Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's Labor DayFollow

#52 Sep 09 2015 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I can't speak for this woman's reasons, but my point is that she entered into employment under a specific understanding of the duties involved, and those duties have changed in ways that directly violate her beliefs.
What a load of crap. If the government was instead, private businesses, you'd be arguing that they have the right to change employment duties of a worker and if the employee didn't like it, they can move off to the next silver mine.


Wrong. And ironically, there are a host of legal protections for workers with regard to their religious beliefs that require that businesses make every effort to allow for those beliefs. Failing to make such accommodations, or worse, threatening them with dismissal for failing to comply with a request that violates their beliefs is a violation of the Equal Opportunity Act. The exception is if the religious request represents a serious impact to the business with no reasonable alternatives available to prevent said impact. One could argue that this may apply to the clerk in question, but the counter argument is that there were relatively simple actions they could have taken to accommodate her. Swapping of assignments is specifically listed as one of the things that employers must do to accommodate religious beliefs, which would seem to be appropriate here. So instead of making a minor change to what is basically administrative law, so as to allow deputies to sign marriage licenses, they instead embarked on a long (and presumably expensive) judicial process to force her to do what they wanted. Which was ultimately fruitless because she refused to comply, thereby forcing them to go to the very same solution she proposed back at the beginning of the whole process (have the deputies sign the licenses).

All they had to do was change the rule that required that only the elected county clerks could sign marriage licenses. That would seem to have been a much easier way to go about this. Unless the point was to force a person to violate a religious belief they hold dearly but which you disagree. I guess my issue is with the apparent motivation behind this. Is it really about allowing gay couples to obtain marriage licenses? Or is it about attacking someone's religious belief? The evidence in this case would seem to point to the latter motivation.

Edited, Sep 9th 2015 9:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Sep 09 2015 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The evidence in this case would seem to point to the latter motivation.
Opinions, not evidence. Evidence is the thing that is backed by facts. Facts like her being a duly appointed representative of the people superseding her personal beliefs over the will of the people, which is by the way not only against the first amendment but also one of the reasons we have a second amendment.

But you keep on defending tyranny. It's adorable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#54 Sep 09 2015 at 10:43 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji apparently never heard of people denying mix-raced couples the ability to marry for "religious reasons" once upon a time.

How do you get as old as you are and never learn a thing about American history, gbaji?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#55 Sep 10 2015 at 12:37 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The evidence in this case would seem to point to the latter motivation.
Opinions, not evidence. Evidence is the thing that is backed by facts. Facts like her being a duly appointed representative of the people superseding her personal beliefs over the will of the people, which is by the way not only against the first amendment but also one of the reasons we have a second amendment.


Wow. Um... You do realize you just presented an opinion instead of a fact? Here are a set of facts, which amounts to evidence that this was motivated by a desire to attack her religious beliefs rather than to find a way to obtain marriage licenses for gay couples.

Fact: She was elected county clerk for Rowan county, KY.
Fact: One of her duties as county clerk is to sign marriage licenses, thus making them legal licenses.
Fact: In the state of KY, only marriage licenses containing the signature of the elected county clerk are legal and valid.
Fact: When she was elected, gay couples could not legally obtain marriage licenses in KY.
Fact: She holds a religious belief that marriage should only exist between couples consisting of one male and one female.
Fact: After being elected, the laws were changed such that gay couples could legally obtain marriage licenses in KY.
Fact: She objected to being required to sign marriages which she held a religious objection to.
Fact: She proposed that the law be changed to allow for her deputies to be able to sign the licenses instead of her.
Fact: This request was denied on the grounds that it would take too much time/effort to change.
Fact: A gay couple attempted to obtain a marriage license in her county.
Fact: She refused to sign the license on religious grounds.
Fact: The couple in question could have simply gone to another county clerks office to get a license, or in fact, any other location in the state.
Fact: The couple chose not to, instead choosing to sue.
Fact: The local and state governments, could have made the change to the legal requirements for licenses, but chose not to.
Fact: They chose instead to go down the path of a long and presumably expensive judicial process.
Fact: This process ultimately resulted in a judge ruling that she must sign the licenses.
Fact: She still refused to do so, on religious grounds.
Fact: The judge had her arrested on contempt charges.
Fact: She still refused to sign the licenses, and was placed in jail.
Fact: The judge ordered her deputies to sign the licenses instead.
Fact: 5 out of 6 deputies complied with that order and signed the licenses.
Fact: Those signed licenses are still in violation of the law, and may not be valid until the state makes the very changes she asked for at the start.


Enough facts for you? Those facts combine to support a conclusion that this was motivated out of a desire to force a person to violate their religious belief, than to obtain the direct needed effect (obtain marriage licenses for gay couples). This is illustrated by the final fact that they will still have to change the law to make those licenses legal. They didn't save themselves any time or trouble. They, in fact expended far more time, trouble, and money doing it this way. The only reason to go the route that they chose was on the assumption that they could force her to either abandon her religious position *or* resign her position because of her religious position.

Both of which fall squarely in the "religious persecution" area IMO.

Quote:
But you keep on defending tyranny. It's adorable.


