, they applied it to a fundamental but unenumerated right.

The Constitution doesn't grant the Federal government the power to regulate marriage laws, and now that restriction on regulation of marriage laws has been extended to the states, which is a good thing. The type of marriage that two or more consenting adults enter into should be up to them and their religion (or non-religion). This ruling is a win for individual liberty and religious freedom.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Step six in expunging Christian from interfering with the secular agenda.


She's a Govt employee and religion is a personal matter

She has no right to force her standards on anyone else by refusing to do her job.

Your tired rhetoric doesn't change the fact that Govt and religion are separate entities

Her job is to fill out the forms and take the payments, and not decide who gets to partake of her service


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Shoden said:


> In McDonald vs Chicago, they didn't rule on the wording of the Second Amendment. They ruled on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment being applicable to the Second Amendment, and thereby extending the protection of the right to keep and bear arms from the federal level to the state level.
> 
> In Obergefell v. Hodges, they also used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but instead of applying it to a right explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights, they applied it to a fundamental but unenumerated right.
> 
> The Constitution doesn't grant the Federal government the power to regulate marriage laws, and now that restriction on regulation of marriage laws has been extended to the states, which is a good thing. The type of marriage that two or more consenting adults enter into should be up to them and their religion (or non-religion). This ruling is a win for individual liberty and religious freedom.


Only if the court's interpretation trickles through all related laws. For instance, spouse's benefits under Social Security laws were originally established because it was a cultural assumptiin that woman, who at the time almost universally at home instead of earning wages, needed to have that position recognized as an extra expense of support by the husband throughout their retirement. 
That was why the SSA law only paid husbands if they recived half their support from their wives. Later that was declared unconstitutional but is still actually a part of the law in some respects. 
Now of course, women have a much larger place in earning their own retirement. But even now the raising of children can cause a real hole in the accummulation of retirement income and that still falls mostly on women. But not to families not having children.
I think it is more than time to reexamine this concept and specifically align benefits with the time spent away from work raising children and not with assuming marriage means that will automatically be the way it happens. Since is so clearly no longer true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> She was doing just fine till someone changed the rules. Should she be penalized ?


No one changed the rules of her job.
She's there to fill out forms and take money


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I would rather see all government out of marriage. If two [3, 6, 92...] people want to live their life together I say let them. No laws controlling the human relationships. People want a Holy Relationship, let them go before God, those wanting a non-religious pairing, let them be recognized by whatever there is for them to stand before. This has gone way too far...

Right there is your fairness for all...


...now if people wanted to get the government to recognize certain needs that they might have then let them enter into an agreement with the government via a legal construct where THEY describe the playing ground AND the rules to be operated within.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> She was doing just fine till someone changed the rules. Should she be penalized ?


Afraid so. Her job duties changed and have to go with it. It has happened to me and many others. And it is no choice in matter


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Shine said:


> I would rather see all government out of marriage. If two [3, 6, 92...] people want to live their life together I say let them. No laws controlling the human relationships. People want a Holy Relationship, let them go before God, those wanting a non-religious pairing, let them be recognized by whatever there is for them to stand before. This has gone way too far...
> 
> Right there is your fairness for all...


No preference in inheritance laws, child custody, government benefits, taxing regulations, insurance rates? I remember being absolutely incensed when I found out that car insurance rates where better for a married person with a bad driving record than for a single person with a perfect record- because their actuarial tables said married people have a low incidence of accident than a single person. That single includee teen age boys made not one lick of difference to them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

where I want to said:


> No preference in inheritance laws, child custody, government benefits, taxing regulations, insurance rates? I remember being absolutely incensed when I found out that car insurance rates where better for a married person with a bad driving record than for a single person with a perfect record- because their actuarial tables said married people have a low incidence of accident than a single person. That single includee teen age boys made not one lick of difference to them.


Insurance (excluding government types) being a private business should set their fees according to their own equations. The government involvement with the rest of your first sentence in relation to any persons status should be nil. Most if not all can be protected by contracts between individuals. Just my thoughts.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I doubt whether the government woukd allow even private insurance rates to be set by race. The government has its hands in vitually everything of any importance.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

where I want to said:


> I doubt whether the government woukd allow even private insurance rates to be set by race. The government has its hands in vitually everything of any importance.


Oh ,I agree with you, but you are free right,,


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

wiscto said:


> But that's my point. YOU think they're trashing it. That's it. That's the end of the story. You don't like it, so you think they're trashing it. Because for some reason you think states have the right to decide what constitutes personal liberty. Even most of the conservatives I know aren't even with you on this. They don't necessarily like it, but they aren't freaking out. You're a minority. You're wrong. The Supreme Court did exactly what it should by protecting personal LIBERTY. If you're going to "save marriage" in your eyes, you're going to have to do it outside the scope of government.


It's not a matter of trashing, it's a matter of FOLLOWING.

Actually as i have stated in various threads I have no problem with two gay people forming a union, domestic partnership or what ever you want to call it. I do disagree with it being referred to as a marriage as I view that word in context to my religious beliefs. However that does not deny the fact that if Bill and Ted want to form a union with all the rights and privileges that have applied to a traditionally married couple, so be it. They do not need my approval. It is their lives.

The issue hear is the supreme court interfering with States rights.

For example, In Alaska I do not need a concealed carry permit. I simple purchase a gun put it in a holster and off I go. here in New York it may take up to two years TO GET PERMISSION to own a handgun and concealed carry may take years longer and require appearing before a judge to explain why.
yet in both states I am protected by the Second Amendment. 
Why does the Supreme court refuse to force New York to apply the same rules as Alaska?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is true that the federal government has no authority to write marriage laws. That being said they DO have an obligation to make sure whatever laws the states make do not discriminate against any of our citizens.... states need to write their laws in such a manner that they will pass muster when held up against the Constitution. Can you say "equal protection under the law", or "No state shall pass any law that denies any citizen the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by all other citizens."


Help me under stand how if we are all equal we are defined by our private relationships.

Why does a government find it necessary to regulate relationship.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why does a government find it necessary to regulate relationship.


They don't care about your "relationship" until you start asking them for certain benefits. 

If you want those, there has to be regulation


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Help me under stand how if we are all equal we are defined by our private relationships.
> 
> Why does a government find it necessary to regulate relationship.


Our state governments have been in the business of regulating some relationships (marriage being one) since the states were formed. The federal government was designed to protect all of our good citizens from unfair state as well as unfair federal laws that might be imposed by a meddling majority. In the case of same sex marriage, the states had been denying a group of folks their rights to enjoy (or endure) wedded bliss. This type of unfounded and unfair discrimination by the meddling majority has now been ended...... finally!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She's a Govt employee and religion is a personal matter
> 
> She has no right to force her standards on anyone else by refusing to do her job.
> 
> ...


 Bearfoot, I know we've had our differences, but you're still a voice of reason. Good to have you back on the forum!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The federal government was designed to protect all of our good citizens from unfair state as well as unfair federal laws that might be imposed by a meddling majority.


 Well said YH, well said. Perhaps one of our posters should give you a 'Post of the Decade' Award for that one.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> It's not a matter of trashing, it's a matter of FOLLOWING.
> 
> Actually as i have stated in various threads I have no problem with two gay people forming a union, domestic partnership or *what ever you want to call it. I do disagree with it being referred to as a marriage* as I view that word in context to my religious beliefs. However that does not deny the fact that if Bill and Ted want to form a union with all the rights and privileges that have applied to a traditionally married couple, so be it. They do not need my approval. It is their lives.
> 
> ...


Ok, is it just me, or does anyone else notice something odd here?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, is it just me, or does anyone else notice something odd here?


I noticed but it us just not worth it arguing with that kind of post.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If marriage was was not co-op-ed by the government and left in the hands of the people via churches and the people..... how could discrimination happen..

Could it be that the government first interference was the creation of laws to bar.... control interracial unions?... historical it was the churches th a in private... that married interracial persons or the people themselves.

So, the requirement grew to all states that marriage was illegal and a bribe for a conveyance of a privilege could be bought for a license.

So, had the government never usurped the freedom of the people in attempting to control we would not be having this discussion.

1920 were controlling times.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

many disrespectful things are coming out with this administration as in even a gay wedding took place at the WH. How disrespectful and down right distasteful that is.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, is it just me, or does anyone else notice something odd here?


Sorry if you do not like the example I used. It was not a lame attempt at thread drift or changing the subject.

My point is about the Federal government taking over States rights. The fact that it came up because of the SC ruling on gay marriage has little to do with it. We are the United STATES of America, not the State of America. Whether I agree or disagree with the ruling does not change the point.
Even using equal protection under the law has some holes in it. Please explain in what State where a man and woman can not get married. If equal protection is applied to a man and a man or a woman and a woman why not a brother and a sister, a parent and a child, a person and their pet, a guy and his sportscar, or minors. That would also be equal protection under the law.

As I stated before, it was a political ruling, not a constitutional ruling.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Sorry if you do not like the example I used. It was not a lame attempt at thread drift or changing the subject.
> 
> My point is about the Federal government taking over States rights. The fact that it came up because of the SC ruling on gay marriage has little to do with it. We are the United STATES of America, not the State of America. Whether I agree or disagree with the ruling does not change the point.
> Even using equal protection under the law has some holes in it. Please explain in what State where a man and woman can not get married. If equal protection is applied to a man and a man or a woman and a woman why not a brother and a sister, a parent and a child, a person and their pet, a guy and his sportscar, or minors. That would also be equal protection under the law.
> ...


One of the cases decided by the SC in this issue goes directly to equal protection. A gentleman, legally married in New Jersey, asked to be recognized on his husband's death certificate in Ohio. There would have been no issue if he had been a she. But Ohio refused to recognize a legal marriage when, with the exact same paperwork, signatures and stamps they would recognize others. In part, it is issues like this the court resolved.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you say so, but I just think people should do their job. If a nurse doesn't think that a medication works and won't give it, despite a Dr ordering it, should she keep her job?
> 
> This isn't a christian thang, it's a do your job thang.


Really, thats an analogy?
How 'bout a nurse is working in a hosp & is called to the surg area to assist w/abortion? Can she refuse w/o losing her job?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

All this coulda been avoided of gov't would get out of the marriage biz.
Issue "unity" licenses. Then anyone can go to whomever to have a legal ceremony or go have a religious one.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Afraid so. Her job duties changed and have to go with it. It has happened to me and many others. And it is no choice in matter


Some states are making laws so that 1st amendment rights are not violated. Allowing those to opt out but providing employees who are ok w/it all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> All this coulda been avoided of gov't would get out of the marriage biz.
> Issue "unity" licenses. Then anyone can go to whomever to have a legal ceremony or go have a religious one.


So it is just the word marriage that us the problem for all people against same sex marriage?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> It's not a matter of trashing, it's a matter of FOLLOWING.
> 
> Actually as i have stated in various threads I have no problem with two gay people forming a union, domestic partnership or what ever you want to call it. I do disagree with it being referred to as a marriage as I view that word in context to my religious beliefs. However that does not deny the fact that if Bill and Ted want to form a union with all the rights and privileges that have applied to a traditionally married couple, so be it. They do not need my approval. It is their lives.
> 
> ...


