All times are UTC-04:00


Phinfever Home Page

Phinfever Chatroom

Phinfever FAQ




Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:07 pm 
Offline
VIP Donor!
VIP Donor!

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:48 pm
Posts: 16
Quote:
Kim Davis, the embattled county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, said Monday that she is being "forced to disobey her God" by allowing her office to issue licenses to gay couples.

Last week upon being released from detention, Davis was warned by U.S. District Judge David Bunning not to interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses, directly or indirectly, or face further time behind bars for contempt.

Speaking outside the Rowan County Courthouse as she returned to work this morning, Davis announced that any licenses issued by her office, with or without her name on the form, would be "unauthorized."

"I want the whole world to know ... If any [deputy clerk] feels that they must issue an unauthorized license to avoid being thrown in jail, I understand their tough choice, and I will take no action against them. However, any unauthorized license that they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it. Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order."


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ky-clerk-i-am-being-forced-to-disobey-god/



Click here to learn how to add YouTube Videos to your phpBB forum


Kim Davis is asking for accommodations and tolerance while offering none of her own. You could play mad lib with her arguments and use them just the same for gay marriage.

Is it her responsibility to choose a career which she can perform to its full requirements while, if necessary, maintaining religious compliance?

Thoughts?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
The government should not be in the business of giving out marriage licenses. It serves no purpose other than setting up another way the government can control your life.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:01 am 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:13 am
Posts: 71
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
Cathal wrote:
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.


Obama stopped enforcing immigration and federal marijuana laws.

Does the same logic apply to him?

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:14 am 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:13 am
Posts: 71
Rich wrote:
Cathal wrote:
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.


Obama stopped enforcing immigration and federal marijuana laws.

Does the same logic apply to him?


Why can't you ever talk about just the topic at hand? I'd rather not go down another tangent which will redirect this conversation into a brick wall. The discussion should revolve around this, you are a representative of the state (an elected/appointed figure), there is the law of the land, and you refuse to do your job because of personal reasons. Should that person be allowed to do that without any consequences? Especially when it revolves around an immoral opinion of treating people differently.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
Cathal wrote:
Rich wrote:
Cathal wrote:
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.


Obama stopped enforcing immigration and federal marijuana laws.

Does the same logic apply to him?


Why can't you ever talk about just the topic at hand? I'd rather not go down another tangent which will redirect this conversation into a brick wall. The discussion should revolve around this, you are a representative of the state (an elected/appointed figure), there is the law of the land, and you refuse to do your job because of personal reasons. Should that person be allowed to do that without any consequences? Especially when it revolves around an immoral opinion of treating people differently.


This relates to the topic at hand completely.

You have requirements for this woman to do her job based on the law of the land. She refuses to do her job for personal reasons.

Do those same requirements apply to an elected official, just like this woman, when that elected official is not executing the law of the land in a way that agrees with you?

Because guess what, Obama is an elected official, not an emperor (though he might disagree). Did you know that? Just wondering...

And as an elected official, Obama has chosen to bypass the law of the land when it comes to certain issues. Do you have an issue with this?

So should Obama be removed since he is an elected official that has refused to follow the law of the land because of his personal views?

Just trying to gauge how consistent you are as far as this hardline stance about how elected officials should do their job.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:49 am 
Offline
VIP Donor!
VIP Donor!

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:48 pm
Posts: 16
Cathal wrote:
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.



Is this your general philosophy regarding elected officials or just in regards to elected officials with a political leaning different than yours?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
Martin wrote:
Cathal wrote:
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.



Is this your general philosophy regarding elected officials or just in regards to elected officials with a political leaning different than yours?


Please stay on the topic at hand! You're not allowed to challenge this poster this way because somehow that is not staying on topic!

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:09 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:13 am
Posts: 71
Martin wrote:
Cathal wrote:
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.



Is this your general philosophy regarding elected officials or just in regards to elected officials with a political leaning different than yours?


This is my philosophy on any job whatsoever. If a Target cashier won't ring me up when I want to buy bacon, then that Target cashier should be moved to a different job or fired for refusing to do their job. Does anyone have a problem with that solution?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:11 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:13 am
Posts: 71
Rich wrote:
Martin wrote:
Cathal wrote:
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.



Is this your general philosophy regarding elected officials or just in regards to elected officials with a political leaning different than yours?


Please stay on the topic at hand! You're not allowed to challenge this poster this way because somehow that is not staying on topic!


See, that is actually a good question. He's trying to figure out if I have an agenda or if I am just being fair. That is actually relevant to this topic at hand. Rich, you're trying too hard, pretty laughable.

Please see my earlier post for your answer, Martin.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
Cathal wrote:
See, that is actually a good question. He's trying to figure out if I have an agenda or if I am just being fair. That is actually relevant to this topic at hand. Rich, you're trying too hard, pretty laughable.

Please see my earlier post for your answer, Martin.


He is asking the same exact question I am asking. He simply used a different approach.

It's not that difficult to decipher...