IMHO, it won't be long b/4 this is handled. SCOTUS just said that no state can take away rights guaranteed-sooo, now ALL states will have to allow us to bear arms...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our state governments have been in the business of regulating some relationships (marriage being one) since the states were formed. The federal government was designed to protect all of our good citizens from unfair state as well as unfair federal laws that might be imposed by a meddling majority. In the case of same sex marriage, the states had been denying a group of folks their rights to enjoy (or endure) wedded bliss. This type of unfounded and unfair discrimination by the meddling majority has now been ended...... finally!


Like the right to bear arms.
And the right to practice one's religion...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really, thats an analogy?
> How 'bout a nurse is working in a hosp & is called to the surg area to assist w/abortion? Can she refuse w/o losing her job?


Yes, it is an analogy. In my opinion, it depends on the hospital, does it routinely perform abortions? If yes, she OR HE can lose her/his job.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> One of the cases decided by the SC in this issue goes directly to equal protection. A gentleman, legally married in New Jersey, asked to be recognized on his husband's death certificate in Ohio. There would have been no issue if he had been a she. But Ohio refused to recognize a legal marriage when, with the exact same paperwork, signatures and stamps they would recognize others. In part, it is issues like this the court resolved.


I can agree with that ruling. Unfortunately the SC paints with too broad of a brush. I still advocate State rights over the Federal control.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> I can agree with that ruling. Unfortunately the SC paints with too broad of a brush. I still advocate State rights over the Federal control.


But once you accept that Ohio must accept all marriages from New Jersey there can be no basis for any law in Ohio that outlaws same sex marriage. You can't give rights in your state to people from outside that state that you don't give to your own citizens. Exactly how would that work? States rights are good but they can't trump federal rights.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> I can agree with that ruling. Unfortunately the SC paints with too broad of a brush. I still advocate State rights over the Federal control.


 They sure did and walked all over the 10th amendment.  They did that by demanding that states must create marriage laws to make marriage fully legal. That crushes the 10th amendment all to heck.,


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> So it is just the word marriage that us the problem for all people against same sex marriage?


I cannot speak for "all" but for many it is my understanding that the entire meaning & work "marriage" has bee 'stolen' 'violated' for some. 

B/c for most, no one cares what goes on b/w closed doors. If I'm naive enuf to want to believe I don't know what goes on, so be it. 
For others, its condoning what they believe is a sin. 
I leave that up to God.
I feel God will judge those more harshly who cannot love, not for what others do in the name of love, if that is sincere. MHO, no need for any to jump on it, I'll not change MHO.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it is an analogy. In my opinion, it depends on the hospital, does it routinely perform abortions? If yes, she OR HE can lose her/his job.


Nope. Goes against he/she's right to freely practice religion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Nope. Goes against he/she's right to freely practice religion.


People should not take up a career that practices things that run against their religion. That way there is no reason for them to not be able to practice it freely.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> But once you accept that Ohio must accept all marriages from New Jersey there can be no basis for any law in Ohio that outlaws same sex marriage. You can't give rights in your state to people from outside that state that you don't give to your own citizens. Exactly how would that work? States rights are good but they can't trump federal rights.


Alaskans can drive at fourteen.... with that drivers license goo in all city states.

Next.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Alaskans can drive at fourteen.... with that drivers license goo in all city states.
> 
> Next.


Really? http://www.dmv.org/ak-alaska/teen-drivers.php

Next.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> People should not take up a career that practices things that run against their religion. That way there is no reason for them to not be able to practice it freely.


Medical professionals take oaths to save lives not to take them. Taking a life is NOT a part of that career.
Many places allow those to opt out of abortion areas completely.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Medical professionals take oaths to save lives not to take them. Taking a life is NOT a part of that career.
> Many places allow those to opt out of abortion areas completely.


It could be argued that abortions are indeed part of that career.... thinking about cases where the mothers life is being endangered here. 

On another thought.... would it not be against that oath to refuse to assist in the delivery of a baby whose mother happened to be a lesbian?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

No doubt, that when the Civil Rights Act, was passed, there were probably many, who refused to adhere to it, because it was "just plain wrong". 

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

Public Servants should be required to do their jobs.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> People should not take up a career that practices things that run against their religion. That way there is no reason for them to not be able to practice it freely.


So what happens when someone has a longtime career and then the laws are changed/ rewritten? Shouldn't they be free to exercise their rights to pursue a chosen career path, like any non religious person would? Not their fault if the laws are changed after the fact is it, or should they just suck it up?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> So what happens when someone has a longtime career and then the laws are changed/ rewritten? Shouldn't they be free to exercise their rights to pursue a chosen career path, like any non religious person would? Not their fault if the laws are changed after the fact is it, or should they just suck it up?


I am not sure what religion has to do with it. If law changes yes you do suck it up. Or you get another job. 

Has no impact on being able to practice your religion.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it is an analogy. In my opinion, it depends on the hospital, does it routinely perform abortions? If yes, she OR HE can lose her/his job.


:umno:

In any hospital there is an ethics committee. If a practitioner has an ethical problem with any procedure, they can petition the ethics board.

In this case, since nurses are easily replaceable, the DON or House Nurse would assign another nurse.

Every time a hospital loses a trained veteran nurse, it costs about $35,000 to train another nurse up to the same level of proficiency...So, you don't run off nurses without a mighty good reason.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

There's only a few on this board that really understand what "Freedom" consists of. Others are trying to elbow their way in through Symantecs...

I am sincerely surprised.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Bearfoot, I know we've had our differences, but you're still a voice of reason. Good to have you back on the forum!


I really appreciate that, since that's what I try to do, although you know it will earn you the wrath of a few 

Thank you, Sir.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Like the right to bear arms.
> And the right to practice one's religion...


Yes, like the right to bear arms.... That is a basic fundamental right for all of our good citizens and needs to be protected. So is the right to practice ones own religion. I have yet to see any laws that prevent anyone from practicing their own religion. Ok some religions seem to have fallen under that bus load of meddlers who seem to believe that only their own should be allowed. Think about the native Americans who are denied the right of vision quests. Something about being too friendly with some plants.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Come on the church of cannabis just got stated in Indiana. Potlucks have not been scheduled yet.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Come on the church of cannabis just got stated in Indiana. Potlucks have not been scheduled yet.


That's another step in the right direction anyway. Maybe someday all of our people will enjoy the freedoms the founders envisioned for themselves.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Really? http://www.dmv.org/ak-alaska/teen-drivers.php
> 
> Next.


What did you use your learners permit... we use them to drive.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> What did you use your learners permit... we use them to drive.


We used them to learn to drive, but only with a licensed driver over 21 in the seat next to the driver, and if I recall no other passengers and only from dawn To dusk, no night driving. Not sure, it's been nearly fifty years!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

You&#8217;ll see from the grid below that driver permit holders in most states can use their permits to drive in other states.

Note, though, that even if your state allows you to use your drivers permit to drive in other states, you should still check with the other states&#8217; learners permit laws. 

For example, if your state allows you to have a certain number of passengers who are younger than 18 in the vehicle with you, but the other state doesn&#8217;t allow it, you could find yourself face-to-face with an understanding police officer &#8211; or, you could find yourself with a ticket that could cause problems once it&#8217;s time to apply for your full drivers license. 

Yes	No	
Alabama	
x
Alaska	
x
Arizona	
x
Arkansas	
x
California	
x
Colorado	
x
Connecticut	
x
Delaware	
x
Florida	
x
Georgia	
x
Hawaii	
x
Idaho	
x
Illinois	
x
Indiana	
x
Iowa	
x
Kansas	
x
Kentucky	
x
Louisiana	
x
Maine	
x
Maryland	
x
Massachusetts	
x
Michigan	
x
Minnesota	
x
Mississippi	
x
Missouri	
x
Montana	
x
Nebraska	
x
Nevada	
x
New Hampshire	
x
New Jersey	
x
New Mexico	
x
New York	
x
North Carolina	
x
North Dakota 
x
This restriction applies to drivers who are younger than 16.
Ohio	
x
Oklahoma	
x
Oregon	
x
Pennsylvania 
x
Rhode Island	
x
South Carolina	
x
South Dakota	
x
Tennessee	
x
Texas	
x
Utah	
x
Vermont	
x
Virginia	
x
Washington	
x
West Virginia	
x
Wisconsin	
x
Wyoming	
x
Washington DC	
x


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> What did you use your learners permit... we use them to drive.


Your implication seemed to be that the learners permit and provisional carry the same weight and should be honored by other states just as they honor the full license or a marriage license. When you can show me a provisional marriage license or one with limitations on how it can be used you'll be closer to having a valid argument. But since a marriage license and a marriage certificate are exactly the same and grant the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities no matter who's names appear on it, just like a full driver's license, and unlike a learner's permit or provisional license your analogy falls apart.

If I misread your intention, please explain.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> :umno:
> 
> In any hospital there is an ethics committee. If a practitioner has an ethical problem with any procedure, they can petition the ethics board.
> 
> ...


As long as it's not an emergency situation, I agree. If a nurse refuses an emergency procedure he or she will be disciplined and/or transferred to another department/unit where hopefully they'll perform all the duties of their job.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Really? http://www.dmv.org/ak-alaska/teen-drivers.php
> 
> Next.


Huh...yes, REALLY.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It could be argued that abortions are indeed part of that career.... thinking about cases where the mothers life is being endangered here.
> 
> On another thought.... would it not be against that oath to refuse to assist in the delivery of a baby whose mother happened to be a lesbian?


When the mother's life is in danger, you have to save her life. Period. That's ALWAYS how its been. 

What? refuse to deliver a baby? You gotta be kidding...of course not.

I see you're not seeing it, YH, this is dissappointing me...I've like your posts just b/c its you, even one you deleted...now? Ya gotta come to your senses. 
NO ONE should have to provide a service that is against their religion. NO ONE.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

This decision does not require a church to perform a marriage between same sex people.Why all the fuss?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We used them to learn to drive, but only with a licensed driver over 21 in the seat next to the driver, and if I recall no other passengers and only from dawn To dusk, no night driving. Not sure, it's been nearly fifty years!


And where I grew up, you could drive ALONE under some circumstances w/that license.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wwubben said:


> This decision does not require a church to perform a marriage between same sex people.Why all the fuss?


Do you think they will be required to?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's another step in the right direction anyway. Maybe someday all of our people will enjoy the freedoms the founders envisioned for themselves.


Well, speaking of freedom...In light of the SCOTUS decision we're talking about, shouldn't my concealed carry permit now be good in 50 states?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Well, speaking of freedom...In light of the SCOTUS decision we're talking about, shouldn't my concealed carry permit now be good in 50 states?


Shoulda coulda woulda..... According to the second amendment no one should need a concealed carry permit in ANY state. That being said, individual states have the right to draft their own legislation. What they are not supposed to do is draft any legislation that denys any of our good citizens their God given basic human rights.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> When the mother's life is in danger, you have to save her life. Period. That's ALWAYS how its been.
> 
> What? refuse to deliver a baby? You gotta be kidding...of course not.
> 
> ...


I have always liked most of your posts too. On this one subject we seem to disagree though. I fail to see how ones religion is going to get picky about which abortions they can perform.... my bible doesnt read like that. You can either perform abortions or not, I see no problem there, but if you can do one, then you really need to do for anyone that needs it. Kinda like delivering that baby, regardless of the mothers sexual preference.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Do you think they will be required to?


No, because they aren't a "business for profit" nor a part of the Govt


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Do you think they will be required to?


Simply, no.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of two same sex and two heterosexual couples. For those of you who support this clerk, what other laws should she be able to ignore and what other duties should she be able to refuse?


Would this apply in her case? 

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> But that's my point. YOU think they're trashing it. That's it. That's the end of the story. You don't like it, so you think they're trashing it. Because for some reason you think states have the right to decide what constitutes personal liberty. Even most of the conservatives I know aren't even with you on this. They don't necessarily like it, but they aren't freaking out. You're a minority. You're wrong. The Supreme Court did exactly what it should by protecting personal LIBERTY. If you're going to "save marriage" in your eyes, you're going to have to do it outside the scope of government.


Maybe this will clear up a few things?

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She's a Govt employee and religion is a personal matter
> 
> She has no right to force her standards on anyone else by refusing to do her job.
> 
> ...


Not sure, this may apply to her...

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Gov. Phil Bryant said Friday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage "usurps" states' long-held rights to self governance and he's studying the state's options.
> 
> "Gov. Bryant will continue to do all that he can to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi," spokeswoman Nicole Webb said.
> 
> ...




What does the Same Sex ruling, have to do with "religious freedom"?

Just curious.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> People should not take up a career that practices things that run against their religion. That way there is no reason for them to not be able to practice it freely.


This might say differently...

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not sure, this may apply to her...
> 
> In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that *religious organizations* and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


She doesn't have to "condone" anything

She hands them some paperwork, takes their money, and stamps it with her seal.

It's the job, not her personal life


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Simply, no.


Why not? Are they supposed to lie & say its not a good day? Or uh, you don't attend my church? So what if they HAVE attended...

Just go ahead & say it: NO ONE shuld be forced to perform a service that goes against their religion.

Like the SCOTUS said:


In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She doesn't have to "condone" anything
> 
> She hands them some paperwork, takes their money, and stamps it with her seal.
> 
> It's the job, not her personal life


Read the whole thing. "...those who adhere to religious doctrines MAY CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE, with utmost, sincere conviction...The First Amendment ENSURES THAT religious organizations AND PERSONS are given proper protection..."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Read the whole thing. "...those who adhere to religious doctrines MAY CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE, with utmost, sincere conviction...The First Amendment ENSURES THAT religious organizations AND PERSONS are given proper protection..."


She's still free to "advocate"
She's not free to discriminate.

Unless her state gives her and exemption, and provides someone else to do the job, it's still her duty as a part of her job, not as anything to do with her "religious freedom."


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We used them to learn to drive, but only with a licensed driver over 21 in the seat next to the driver, and if I recall no other passengers and only from dawn To dusk, no night driving. Not sure, it's been nearly fifty years!



According to the link provided, Alaska learners still require an adult present.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Giving them the answer and the explanation behind the question and still they come up with something different. There is no need, their eyes are not opened,,,

Maybe it is intended that this escape them :shrug::shrug::shrug: I am letting them alone with their "understanding" and waiting for it to be overturned. Enjoy!!!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe this will clear up a few things?
> 
> In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


Maybe that cleared it up for you, I already understood what he said. He's saying that religious institutions will not be forced to accept married gay couples in their parish, that they will not be forced to facilitate gay marriages.......none of this was ever difficult to understand.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Giving them the answer and the explanation behind the question and still they come up with something different. There is no need, their eyes are not opened,,,
> 
> Maybe it is intended that this escape them :shrug::shrug::shrug:* I am letting them alone* with their "understanding" and waiting for it to be overturned. Enjoy!!!


On the first paragraph we agree, but I suspect not in referrence to the same people

As to the latter, you said that once before


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> As long as it's not an emergency situation, I agree. If a nurse refuses an emergency procedure he or she will be disciplined and/or transferred to another department/unit where hopefully they'll perform all the duties of their job.


Lot of difference between a spontaneous abortion and a planned one.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Lot of difference between a spontaneous abortion and a planned one.


You do realize they are all called abortion? Spontaneous, planned/elective, miscarriage, all abortion. The emergency abortions are for the mother's health. 

It can happen with placenta abruptio, placenta previa, and a host of other problems. 

I don't want a nurse picking and choosing which emergency procedures she wants to do.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Would this apply in her case?
> 
> In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


While she's doing her job of helping the couple fill out the paperwork, taking their money and signing what needs her signature she can make funny, disapproving noises, go tsk, tsk, tsk , or play with the crucifix around her neck showing she doesn't condone the marriage. She can show up on her own time in the public square with a sign saying she doesn't condone certain marriages. She can get on anonymous interweb forums and not condone away. The are almost unlimited ways she can show her disapproval and I'd stand up for her.

What she can't do is use her official standing to deny anyone that which the law allows. That might very well be the government interfering with someone's fee practice of their religion. And we don't like that, do we?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Maybe that cleared it up for you, I already understood what he said. He's saying that religious institutions will not be forced to accept married gay couples in their parish, that they will not be forced to facilitate gay marriages.......none of this was ever difficult to understand.


Can you point to those words specifically? B/c he said "The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and PERSONS..."
Do you know that the 1st amendment applies to EACH of us? EACH individual? What he is saying is NOTHING can take that away. NOTHING.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> While she's doing her job of helping the couple fill out the paperwork, taking their money and signing what needs her signature she can make funny, disapproving noises, go tsk, tsk, tsk , or play with the crucifix around her neck showing she doesn't condone the marriage. She can show up on her own time in the public square with a sign saying she doesn't condone certain marriages. She can get on anonymous interweb forums and not condone away. The are almost unlimited ways she can show her disapproval and I'd stand up for her.
> 
> What she can't do is use her official standing to deny anyone that which the law allows. That might very well be the government interfering with someone's fee practice of their religion. And we don't like that, do we?


Well, that was more than rude, condescending. 
I guess you didn't get the MEANING of the judge's words. He never said "only on their own time". He never said, "doesn't pertain to work". Now if you'd like to submit your own links, refuting his comments, I'd be interested. Meanwhile, I'll take your nasty remarks about someone's religion to heart.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, that was more than rude, condescending.
> I guess you didn't get the MEANING of the judge's words. He never said "only on their own time". He never said, "doesn't pertain to work". Now if you'd like to submit your own links, refuting his comments, I'd be interested. Meanwhile, I'll take your nasty remarks about someone's religion to heart.


I got the meaning of the judge's words quite well. Just as Christians seem capable of interpreting the words of their holy books quite differently I have a different interpretation of these words than do you or those you linked to. Interpretations and beliefs are all equally valid, are they not?

If you'd care to show exactly what "nasty remarks" I made I might be inclined to retract and apologize. I don't see anything in my post that said her beliefs were wrong, misguided , bigoted , homophobic, or in any way wrong. I don't personally know the lady in question and for me to place those labels on her or her beliefs from afar would be wrong of me. I simply suggested ways she might legally voice her disapproval. Using her official position to deny someone something they are legally entitled to, in my interpretation, isn't one of them and would seem to break the law in her area.

I can get ruder and more condescending. I'd rather not, nor would I rather be continued to be accused of saying things I didnt.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> This might say differently...
> 
> In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


I fail to see what this has to do with a persons career choise?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Any that insult her religious beliefs. If she suffers consequences for it I doubt she'll mind. Some things are more important than a law, like a soul.


That's fine, but then she needs to resign since she refuses to do her job. If she doesn't resign then she needs to be fired.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> She was doing just fine till someone changed the rules. Should she be penalized ?


Job duties change, should the lamplighters that used to go around lighting street lights at dusk kept their same job duties when electric street lights became the norm?

Sorry guys, but its 'the law of the land' and time to comply. I'm conservative on most things but this ain't one of them. I have had 2 gay friends both tell me on separate occasions in the past (when things were rougher if you were gay) that* if they had a choice *they would never have chosen to be homosexual, its just how they are.

Frankly, if I had a choice, I'd get governments out of the marriage business totally.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see what this has to do with a persons career choise?


Career has nada to do with our rights. Nothing takes away our freedom of religion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Nothing takes away our freedom of religion.


Nothing gives you the right to discriminate in your business.
They have to be separate things


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

You can't see the forest for the trees. If a company fires someone because they FORCED an employee to do SOMETHING that was against their valid and well established religion then - hay wait a second... THE BUSINESS GETS SUED.

Explain that will you?

..and yes, I have worked in the Health Care Field for over 10 years. 2.5 years supporting Emergency Operations at a Level I Trauma Center.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> You can't see the forest for the trees. If a company fires someone because they FORCED an employee to do SOMETHING that was against their valid and well established religion then - hay wait a second... THE BUSINESS GETS SUED.
> 
> Explain that will you?
> 
> ..and yes, I have worked in the Health Care Field for over 10 years. 2.5 years supporting Emergency Operations at a Level I Trauma Center.


But a company can fire someone for breaking the law. That is what this woman is doing. If issuing marriage licenses didn't violate her religous beliefs before issuing them now shouldn't either. That is what her job description requires. Nothing has changed except who gets to ask. 

A company needs to make reasonable accomodations to meet the needs of the religous. Allowing her to break the law is neither reasonable nor accommodating. The Ohio court that allowed one judge to step aside and let another preside at a same sex marriage is one way the law can be made to work. If this woman doesn't wish to follow the law and do her job it is her responsibilty to step aside and put someone, even temporarily , behind the counter who will follow the law. The public she serves should not be inconvenienced by her religous beliefs.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, that was more than rude, condescending.
> I guess you didn't get the MEANING of the judge's words. He never said "only on their own time". He never said, "doesn't pertain to work". Now if you'd like to submit your own links, refuting his comments, I'd be interested. Meanwhile, I'll take your nasty remarks about someone's religion to heart.


Still awaiting an explanation of what those "nasty remarks" about her religion were. I'll apologize if neccessary but you have to give me reason, first.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing gives you the right to discriminate in your business.
> They have to be separate things


Private businesses can discriminate. Golf courses, private clubs, religiously affiliated organizations can all operate as a business and invite or exclude whomever they wish. They can't however offer themselves as a public accomodation and then discriminate. And government certainly cannot. By its nature it should serve all its citizens equally.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> I got the meaning of the judge's words quite well. Just as Christians seem capable of interpreting the words of their holy books quite differently I have a different interpretation of these words than do you or those you linked to. Interpretations and beliefs are all equally valid, are they not?
> 
> If you'd care to show exactly what "nasty remarks" I made I might be inclined to retract and apologize. I don't see anything in my post that said her beliefs were wrong, misguided , bigoted , homophobic, or in any way wrong. I don't personally know the lady in question and for me to place those labels on her or her beliefs from afar would be wrong of me. I simply suggested ways she might legally voice her disapproval. Using her official position to deny someone something they are legally entitled to, in my interpretation, isn't one of them and would seem to break the law in her area.
> 
> I can get ruder and more condescending. I'd rather not, nor would I rather be continued to be accused of saying things I didnt.


You're making fun of Christians.