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
Cathal wrote:
Martin wrote:
Cathal wrote:
So long as she gets moved to another position where you she will do her darn job, then OK. The minute you stop doing your job, you should be fired/impeached/removed.



Is this your general philosophy regarding elected officials or just in regards to elected officials with a political leaning different than yours?


This is my philosophy on any job whatsoever. If a Target cashier won't ring me up when I want to buy bacon, then that Target cashier should be moved to a different job or fired for refusing to do their job. Does anyone have a problem with that solution?


Ok, so you support impeaching Obama because he isn't following the law of the land on immigration and federal marijuana laws.

Got it.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:43 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:13 am
Posts: 71
Rich wrote:
Ok, so you support impeaching Obama because he isn't following the law of the land on immigration and federal marijuana laws.Got it.


If he is actually breaking the law (I have no idea one way or the other in his case) then yes, he should be impeached. I want people to be held accountable for their actions. I'm not sure if you or anyone else here feels that way. It's difficult to ascertain that based on how people have responded to a statement of "if you won't do your job, you should be fired". Can we get back to what the original point of this topic was? Not quite sure why this detour had to occur.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
Cathal wrote:
Rich wrote:
Ok, so you support impeaching Obama because he isn't following the law of the land on immigration and federal marijuana laws.Got it.


If he is actually breaking the law (I have no idea one way or the other in his case) then yes, he should be impeached. I want people to be held accountable for their actions. I'm not sure if you or anyone else here feels that way. It's difficult to ascertain that based on how people have responded to a statement of "if you won't do your job, you should be fired". Can we get back to what the original point of this topic was? Not quite sure why this detour had to occur.


I was responding to your comment about her doing her job or being removed. I was just making sure your point of view was based on following the law and not ideology. Same thing Martin was asking.

I could have asked if you think she should be fired for issuing gay marriage licenses in a state that prohibits gay marriage, but I chose to use the Obama example because it is actually happening.

He is not consistently upholding the immigration laws in this country because he is against deportations and supports sanctuary cities. He is not enforcing federal marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington because they decriminalized marijuana. Federal law supercedes in this case but he (or rather his DOJ) have chosen to not enforce those laws. These are not matters of opinion, but matters of fact.

I'm not even using this as an attempt to criticize Obama for not enforcing those laws, I actually strongly believe in decriminalizing marijuana.

I'm glad to hear that you think what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

As for Kim Davis, she is an elected official and there is a legal process to have her removed. I believe it would be a recall. Has anyone started a petition for this? I doubt it would get much support in a state like Kentucky. She's probably a folk hero to most of the people there.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:52 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:13 am
Posts: 71
OK. I guess we agree on this, I'm a little surprised but I'll take it. Just took a long detour. I believe now that she has been let go from jail, she made a deal that she and her son would not stand in the way of her deputy clerks from giving out marriage licenses so she can still keep her job, but I haven't followed it since she was released from jail.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
Cathal wrote:
OK. I guess we agree on this, I'm a little surprised but I'll take it. Just took a long detour. I believe now that she has been let go from jail, she made a deal that she and her son would not stand in the way of her deputy clerks from giving out marriage licenses so she can still keep her job, but I haven't followed it since she was released from jail.


I think putting her in jail was extreme and was not the right move.

I agree that she was hired to do a job and she should follow the law. I also think that the 1st amendment protects her religious right to not do something that is against her beliefs.

There are two sides to this argument that make sense and conflict with each other at the same time.

The process should have been followed. Start a petition to get her impeached and see how it goes.

If not, figure out an alternative to accommodate her religious beliefs and the law of the land.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:26 am 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:13 am
Posts: 71
Rich wrote:
I think putting her in jail was extreme and was not the right move.

I agree that she was hired to do a job and she should follow the law. I also think that the 1st amendment protects her religious right to not do something that is against her beliefs.

There are two sides to this argument that make sense and conflict with each other at the same time.

The process should have been followed. Start a petition to get her impeached and see how it goes.

If not, figure out an alternative to accommodate her religious beliefs and the law of the land.


I agree that jail was probably too severe for this. If she refused to do her job, then she should have been moved to another job at the Clerk's office that doesn't conflict with her beliefs. If she refused to be moved, then they should have started the process of removing her completely. It gets a bit tough, I suppose, because she is an elected official, but it seems like it would have been a very easy case to get done.

The 1st Amendment does protect her beliefs, but (and I am not a constitutional lawyer), I wouldn't believe it would protect her here because she's not doing her job; that separation of church and state and all that jazz.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 27210
Location: Miami, FL
Cathal wrote:
that separation of church and state and all that jazz.


That goes both ways. The state should also not make her do something against her beliefs and she should not impose her beliefs thru the state.

It's a lot of grey area, not a black and white issue like both opposing sides of it want it to be treated.

I think that is a microcosm of what this country has become. Everyone wants their way, no exceptions, no compromise.

_________________
Image


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC-04:00


Phinfever Home Page

Phinfever Chatroom

Phinfever FAQ


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 50 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited | Chopped and modified by Coots | Original design by Prosk8r