Even the cows in the field noticed that one...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> You're making fun of Christians.
> 
> Even the cows in the field noticed that one...


Where did I make fun of her beliefs? I grew up in a neighborhood of many older, Italian grandmothers. The actions I suggested were commonly directed at me and my friends. Tsk, tsking can send a very strong message.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing gives you the right to discriminate in your business.
> They have to be separate things


So you as well believe the hospital RN should assist w/abortion on demand?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing gives you the right to discriminate in your business.
> They have to be separate things


Biz dealings over 1st amendment rights. hmmmm


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Still awaiting an explanation of what those "nasty remarks" about her religion were. I'll apologize if neccessary but you have to give me reason, first.


I cannot fathom how you do not see it, but go look at the "tsk, tsk, tsk", & "fingering her Crucifix".
How condesending.
I guess I shouldn't be appalled anymore about those who mock anothers' religion.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jolly said:


> You're making fun of Christians.
> 
> Even the cows in the field noticed that one...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> I cannot fathom how you do not see it, but go look at the "tsk, tsk, tsk", & "fingering her Crucifix".
> How condesending.
> I guess I shouldn't be appalled anymore about those who mock anothers' religion.


Not nasty at all, artistic license...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> So you as well believe the hospital RN should assist w/abortion on demand?


If it's not elective, yes. If it's elective and there is coverage, it's the hospital's call.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I cannot fathom how you do not see it, but go look at the "tsk, tsk, tsk", & "fingering her Crucifix".
> How condesending.
> I guess I shouldn't be appalled anymore about those who mock anothers' religion.


And what did I say about her "beliefs"? And I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that those who think advocating someone use methods of nonverbal communication long in existence to pass along their disapproval is disrespectful but denying someone a document they are legally entitled to is righteous behavior might disagree with me.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> You can't see the forest for the trees. If a company fires someone because they FORCED an employee to do SOMETHING that was against their valid and well established religion then - hay wait a second... THE BUSINESS GETS SUED.
> 
> Explain that will you?
> 
> ..and yes, I have worked in the Health Care Field for over 10 years. 2.5 years supporting Emergency Operations at a Level I Trauma Center.


This is not always true if there is an emergency situation. Any health care professional that refuses to treat a life and death emergency will be reprimanded and/or fired.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> This is not always true if there is an emergency situation. Any health care professional that refuses to treat a life and death emergency will be reprimanded and/or fired.


This is a Straw Man Argument, there are hundreds of these throughout the "Gay" argument thread. I really do not know of that many "Life saving" abortions that you so lovingly refer to. You do not know how hard the Hospital that I was referring to pays attention to the Religious Rights of their employee. You just want to use the Life Saving Abortion to slap people in their face.

The bottom line that you continue to dance around with your "can't break the law" straw man argument is that the "break the law" scheme goes more than one way. You however, refuse to see that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> This is a Straw Man Argument, there are hundreds of these throughout the "Gay" argument thread. I really do not know of that many "Life saving" abortions that you so lovingly refer to. You do not know how hard the Hospital that I was referring to pays attention to the Religious Rights of their employee. You just want to use the Life Saving Abortion to slap people in their face.
> 
> The bottom line that you continue to dance around with your "can't break the law" straw man argument is that the "break the law" scheme goes more than one way. You however, refuse to see that.


Placenta previa, placenta abruptio, uterine abruption, pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, I can go on but you get the drift. Real complications that happen in real life. 

A straw man is a sham used as a distraction. This ain't it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

These are not someone coming in and asking - "Oh... please, I don't want this child, please remove it."

To use these conditions in the sense of an "abortion" is disingenuous at best. Any one of those mentioned above would be treated by competent medical personnel and I am absolutely certain that there would be no religious qualms by any medical personnel in providing prompt and competent medical care. Can we say that the "Emergency Abortions" are in and of themselves a Straw Man Argument or do you have any citations of people refusing to treat the above listed conditions because of their beliefs?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> These are not someone coming in and asking - "Oh... please, I don't want this child, please remove it."
> 
> To use these conditions in the sense of an "abortion" is disingenuous at best. Any one of those mentioned above would be treated by competent medical personnel and I am absolutely certain that there would be no religious qualms by any medical personnel in providing prompt and competent medical care. Can we say that the "Emergency Abortions" are in and of themselves a Straw Man Argument or do you have any citations of people refusing to treat the above listed conditions because of their beliefs?


They are all called abortions, I thought with a medical background you'd know that... A miscarriage is an abortion, what you are referring to is an _elective_ abortion.

There are instances were an emergency abortion needs to be done because the mother's life is endangered. If a health professional refuses on moral grounds they can be disciplined or fired. Google it. 

http://www.nurses.com/doc/legal-briefing-nurse-fired-for-not-accepting-0001

I'm done. You have a wonderful day.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

You used the proper terminology. In the medical field the proper terminology is almost always used. I am glad that you are done. Seems funny that you are done after getting called out on your "argument" and I have explained that you are being disingenuous but hey, things are better now that the air has been cleared.

You see, many people in the medical career field ARE religious, many of those are Christian and I do not see the Hospital firing them right and left because they won't do this or that because of their faith, I see the Hospital's respecting their faith, I also see Hospitals respecting faith of other sorts, I also see hospitals upholding the rights of others. What I don't see is this situation that you seem to think is a prevalent scenario and therefore people's faith should cause mass firings because of the ramifications... Arguing to argue maybe??? :facepalm:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> You used the proper terminology. In the medical field the proper terminology is almost always used. I am glad that you are done. Seems funny that you are done after getting called out on your "argument" and I have explained that you are being disingenuous but hey, things are better now that the air has been cleared.
> 
> You see, many people in the medical career field ARE religious, many of those are Christian and I do not see the Hospital firing them right and left because they won't do this or that because of their faith, I see the Hospital's respecting their faith, I also see Hospitals respecting faith of other sorts, I also see hospitals upholding the rights of others. What I don't see is this situation that you seem to think is a prevalent scenario and therefore people's faith should cause mass firings because of the ramifications... Arguing to argue maybe??? :facepalm:


Correct me if I"m wrong, Shine, but ALWAYS if the mothers life is in danger, an abortion could be performed. 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking most leave off the 'elective' part when speaking of abortion, its sorta understood when we speak of 'late-term abortions', '1st trimester', etc? As well as sometimes we use the term 'spontaneous abortion'.
If you're going to be a nasty nitpicker, I guess you could call medical folks out for not always using the complete proper term. But to insinuate we don't KNOW it? BWhahaha.


----------



## Dunkel68 (Jul 5, 2012)

My wife happens to know the clerk in Morehead. She is not the only clerk in our state with the same views. She is an elected official and when elected there was a state constitutional amendment against it. Fast forward a year and a half and the rules change by one vote. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in. It's easy to talk a big game on an internet forum. She has chosen not to give out any marriage certificates. Fifteen minutes either way and they will marry you. But people will stand in line with a camera to video themselves being turned down to get some attention. She has struggled with this. I hope that one day I would feel strong enough about something and follow through with if I came to the conclusion it was wrong.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I believe that your wife brought a smile to the Good Lord's face...

I always think that is a good thing to have happen.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Correct me if I"m wrong, Shine, but ALWAYS if the mothers life is in danger, an abortion could be performed.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking most leave off the 'elective' part when speaking of abortion, its sorta understood when we speak of 'late-term abortions', '1st trimester', etc? As well as sometimes we use the term 'spontaneous abortion'.
> If you're going to be a nasty nitpicker, I guess you could call medical folks out for not always using the complete proper term. But to insinuate we don't KNOW it? BWhahaha.


You are correct, I think that there is a misconception regarding how nurses operate. Some people just do not understand.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I believe that *your wife brought a smile* to the Good Lord's face...
> 
> I always think that is a good thing to have happen.


For simply knowing a county clerk?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Dunkel68 said:


> My wife happens to know the clerk in Morehead. She is not the only clerk in our state with the same views. She is an elected official and when elected there was a state constitutional amendment against it. Fast forward a year and a half and the rules change by one vote. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in. It's easy to talk a big game on an internet forum. She has chosen not to give out any marriage certificates. Fifteen minutes either way and they will marry you. But people will stand in line with a camera to video themselves being turned down to get some attention. She has struggled with this. I hope that one day I would feel strong enough about something and follow through with if I came to the conclusion it was wrong.


Tell your wife, to tell her from me, that I do respect her beliefs and her convictions even though I believe differently. It does take a lot of courage to put something like a job on the line for ones beliefs. Many in the past have put much more than a job on the line for what they believed in. I hope some accomodation can be worked out to allow her to honor her beliefs and the people who are entitled to a marriage license to get one.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Dunkel68 said:


> My wife happens to know the clerk in Morehead. She is not the only clerk in our state with the same views. She is an elected official and when elected there was a state constitutional amendment against it. Fast forward a year and a half and the rules change by one vote. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in. It's easy to talk a big game on an internet forum. She has chosen not to give out any marriage certificates. Fifteen minutes either way and they will marry you. But people will stand in line with a camera to video themselves being turned down to get some attention. She has struggled with this. I hope that one day I would feel strong enough about something and follow through with if I came to the conclusion it was wrong.


She should resign from her office, if she cannot in execute her job.

It's not fair to those who elected her, who are also paying her salary, IMO.

I can respect her views - but not to the detriment, of those who elected her.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> For simply knowing a county clerk?


you are correct. It would have been the clerk that I am referring to.

Simply just because a child of His did something that He suggested that we all do, that's all.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> She should resign from her office, if she cannot in execute her job.
> 
> It's not fair to those who elected her, who are also paying her salary, IMO.
> 
> I can respect her views - but not to the detriment, of those who elected her.


I just wanna make sure I understand your position. The laws changed after she was elected so she should resign?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> I just wanna make sure I understand your position. The laws changed after she was elected so she should resign?


Legal limits for BAC have changed numerous times over my life. Should a cop let someone drive away at .12 because he believes .08 is wrong? As much as I sympathise with her plight, her job is to enact the law, not to make it as she sees fit.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Legal limits for BAC have changed numerous times over my life. Should a cop let someone drive away at .12 because he believes .08 is wrong? As much as I sympathise with her plight, her job is to enact the law, not to make it as she sees fit.


There's no comparison there. She is not making a law, just refusing to enforce a law that was passed after she was elected. Your comparison should be more like: 

A sharia law was passed in a town with a majority population of muslims, and an elected official refused to enforce that new religious law.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> There's no comparison there. She is not making a law, just refusing to enforce a law that was passed after she was elected. Your comparison should be more like:
> 
> A sharia law was passed in a town with a majority population of muslims, and an elected official refused to enforce that new religious law.


When did the date the law was enacted figure into doing or not doing your job?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> There's no comparison there. She is not making a law, just refusing to enforce a law that was passed after she was elected. Your comparison should be more like:
> 
> A sharia law was passed in a town with a majority population of muslims, and an elected official refused to enforce that new religious law.


The answer is the same. As long as the law was legally passed the official has the sworn duty to uphold it. They don't swear an oath to uphold only the laws they approve of.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> The answer is the same. As long as the law was legally passed the official has the sworn duty to uphold it. They don't swear an oath to uphold only the laws they approve of.


Count your blessings,,or for you, good luck. I am close to certain that you run a stray of a few of them LAWS. Maybe zero tolerance enforcing laws would be a good thing, it sure would be entertaining.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> There's no comparison there. She is not making a law, just refusing to enforce a law that was passed after she was elected. Your comparison should be more like:
> 
> A sharia law was passed in a town with a majority population of muslims, and an elected official refused to enforce that new religious law.





painterswife said:


> When did the date the law was enacted figure into doing or not doing your job?



Because what she swore to uphold isn't the same thing now. You can hold me to a promise I make, but if you change the terms, you can't automatically expect my agreement because the terms have changed.



mmoetc said:


> The answer is the same. As long as the law was legally passed the official has the sworn duty to uphold it. They don't swear an oath to uphold only the laws they approve of.



I happen to agree with this, but I will add in some cases the clerks are following the orders of their superiors and that makes their decision less clear, legally speaking.

It DOES bring up an interesting point.

If the law goes against your conscience, is resignation your only option?
Sure, you can work to change it, but are there allowances for civil disobedience?

Think carefully before you answer.........


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> There's no comparison there. She is not making a law, just refusing to enforce a law that was passed after she was elected. Your comparison should be more like:
> 
> A sharia law was passed in a town with a majority population of muslims, and an elected official refused to enforce that new religious law.


Hey, is that not just what some believe is the correct stand on immigration laws on the books that elected Obama refuses to follow.... start with him being demanded to resign.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dlmcafee said:


> Count your blessings,,or for you, good luck. I am close to certain that you run a stray of a few of them LAWS. Maybe zero tolerance enforcing laws would be a good thing, it sure would be entertaining.


I always have and always will break some law almost every say I rise from bed. When the officer pulls me over I'll sign the ticket and pay my fine. The best we can hope for is consistent enforcement of the laws for all. I'll work to change those laws I feel need changing. I've been an elected official. Not every vote went my way but I took the oath and obligation to serve everyone seriously.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Because what she swore to uphold isn't the same thing now. You can hold me to a promise I make, but if you change the terms, you can't automatically expect my agreement because the terms have changed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She swore no oath to a specific law. She swore an oath to uphold all laws. Her job didn't change.

Of course civil disobedience is an option. Those actions can come with their own penalties. I'm not sure why some continue to think that actions like this should have no consequence. Break the law if you wish. Write your own letter from the Birmingham jail.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> She swore no oath to a specific law. She swore an oath to uphold all laws. Her job didn't change.
> 
> Of course civil disobedience is an option. Those actions can come with their own penalties. I'm not sure why some continue to think that actions like this should have no consequence. Break the law if you wish. Write your own letter from the Birmingham jail.


I got that and I agreed with you, remember?
What I asked was is, this what you want to be strictly followed, no exceptions, no allowances for conscience or morality, none at all?

If so, as already pointed out, should we demand resignations all the way to the top?

I'm ready if you are.:thumb:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> She swore no oath to a specific law. She swore an oath to uphold all laws. Her job didn't change.
> 
> Of course civil disobedience is an option. Those actions can come with their own penalties. I'm not sure why some continue to think that actions like this should have no consequence. Break the law if you wish. Write your own letter from the Birmingham jail.


Can we see in the future the next presidential speech coming live from the big house.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Gov. Phil Bryant said Friday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage "usurps" states' long-held rights to self governance and he's studying the state's options.http://www.clarionledger.com/story/politicalledger/2015/06/26/bryant-gay-marriage/29327433/


He has no options, except to follow the federal directive. I remember a governor in 1963 who refused to comply with federal integration laws on the basis of states' rights. The president called out the national guard and ordered him to step aside.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> He has no options, except to follow the federal directive. I remember a governor in 1963 who refused to comply with federal integration laws on the basis of states' rights. The president called out the national guard and ordered him to step aside.


Oh lordy, I sometimes tire of teaching the unlearned.....

There's ALWAYS options.
But if you think cramming down our throats with federal threats is the best way, you'll quickly learn what the other options are.:gaptooth:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I got that and I agreed with you, remember?
> What I asked was is, this what you want to be strictly followed, no exceptions, no allowances for conscience or morality, none at all?
> 
> If so, as already pointed out, should we demand resignations all the way to the top?
> ...


Demand away. I've seen many demands made but when asked for which specific law was broken, silence. There are many mechanisms for removing an official from office. Advocate for any you wish. But if you're willing to give a country clerk a pass on not fulfilling her duties you must then be consistent also.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Because what she swore to uphold isn't the same thing now. You can hold me to a promise I make, but if you change the terms, you can't automatically expect my agreement because the terms have changed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, indeed it does bring up an interesting point. 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

Congress has made a law that limits the Clerk's ability to do just that "prohibited her free exercise thereof..." Congress has violated this persons Right to freely exercise the tenets of her religion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Congress....is not the supreme court


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> you are correct. It would have been the clerk that I am referring to.
> 
> Simply just because a child of His did something that *He suggested* that we all do, that's all.


I thought he suggested "Judge not" and "Love thy Neighbor".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Because what she swore to uphold isn't the same thing now. You can hold me to a promise I make, but if you change the terms, you can't automatically expect my agreement because the terms have changed.


Her job never changed at all

She gives them the forms to fill out, takes their money, and puts her Govt stamp on the forms.

She doesn't get to decide who uses the forms


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Yes, indeed it does bring up an interesting point.
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "
> 
> Congress has made a law that limits the Clerk's ability to do just that "prohibited her free exercise thereof..." Congress has violated this persons Right to freely exercise the tenets of her religion.


And it seems some get a pass on some laws...like Hobby Lobby & I read in DMN yesterday or today that biz that want to opt out of providing certain b.c. on religious grounds, may do so.
Maybe there was a ruling in the case of the Little Sisters' of the Poor?
Seems I also read, but can't verify this, that in places where clerks are not issuing licenses, the county must have someone there who will.

If the SCOTUS had been smart, they'd say there is NO MORE issuing "marriage licenses". From this point forward, there is only UNITY licenses to take wherever & get what ever-if some churches will perform same sex marriages, so be it-I know of several. 
It may not have solved it for the very strict but it would for a lot who cannot deny that they would not know FOR SURE what that license would be used for.
Could be just friends who wanted their finances to go to one another. Or, wanted that person to be legally responsible...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Demand away. I've seen many demands made but when asked for which specific law was broken, silence. There are many mechanisms for removing an official from office. Advocate for any you wish. But if you're willing to give a country clerk a pass on not fulfilling her duties you must then be consistent also.



I've stated my position clearly, I agree with you.
Why would you not answer my question in the same manner?
Should Obama resign since he does not want to uphold his oath of office to enforce the immigration laws?

Seems simple enough to me.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Her job never changed at all
> 
> She gives them the forms to fill out, takes their money, and puts her Govt stamp on the forms.
> 
> She doesn't get to decide who uses the forms


Well that's strange indeed.
If her job didn't change at all, I wonder why *she* is having trouble with it now?
Reckon she is just making it up?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I've stated my position clearly, I agree with you.
> Why would you not answer my question in the same manner?
> Should Obama resign since he does not want to uphold his oath of office to enforce the immigration laws?
> 
> Seems simple enough to me.


I did answer your question. Using executive orders and presidential powers breaks no law. In the case of the Texas clerk not fulfilling her duties does break the law. Show me the specific law the president has violated and I'll sign your petition. To be clear, I'd rather the clerk didn't have to resign or face punishment. I'd rather the local authorites came up with a system to accomodate her beliefs and the public need.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Well that's strange indeed.
> If her job didn't change at all, I wonder why *she* is having trouble with it now?
> Reckon she is just making it up?


Because the people walking up to the counter changed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

So, could the governor of the state use his or her executive power to order marriage licenses not be given out to same sex couples?
After all, that wouldn't be breaking the law, would it?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> So, could the governor of the state use his or her executive power to order marriage licenses not be given out to same sex couples?
> After all, that wouldn't be breaking the law, would it?


Actually it would now break the law. A state legislature or even a governor, if he has such powers, still can't act against the Constitution. The law of the land now is marriage licenses must be issued to same sex couples.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Actually it would now break the law. A state legislature or even a governor, if he has such powers, still can't act against the Constitution. The law of the land now is marriage licenses must be issued to same sex couples.


Whoa, wait a minute. 
We might agree on that law Obama broke so we can demand his resignation.
You see, Congress passed the deportation laws and that same SCOTUS ruled them constitutional, and informed the executive branch that it was their duty to enforce them.
Obama decided not to obey his oath and the laws of this land and issue EO's to the DOJ NOT to enforce them.

Isn't that the example I just gave.
Do we agree?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Remember when I said, think carefully before you answer?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Well that's strange indeed.
> If her job didn't change at all, I wonder why *she* is having trouble with it now?
> Reckon she is just making it up?


She's bringing her private life into her job.

It's not "strange" at all, since many think it should be OK, but really it's not OK.

She isn't there to pass judgement.
She's just a clerk


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Thanks for clearing that up.
At least she isn't pretending something changed, something certainly did.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks for clearing that up.
> At least she isn't pretending something changed, something certainly did.


Nothing about *her duties* changed, no matter how bad you want that to be true.

*Her job *is the same today as it was a few weeks ago, and any "oath" she took still applies.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing about *her duties* changed, no matter how bad you want that to be true.
> 
> *Her job *is the same today as it was a few weeks ago, and any "oath" she took still applies.


Yeah.
Thanks again.
Now, you are right, always perfect and never wrong.
Please go antagonize someone else tonight, ok?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yes, her duties changed. She got a job doing something that was, for the most part in line with the tenets of her religion. The government changed and now what the government is telling her to do violates her freedom to exercise the clearly described tenets of her religion. So, should the government just pay her way to retirement and whatever pension she might get or tell her, You are no longer to exercise the tenets of your religion. This is clearly a violation of her God given, constitutionally protected rights.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I thought he suggested "Judge not" and "Love thy Neighbor".


He did, we shouldn't and we should... What is your point?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Please go antagonize someone else tonight, ok?


Don't quote me then whine because I replied.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Her job never changed at all
> 
> She gives them the forms to fill out, takes their money, and puts her Govt stamp on the forms.
> 
> She doesn't get to decide who uses the forms


Let's see, to whom was she giving out forms to before the ruling? Now that the ruling has been tendered, is there another group that has been included? I cannot fathom why you think that her job did not change. 

Does the clerk have rights too? The first amendment did not seem to have a qualifier in it stating that this was only for non-government employed people, or did you find one?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Let's see, *to whom *was she giving out forms to before the ruling? Now that the ruling has been tendered, is there another group that has been included? I cannot fathom why you think that her job did not change.
> 
> Does the clerk have rights too? The first amendment did not seem to have a qualifier in it stating that this was only for non-government employed people, or did you find one?


She gave the forms to people.
She still gives the forms to people



> I cannot fathom why you think that her job did not change.


You can't show how it has.
She still just hands out forms and takes money

She has rights to practice her religion, but no right to not do her job.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Hmm... looked at it again, nope - nothing that says that this right is excluded from any person...

"Congress shall make *no* law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

Gee, looks like Congress needs a refresher... (maybe some others here too, ya reckon?)


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She gave the forms to people.
> She still gives the forms to people
> 
> 
> ...


Left out a bit of relevant information I see. 

...I would bet,[betting since no one has posted the oath that she signed, some here assume that she signed one] that somewhere in her "oath" it carried the qualifier: ...to the best of my ability. If it did include that then she has every right to say, um... sorry - no can do. AND if she is then fired - law suit.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...before, she was handing out forms to a couple that were made up as it is described in the Bible, now she is forced to hand out forms to people whom are described in the Bible as committing sins that are Abhorrent in the eyes of the Lord God Almighty.

In the Christian Religion it is not a good thing to close your eyes and show any acceptance to something that rates up there with "abhorrent" in the eyes of the Lord.

You're being obtuse or you're trying to win your argument using only half of the equation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Whoa, wait a minute.
> We might agree on that law Obama broke so we can demand his resignation.
> You see, Congress passed the deportation laws and that same SCOTUS ruled them constitutional, and informed the executive branch that it was their duty to enforce them.
> Obama decided not to obey his oath and the laws of this land and issue EO's to the DOJ NOT to enforce them.
> ...


Nope. The executive orders are a legitimate use of presidential powers. Have been before, remain so today. Those orders have not been ruled unconstitutional or superceded by congress, as is their right. No law has thus been broken.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> ...before, she was handing out forms to a couple that were made up as it is described in the Bible, now she is forced to hand out forms to people whom as described in the Bible as committing sins that are Abhorrent in the eyes of the Lord God Almighty.
> 
> In the Christian Religion it is not a good thing to close your eyes and show any acceptance to something that rates up there with "abhorrent" in the eyes of the Lord.
> 
> You're being obtuse or you're trying to win your argument using only half of the equation.


Before she handed out forms to anyone legally able to get them. There's no indication that any of these other couples had to pass any biblical muster. Today she is supposed to hand out forms to anyone legally able to get them. The job didn't change. She added the biblical test. She changed the requirement.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Nope. The executive orders are a legitimate use of presidential powers. Have been before, remain so today. Those orders have not been ruled unconstitutional or superceded by congress, as is their right. No law has thus been broken.


I think you have some what of a point, in themselves executive orders are nothing more than a written order to carry out the wishes of the top guy in the chain. But what is ordered is not protected and automatically constitutional. When an executive orders a law to be ignored is it not failing to abide by his oath of office.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> before, she was handing out forms to a couple that were made up as it is described in the Bible,


No, she was handing them out to those who met the *legal* requirements for her state
That's still her job


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dlmcafee said:


> I think you have some what of a point, in themselves executive orders are nothing more than a written order to carry out the wishes of the top guy in the chain. But what is ordered is not protected and automatically constitutional. When an executive orders a law to be ignored is it not failing to abide by his oath of office.


Since executive orders have the power of law how can issuing them violate an oath to uphold the law? Yeah, it's convoluted logic but it's the same logic that's been in place for years. EOs can be ruled unconstitutional. They can be overridden by congressional action. They aren't neccessarily an illegal act in and if themself.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Before she handed out forms to anyone legally able to get them. There's no indication that any of these other couples had to pass any biblical muster. Today she is supposed to hand out forms to anyone legally able to get them. The job didn't change. She added the biblical test. She changed the requirement.


Who says that she didn't apply the "Biblical Test" before she originally took the position? For a long period she has only been faced with those couples of the typical Biblical description, now the Goal Posts have been moved to a point where she would have to go against the teaching of her Bible to perform this task. 

When the Constitution says "Congress shall make NO law..." does that mean it's good for some people but not applicable for others? Does the woman have rights or does she not? Can Congress make a law that abridges this right?

As we go further into this I think we are in deep do-do, if the courts are saying that this woman will need to surrender her right to the free exercise of her religion while on duty then this woman has been stripped of that right.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, she was handing them out to those who met the *legal* requirements for her state
> That's still her job


My, you are quite the dancer.

but... wouldn't you say that before the ruling the only persons that were seeking a license met the Biblical Description for a Couple?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well at e;last with all these EO they can and some sure will be Stopped when a R gets POTUS in 2016. Thank God they can and will do this.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Since executive orders have the power of law how can issuing them violate an oath to uphold the law? Yeah, it's convoluted logic but it's the same logic that's been in place for years. EOs can be ruled unconstitutional. They can be overridden by congressional action. They aren't neccessarily an illegal act in and if themself.


They are ruled unconstitutional when they override the law as written or intended. Presidents have no power to change a law and an EO has no power of law over anyone but employees of the Executive branch. He can order employees under his control to carry out the law as he interprets it but he cannot order them to violate things specifically written into the law.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Since executive orders have the power of law how can issuing them violate an oath to uphold the law? Yeah, it's convoluted logic but it's the same logic that's been in place for years. EOs can be ruled unconstitutional. They can be overridden by congressional action. They aren't neccessarily an illegal act in and if themself.


Because they have the force of law does not make them laws but measures to manage a government, with few exceptions. But I will concede and grant you some people do not have to follow the constitution and the LAWS of the United States, just those people under the cross hairs with no power.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Who says that she didn't apply the "Biblical Test" before she originally took the position? For a long period she has only been faced with those couples of the typical Biblical description, now the Goal Posts have been moved to a point where she would have to go against the teaching of her Bible to perform this task.
> 
> When the Constitution says "Congress shall make NO law..." does that mean it's good for some people but not applicable for others? Does the woman have rights or does she not? Can Congress make a law that abridges this right?
> 
> As we go further into this I think we are in deep do-do, if the courts are saying that this woman will need to surrender her right to the free exercise of her religion while on duty then this woman has been stripped of that right.


I said there was no indication she did. There are many biblical proscriptions regarding marriage eligibilty and there seems to be no record she subjected any couples to questions regarding their biblical eligibilty or rejected anyone on biblical grounds prior to this ruling. Logic dictates that somewhere in her service at least one couple should have been denied for biblical reasons before. 

Now, to the true answer to your question. Congress has made no new law infringing on her right. But her right doesnt supercede the rights of others nor does it hold any more power than other rights. They all coexist equally. In this case the right of the couples applying to equal protection under the law as constitutionally guaranteed exists equally with her right to practice her religion. For her to claim her rights are being denied she must first prove that the act of issuing marriage certificates is a religous act. It wasn't before, it isn't now. Therefor she is being denied no right. The people denied licenses are being denied their right to equal protection.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one changed the rules of her job.
> 
> She's there to fill out forms and take money



Her job didn't include helping queers marry now it does. 
Seems like a rule change to me.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I said there was no indication she did. There are many biblical proscriptions regarding marriage eligibilty and there seems to be no record she subjected any couples to questions regarding their biblical eligibilty or rejected anyone on biblical grounds prior to this ruling. Logic dictates that somewhere in her service at least one couple should have been denied for biblical reasons before.
> 
> Now, to the true answer to your question. Congress has made no new law infringing on her right. But her right doesnt supercede the rights of others nor does it hold any more power than other rights. They all coexist equally. In this case the right of the couples applying to equal protection under the law as constitutionally guaranteed exists equally with her right to practice her religion. For her to claim her rights are being denied she must first prove that the act of issuing marriage certificates is a religous act. It wasn't before, it isn't now. Therefor she is being denied no right. The people denied licenses are being denied their right to equal protection.


OK, you must be intimately aware of the process that she uses in the execution of her duties to make statements above as if they are fact. Are you privy to her entire employment history? You do not know if she has refused to serve anyone nor can you say that she has ever inquired of the couples intentions regarding religion.

Can she deny to assist the neighbors in the planning and execution of their marriage if they are a same sex couple? If when she walks in the door at the courthouse she surrenders her religious tenets, would that be voluntarily or forced?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't quote me then whine because I replied.


Hey man,
Last time.
I'm tired of your insults and baiting.
You can make a reply without being sarcastic and snide.
I don't appreciate you calling me a whiner or saying I'm acting like a woman.
If you'd like to be introduced to a real man, lemme know. 

This is as far as my patience with you goes.
Got it?

I realize your little plan is to get those you disagree with so frustrated they end up banned, and now that you're back, this BS is continuing.
Just stop, ok?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Nope. The executive orders are a legitimate use of presidential powers. Have been before, remain so today. Those orders have not been ruled unconstitutional or superceded by congress, as is their right. No law has thus been broken.


I guess you missed it then, it was so done earlier this year in the SCOTUS session.
So, is it your position that the President has the right to NOT obey the law, but the rest of us do?

Meanwhile, I'll be looking for a link on that, I have a feeling you or someone else will be asking for it soon, as proof.

Before the anyone jumps too quickly on me for my mistake, I'll admit it and correct it myself, as a real man should.
Here's the link...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/243253-justice-dept-wont-seek-stay-for-immigration-ruling

I'll post a 2nd one from the WSJ and the one above confirms that the administration was well on its way to the SCOTUS but retreated at the last minute.
As of now, unless I find they DID hear the case and I was correct at first, Obama's EO *was* ruled unconstitutional by the 5th circuit federal court and he did indeed used his executive power to defy the "law of the land".

Can we boot him out now, just like the clerks who won't follow the law?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-stalls-obamas-executive-action-on-immigration-1424152796


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> They are all called abortions, I thought with a medical background you'd know that... A miscarriage is an abortion, what you are referring to is an _elective_ abortion.
> 
> There are instances were an emergency abortion needs to be done because the mother's life is endangered. If a health professional refuses on moral grounds they can be disciplined or fired. Google it.
> 
> ...


Curious, are there any such things as an Emergency Elective Abortion? - If not, I rest my case....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Curious, are there any such things as an Emergency Elective Abortion? - If not, I rest my case....


What case are you resting? The one I said I was done 60+ posts ago? Be like Elsa and let it go...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

No... I was looking for something else and when I re-read your post, this question popped into my mind. When that happens - I have to act on it or something else takes precedence... sorry if you found that impromptu...

I'm resting my case regarding the Emergency provisions for procedures that might end the viability of a fetus... Even Christian Nurses will rise to that situation in a heart beat... I've seen it.

So... can I get a simple "Yes" or "No" - is there such a thing as an Emergency Elective Abortion? If not, would you submit that Christian Nurses could possibly terminate a fetus for other reasons and still not violate the Tenets of the Christian Religion?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> Her job didn't include helping queers marry now it does.
> Seems like a rule change to me.


Well thanks for making your homophobia very apparent. God forbid that a civil servant should have to help "queers" as part of her job duties. It could be contagious


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> No... I was looking for something else and when I re-read your post, this question popped into my mind. When that happens - I have to act on it or something else takes precedence... sorry if you found that impromptu...
> 
> I'm resting my case regarding the Emergency provisions for procedures that might end the viability of a fetus... Even Christian Nurses will rise to that situation in a heart beat... I've seen it.
> 
> So... can I get a simple "Yes" or "No" - is there such a thing as an Emergency Elective Abortion? If not, would you submit that Christian Nurses could possibly terminate a fetus for other reasons and still not violate the Tenets of the Christian Religion?


That was the subject we were discussing when I said I was done. Good night.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Her job didn't include helping queers marry now it does.
> Seems like a rule change to me.


Her job included giving the forms to anyone who could legally marry.
Nothing changed about her duties.

Doing her job isn't her "helping"
It's just her doing her job as required


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Hey man,
> *Last time.*
> I'm tired of your insults and baiting.


Good
It's getting old
Now put me on ignore



> You can make a reply without being sarcastic and snide.
> I don't appreciate you calling me a whiner or saying I'm acting like a woman.


You REALLY should put me on ignore 



> I realize your little plan is to get those you disagree with so frustrated they end up banned, and now that you're back, this BS is continuing.
> Just stop, ok?


I have no plans, so don't blame me for your lack of self control 



> *If you'd like to be introduced to a real man, lemme know*


*Put me on ignore* and everyone will be much happier


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If not, would you submit that Christian Nurses could possibly *terminate a fetus* for other reasons and *still not violate the Tenets* of the Christian Religion?


If they can do that, a clerk can hand out some forms and take some payments


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> That was the subject we were discussing when I said I was done. Good night.



OK good night. It would appear that you have no argument nor reply, I would expect that...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they can do that, a clerk can hand out some forms and take some payments


you still refuse to speak clearly and address the subject at hand....


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> That was the subject we were discussing when I said I was done. Good night.


...whatever... Situation solved.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> you still refuse to speak clearly and address the subject at hand....


It's been addressed countless times and you act as if it wasn't :shrug:

It's her job to give out the forms and take the money

How is that not "clear"?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I guess you missed it then, it was so done earlier this year in the SCOTUS session.
> So, is it your position that the President has the right to NOT obey the law, but the rest of us do?
> 
> Meanwhile, I'll be looking for a link on that, I have a feeling you or someone else will be asking for it soon, as proof.
> ...


Oh so close, but I see nothing in the articles saying that the administration has implimented these policies in defiance of the court's injunctions. Ignoring the injunctions would break the law and make your case but it seems from your articles he's being criticized for not doing that. Unlike the clerk who is ignoring the Supreme Court.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> OK, you must be intimately aware of the process that she uses in the execution of her duties to make statements above as if they are fact. Are you privy to her entire employment history? You do not know if she has refused to serve anyone nor can you say that she has ever inquired of the couples intentions regarding religion.
> 
> Can she deny to assist the neighbors in the planning and execution of their marriage if they are a same sex couple? If when she walks in the door at the courthouse she surrenders her religious tenets, would that be voluntarily or forced?


Apparently you find terms like "no indication" and "no record" confusing. They mean exactly what they say. If you have some intimate knowledge contradicting what I said, please share.

Issuing licenses is not a religous act. It is the function of a civil servant and has no religous component. She has added a religous component. The state has taken none away.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> They are ruled unconstitutional when they override the law as written or intended. Presidents have no power to change a law and an EO has no power of law over anyone but employees of the Executive branch. He can order employees under his control to carry out the law as he interprets it but he *cannot order them to violate things specifically written into the law*.


So Govt employees can't violate the law during the performance of their duties?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> OK good night. It would appear that you have no argument nor reply, I would expect that...


I thought it was fairly obvious that I'm not going to rise to your *bait*, but whatever.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Good
> It's getting old
> Now put me on ignore
> 
> ...


Nah, besides the fact that I'm not prone to taking orders from you, I'm not one to apply half baked solutions to problems. That's not my way.
I've already explained that "ignore" cuts out relevant, useful posts as well as those irrelevant and useless ones - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The other reason is, that is not the way to teach manners and civility, which is the obvious solution.
Yours is a challenge to accomplish to be sure, but not the most difficult I've ever faced........:thumb:






mmoetc said:


> Oh so close, but I see nothing in the articles saying that the administration has implimented these policies in defiance of the court's injunctions. Ignoring the injunctions would break the law and make your case but it seems from your articles he's being criticized for not doing that. Unlike the clerk who is ignoring the Supreme Court.



Close is good, I suppose. I figured if there was any wiggle room at all you'd let that snake slide away, lol.
I was addressing the fact that he did indeed ignore Congress and the law of the land with his EO and did so up until this April, at least for a year.
He didn't actually defy the SCOTUS, only because he didn't want to lose that final round. But he did defy the law and he did not resign as per this discussion.


Now, there is a relevant, well spoken point that I'm about to agree with below....



Bearfootfarm said:


> So Govt employees can't violate the law during the performance of their duties?


Correct.
Even the POTUS.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Correct.
> Even the POTUS.


And County Clerks handing out marriage licenses


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

poppy said:


> They are ruled unconstitutional when they override the law as written or intended. Presidents have no power to change a law and an EO has no power of law over anyone but employees of the Executive branch. He can order employees under his control to carry out the law as he interprets it but he cannot order them to violate things specifically written into the law.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Hey man,
> Last time.
> I'm tired of your insults and baiting.
> You can make a reply without being sarcastic and snide.
> ...


Post of the week award.

And to us all, the majority, good luck.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And County Clerks handing out marriage licenses


Yes, that was a given, when I affirmed your question.
The addition of the POTUS was for mmotec, in regard to the same question which we were discussing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I am starting to see a new game [maybe new, I'm just now seeing it] going on, only answer the questions that benefit your views, act like any other question was never asked...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

It seems that some here want a certain segment of the population to have the right to violate well understood and clearly written tenets of a Religion. It is AS IF they do not see it as a violation. I see it quite clearly.

So, we will need to wait and see the outcome of the appeal, our arguments mean nothing.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Thank goodness EO's are not permanent, and can be undone by the next POTUS.



farmrbrown said:


> Nah, besides the fact that I'm not prone to taking orders from you, I'm not one to apply half-ass solutions to problems. That's not my way.
> I've already explained that "ignore" cuts out relevant, useful posts as well as those irrelevant and useless ones - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> The other reason is, that is not the way to teach manners and civility, which is the obvious solution.
> Yours is a challenge to accomplish to be sure, but not the most difficult I've ever faced........:thumb:
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> I am starting to see a new game [maybe new, I'm just now seeing it] going on, only answer the questions that benefit your views, act like any other question was never asked...


Believe it or not, no one is required to answer any question. Ever. 

No matter if they baited, cajoled, threatened, etc...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Believe it or not, no one is required to answer any question. Ever.
> 
> No matter if they baited, cajoled, threatened, etc...


Absolutely, no one is required, it is usually a simple request.
The answer, or lack of one, IS helpful in determining honesty and sincerity though.
I find it a pretty good indicator myself, of course allowing the real possibility that they just missed it and didn't know they were being asked.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Absolutely, no one is required, it is usually a simple request.
> The answer, or lack of one, IS helpful in determining honesty and sincerity though.
> I find it a pretty good indicator myself, of course allowing the real possibility that they just missed it and didn't know they were being asked.


Yup, I agree. I usually think along these lines- so and so has had enough badgering and BS today. Or so and so has answered enough of certain posters overly annoying questions and is basically ignoring their babble.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Whoa, wait a minute.
> We might agree on that law Obama broke so we can demand his resignation.
> You see, Congress passed the deportation laws and that same SCOTUS ruled them constitutional, and informed the executive branch that it was their duty to enforce them.
> Obama decided not to obey his oath and the laws of this land and issue EO's to the DOJ NOT to enforce them.
> ...





farmrbrown said:


> Nah, besides the fact that I'm not prone to taking orders from you, I'm not one to apply half baked solutions to problems. That's not my way.
> I've already explained that "ignore" cuts out relevant, useful posts as well as those irrelevant and useless ones - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> The other reason is, that is not the way to teach manners and civility, which is the obvious solution.
> Yours is a challenge to accomplish to be sure, but not the most difficult I've ever faced........:thumb:
> ...


I'll let the snake wiggle little further from you. You have been trying to get me to agree on a law the Potus has broken. Issuing an EO breaks no law. Even issuing an EO that tells federal employees not to administer a statute breaks no law. Not administering a statute or not arresting someone breaks no law else every police officer that lets a speeding car drive past is a criminal. Doing any of this until a judge or court rules otherwise breaks no law, else all of the clerks who didn't issue licenses to same sex couples before would be criminals. They're not. I'll say it again. Show me the law broken and I'll sign your petition.

The clerk is breaking Texas state law by not fulfilling one of her job duties.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I'll let the snake wiggle little further from you. You have been trying to get me to agree on a law the Potus has broken. Issuing an EO breaks no law. Even issuing an EO that tells federal employees not to administer a statute breaks no law. Not administering a statute or not arresting someone breaks no law else every police officer that lets a speeding car drive past is a criminal. Doing any of this until a judge or court rules otherwise breaks no law, else all of the clerks who didn't issue licenses to same sex couples before would be criminals. They're not. I'll say it again. Show me the law broken and I'll sign your petition.
> 
> The clerk is breaking Texas state law by not fulfilling one of her job duties.


I can clearly see you've taken a position, and have no intention of retreating or reconsideration. I'm amused rather than annoyed, lol.

So, we have a clerk, who took her job, to fulfill the legal requirements of the gov't. Yet she refused to do so, based on her on rationale, etc.
And you say she is breaking the law, with which I agree.

We also have a President that took a job, to faithfully execute the laws of the gov't, which he refused to do, based on his rationale, etc.
The 5th circuit federal court affirmed this.
It's obvious to the courts that it didn't matter that he was President, didn't matter that he issued EO's, he ignored the law, ignored the duties of his job, he was still found to be in err of the law of the land.
To the best of my knowledge, and supported by the fact of at least one well publicized murder recently, he still refuses to carry out his duties.

So, should they both keep their jobs, or should we give them the both the boot?


I think I know your answer, but surprise me anyway, lol.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I wonder if you'd also indulge me, one more question?
If Obama's EO _hadn't_ been on deportations, but rather something else, would that make a difference?
An EO banning gays from employment in the Secret Service or State Dept, maybe the military. Not even that far, just banning spousal benefits in those positions for gay married couples, would you still defend his position that he was breaking no law?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

The Supreme court has ruled on this and nothing else can be said since they never made any mistakes-------oh they have. Many times before.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I wonder if you'd also indulge me, one more question?
> If Obama's EO _hadn't_ been on deportations, but rather something else, would that make a difference?
> An EO banning gays from employment in the Secret Service or State Dept, maybe the military. Not even that far, just banning spousal benefits in those positions for gay married couples, would you still defend his position that he was breaking no law?


Yep. Issuing an EO breaks no law. I may well do what others have done and argue against it and hope that some court would issue a ruling staying its implementaion( like what happened to the EO you keep referencing) until the Supreme Court could rule. I'd be in contact with my legislators in Washington urging them to do their jobs and take action. But I'd still recognize one simple fact, issuing an EO is not an illegal act.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I can clearly see you've taken a position, and have no intention of retreating or reconsideration. I'm amused rather than annoyed, lol.
> 
> So, we have a clerk, who took her job, to fulfill the legal requirements of the gov't. Yet she refused to do so, based on her on rationale, etc.
> And you say she is breaking the law, with which I agree.
> ...


You've shown me no reason to change my position. You've reached the rather desperate, Trumpian level of trying to bring the recent shooting by an illegal immigrant in SF( I assume this is the case you obliquely refer to) into the mix. A case which has nothing to do with the president's EO's. A case in which the immigration officers under the president's purview did deport this person repeatedly and would like to have done so again had their efforts not been thwarted by local officials.

But since you've joined the growing list of of psychics here who have lateley presumed to know the depth of my knowledge and already know my answer I'll leave you to further debate yourself.

And since you've admitted the clerk broke the law where is your call for her dismissal?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I can clearly see you've taken a position, and have no intention of retreating or reconsideration. I'm amused rather than annoyed, lol.
> 
> So, we have a clerk, who took her job, to fulfill the legal requirements of the gov't. Yet she refused to do so, based on her on rationale, etc.
> And you say she is breaking the law, with which I agree.
> ...


 Yes he has gone around Congress so much I am sure there is a path in the shape of a circle on the WH floor.
And boy I glad these can be undone by the next president. Obama is so wrong on so many things he has done he is now a rogue president and nothing more. Acting in the worse way he can. And the worst part is he THINKS he is right. Wow he is so delusional it is ridiculous.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Yep. Issuing an EO breaks no law. I may well do what others have done and argue against it and hope that some court would issue a ruling staying its implementaion( like what happened to the EO you keep referencing) until the Supreme Court could rule. I'd be in contact with my legislators in Washington urging them to do their jobs and take action. But I'd still recognize one simple fact, issuing an EO is not an illegal act.



Maybe it would help if we got the, "one simple fact, issuing an EO is not an illegal act" thing out of the way.

Agreed, Presidents can issue EO's and often do. The act of issuing one is NOT illegal and was never my position.
But you already know that.
See, my psychic abilities are getting stronger, lol.

Now that's out of the way, I don't suppose you actually think an EO can never contain an illegal or unconstitutional order, and if it does, no illegal act was committed, do you?
Surely you're not taking the position that Nixon did, "If the President does it, it's not illegal"?

Maybe my psychic powers are fading.......







mmoetc said:


> You've shown me no reason to change my position. You've reached the rather desperate, Trumpian level of trying to bring the recent shooting by an illegal immigrant in SF( I assume this is the case you obliquely refer to) into the mix. A case which has nothing to do with the president's EO's. A case in which the immigration officers under the president's purview did deport this person repeatedly and would like to have done so again had their efforts not been thwarted by local officials.
> 
> But since you've joined the growing list of of psychics here who have lateley presumed to know the depth of my knowledge and already know my answer I'll leave you to further debate yourself.


That's disappointing, I rather enjoyed it.

Yes, that was the case I was referring to, but you may want to go back farther than his last arrest, and check out what occurred a few times BEFORE this one.





mmoetc said:


> And since you've admitted the clerk broke the law where is your call for her dismissal?



My first post, page 7 in reply to one of yours.........






mmoetc said:


> The answer is the same. As long as the law was legally passed the official has the sworn duty to uphold it. They don't swear an oath to uphold only the laws they approve of.





farmrbrown said:


> I happen to agree with this, but I will add in some cases the clerks are following the orders of their superiors and that makes their decision less clear, legally speaking..



I didn't explicitly call for her removal, but agreed with you when you did,


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe it would help if we got the, "one simple fact, issuing an EO is not an illegal act" thing out of the way.
> 
> Agreed, Presidents can issue EO's and often do. The act of issuing one is NOT illegal and was never my position.
> But you already know that.
> ...


Now show me in that post you quoted where I called for her removal. That's a mighty twisty snake you're playing with.

ETA- danged old iphone sometimes has a mind of its own. My other replies are buried in the quote of your post. Sorry for the inconvenience.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I deleted the post.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Thanks


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I may have misunderstood your position, or confused it with someone else's.
The talk of the clerk losing her job over it and my agreement occurred earlier in the thread..........





JeffreyD said:


> I just wanna make sure I understand your position. The laws changed after she was elected so she should resign?





mmoetc said:


> Legal limits for BAC have changed numerous times over my life. Should a cop let someone drive away at .12 because he believes .08 is wrong? As much as I sympathise with her plight, her job is to enact the law, not to make it as she sees fit.






farmrbrown said:


> I happen to agree with this, but I will add in some cases the clerks are following the orders of their superiors and that makes their decision less clear, legally speaking.
> 
> It DOES bring up an interesting point.
> 
> ...





mmoetc said:


> There are many mechanisms for removing an official from office. Advocate for any you wish. But if you're willing to give a country clerk a pass on not fulfilling her duties you must then be consistent also.




You DID post this later on, so I may still be confused about your stance on her removal.





mmoetc said:


> I did answer your question. Using executive orders and presidential powers breaks no law. In the case of the Texas clerk not fulfilling her duties does break the law. Show me the specific law the president has violated and I'll sign your petition. * To be clear, I'd rather the clerk didn't have to resign or face punishment. I'd rather the local authorites came up with a system to accomodate her beliefs and the public need.*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Now show me in that post you quoted where I called for her removal. That's a mighty twisty snake you're playing with.
> 
> ETA- danged old iphone sometimes has a mind of its own. My other replies are buried in the quote of your post. Sorry for the inconvenience.




That's ok, I pulled them out and quoted them separately......




mmoetc said:


> No, an EO may contain an illegal or unconstitutional act. But the mere issuance if such an order breaks no law. Implementing such an order breaks no law.
> 
> 
> *Defying a court stay or order does break the law. Show me where this has happened. *
> ...




It took a while, but here ya go.......


http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/obamas-amnesty-moves-ahead-despite-judges-order/



President Obama&#8217;s amnesty juggernaut has taken another step forward despite a federal judge&#8217;s order to halt it in its tracks.

The president&#8217;s plan to delay the deportation of as many as 5 million illegal aliens through memos issued by appointees moved ahead Tuesday when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced the extension of a program allowing spouses of certain visa holders to obtain work permits.



According to the Washington Times, the move will, in 90 days, allow some 180,000 immigrants to be eligible for the benefit &#8220;in the first year.&#8221;




But administration officials were unabashed in their intent.

The Times said Cecilia Munoz, White House domestic policy director, addressed the issue: &#8220;It&#8217;s important to put [Hanen's order] in context, because the broader executive actions are moving forward. *The administration continues to implement the portions of the actions that the president and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not affected by the court&#8217;s ruling.&#8221;*

But Hanen&#8217;s order said: &#8220;The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services *are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.&#8221;*





The outline of plans was &#8220;set out in the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson&#8217;s memorandum dated November 20, 2014.&#8221;

And even Obama himself said he couldn&#8217;t do it alone.

House Speaker John Boehner has listed online 22 times when Obama has made such statements.

For example, in October 2010, Obama said: &#8220;I am president, I am not king. I can&#8217;t do these things just by myself. &#8230; I&#8217;ve got to have some partners to do it. &#8230; If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there&#8217;s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. &#8230; I can&#8217;t just make the laws up by myself.&#8221;


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/obamas-amnesty-moves-ahead-despite-judges-order/#3hVqywJQMUswS5lZ.99


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> That's ok, I pulled them out and quoted them separately......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You spent a lot if time and effort trying to find some way to show you agreed with a statement I never made that the clerk should be punished. You even highlighted a portion of a post in which I called for compromise. Wouldn't it have been easier for you to stand with your own principle and call for her removal since she broke a specific Texas law ( it's buried in one of the early links and I'm not so ambitious as you to go back and dig it out).

The standard I set for agreement that the president be removed was evidence that he broke a specific law. Something the clerk has done with her refusal to issue licenses. You've made reference to non enforcement of laws which is quite different than breaking a law. I don't want every police officer fired for not pulling over every speeding motorist, either.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I didn't explicitly call for her removal, but agreed with you when you did,






mmoetc said:


> You spent a lot if time and effort trying to find some way to show you agreed with a statement I never made that the clerk should be punished. You even highlighted a portion of a post in which I called for compromise. Wouldn't it have been easier for you to stand with your own principle and call for her removal since she broke a specific Texas law ( it's buried in one of the early links and I'm not so ambitious as you to go back and dig it out).
> 
> The standard I set for agreement that the president be removed was evidence that he broke a specific law. Something the clerk has done with her refusal to issue licenses. You've made reference to non enforcement of laws which is quite different than breaking a law. I don't want every police officer fired for not pulling over every speeding motorist, either.




I guess I made a mistake then. I presumed from your posts that even though you sympathized with the clerk's predicament, if she didn't comply, she should face the consequences. I can only say I'm still confused by the position you took regarding the President, and surprised that you would say you *didn't* want the clerk to lose her job for the same offense of failing to execute the law.
I feel similarly, but realize that it may also be in her best interest to get another job and it may actually turn out a blessing in disguise.
So I guess we are both allowed to define our positions due to a misunderstanding of what was meant.

As far as proving that the administration went beyond non enforcement and defied the court order, I can't do any more than what I posted.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

"To be clear, I'd rather the clerk didn't have to resign or face punishment". I'm not sure how that statement can be construed as calling for her dismissal. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to type a simple, declarative statement calling for her dismissal in accordance with your view that a public official who breaks a law must be removed. Once again, she broke a specific Texas statute regarding not executing her duties. The refusal to issue licenses was the mechanism by which she broke that law. Your standard was met. Rather than try to twist yourself in further knots and find "agreement " with my statements wouldn't it be easier and clearer to make a statement of your own.

As for the president's actions. You've shown no specific law he has broken. At best you've shown a vague reference to a statement by a judiciary dept official that the department would do what they interpret the law allows. You've shown me no orders from the judge shutting down these further actions or punishing anyone for them. You've shown me no specific law broken. You've shown me lawyers interpreting things as lawyers, ( and we), do. You've shown no specific law broken.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> "To be clear, I'd rather the clerk didn't have to resign or face punishment". I'm not sure how that statement can be construed as calling for her dismissal. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to type a simple, declarative statement calling for her dismissal in accordance with your view that a public official who breaks a law must be removed. Once again, she broke a specific Texas statute regarding not executing her duties. The refusal to issue licenses was the mechanism by which she broke that law. Your standard was met. Rather than try to twist yourself in further knots and find "agreement " with my statements wouldn't it be easier and clearer to make a statement of your own.
> 
> As for the president's actions. You've shown no specific law he has broken. At best you've shown a vague reference to a statement by a judiciary dept official that the department would do what they interpret the law allows. You've shown me no orders from the judge shutting down these further actions or punishing anyone for them. You've shown me no specific law broken. You've shown me lawyers interpreting things as lawyers, ( and we), do. You've shown no specific law broken.



Very well. What you perceived as "twisting", was me trying to be civil, understanding and nice.
Although I have many talents, I'm painfully aware that this is an area where I show little or none.:ashamed:
So, I will oblige your request.

*I hate it for the woman, and I don't agree with the law either. BUT, if she won't do the job she was hired to do, regardless of the change that recently took effect, she should pack her desk and not let the glass doors hit her in the behind as she heads to her car for the last time in the parking lot.*

Now, I *thought*, based on several of your posts earlier, that was your sentiment as well. I won't bother re-quoting them, but in your later posts, you have corrected my mistaken assumption. I will again concede I was wrong about your position and it aligns with your perception of the President's actions and your continued support of him.

I can admire your consistency even while disagreeing with your conclusion.
It wasn't my intent to backpeddle, I was just mistaken that we were on the same path.


----------