Not tyranny, but absolutely is targeted religious persecution. Again, they chose a course of action designed to require a person to have to chose between following the dictates of their faith, or losing their job, when there was another course of action available to them which could have avoided that dilemma. Not just that, but the course they choise could only work if she did one of those two things. Forcing her to have to make that choice was the sole reason for doing what they did. If she refuses to make the choice (as she did), they have to resort to the alternative solution of allowing deputies to sign marriage licenses. So, at the risk of really driving this point home, they could only have acted as they did if their objective was to try to get her to have to chose between her religion and her job.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Sep 10 2015 at 6:50 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:




Enough facts for you? Those facts combine to support a conclusion that this was motivated out of a desire to force a person to violate their religious belief, than to obtain the direct needed effect (obtain marriage licenses for *** couples). This is illustrated by the final fact that they will still have to change the law to make those licenses legal. They didn't save themselves any time or trouble. They, in fact expended far more time, trouble, and money doing it this way. The only reason to go the route that they chose was on the assumption that they could force her to either abandon her religious position *or* resign her position because of her religious position.

Both of which fall squarely in the "religious persecution" area IMO.


Maybe religion got too much of a pass over the past decades. Maybe it is time to finally recognize that your religious preferences do not take precedence over the laws of the land. No, that is just too crazy.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#57 Sep 10 2015 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
The fact that she IS in an elected position is the sticking point. If she were privately employed, yes, her employer would have options to accommodate her. She could be moved to a different department, or someone else could be assigned to take over the duty she found objectionable.

She's an elected official who refuses to do her job. Granted, the job changed since she swore her oath of office. Therefore, if she refuses to do her job and no reasonable accommodation can be made (because it is her signature alone that makes the forms legal), then she has to step down.

Now, from what I've read that isn't exactly the case; an assistant court clerk has been issuing licenses in her absence. Makes sense, otherwise no one would be able to get married if Ms Davis were ill or on vacation or in jail again, say. So there IS a reasonable accommodation: she can let the assistant clerks that don't mind doing their jobs do that part of the job.

This particular flash fire will only flare up again if Ms Davis decides that as the office boss she has a right to prevent others from doing the job she refuses to do.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#58 Sep 10 2015 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The law allows for a deputy clerk to sign the license in the clerk's absence.

However, Davis was recently insisting that none of the licenses NOT signed by her were valid. That isn't the path of a poor soul who just wants someone else to do her job for her. She's still, in her own way, abusing her power and shirking her responsibility to try and actively block these people from getting married.
NPR wrote:
But discussing that and other marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples today, [Davis' attorney] said they are "void," because they did not come under Davis' authority.

"They are not worth the paper that they are written on," Staver said.

Exploring that idea, he said the county clerk has the authority to distribute marriage licenses — and Davis hasn't ceded that authority to her deputies who issued licenses Friday.

This certainly sounds like the work of someone who -- boohoo -- only ever wanted someone else to sign the licenses...

Also, the Christian Science Monitor puts a number on how many same-sex couples have applied for licenses in Rowan County: eight.
gbaji previously wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that since this whole thing started, *** couples have been deliberately flocking to that small town courthouse to get their marriage licenses instead of going to somewhere closer.

Well, I suppose eight couples might constitute a "flock". We might need to also ignore the couples actually native to the county. Golly, we could be talking numbers as high as six! Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Sep 10th 2015 9:01am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Sep 10 2015 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I love watching gbaji embarass himself. Let's go over the list. I'll probably have to Smash this

Fact: She was elected county clerk for Rowan county, KY.
Fact: One of her duties as county clerk is to sign marriage licenses, thus making them legal licenses.
Fact: In the state of KY, only marriage licenses containing the signature of the elected county clerk are legal and valid.

So far you're right, but then again you're just repeating what I've been telling you the last few days so it's not like you're travelling in new circles. So we prove that the only way you can possibly be right is to agree with me.

Fact: When she was elected, *** couples could not legally obtain marriage licenses in KY.
And? When I signed up for the military we were still allowed to wear the old jungle camo along with the newer digital camo, but now we're not. Law's change, and we have to change with them. While a fact, an irrelevant one that you should be embarrassed to even suggest.

Fact: She holds a religious belief that marriage should only exist between couples consisting of one male and one female.
Another irrelevant fact. She, "as an elected county clerk for Rowan County, KY," is not allowed to impose her beliefs over the laws of the land. You know, that pesky first amendment? Yeah, that.

Fact: After being elected, the laws were changed such that *** couples could legally obtain marriage licenses in KY.
Fact: You already wrote this, you dingus. Repeating yourself doesn't make a "fact" more factual.

Fact: She objected to being required to sign marriages which she held a religious objection to.
Tough? The law changed. Another irrelevant repeated "fact" just fluffing your wanting big government to make decisions for you.

Fact: She proposed that the law be changed to allow for her deputies to be able to sign the licenses instead of her.
She can, but Fact: Until those laws change she still has to enforce the will of the people and not impose her own.

Fact: This request was denied on the grounds that it would take too much time/effort to change.
Then she still has to do her job.

Fact: A *** couple attempted to obtain a marriage license in her county.
Oh no! Someone tried to do something they were legally entitled to do so! Imagine if they tried to drink from the same water fountain! You actually thought this was a bullet point that helped you! HILARIOUS!

Fact: She refused to sign the license on religious grounds.
True, and she was wrong as proven by myself and, you know, the law. Are you trying to switch sides? Is that why you're wall of texting this? To confuse people? Because none of this has helped you in the least yet.

Fact: The couple in question could have simply gone to another county clerks office to get a license, or in fact, any other location in the state.
See now, that is an opinion. The fact is that they were not legally obligated to do so, but she was legally obligated to issue the license. McDonalds can't tell you to go somewhere else to get a burger, no matter how vegan the manager is.

Fact: The couple chose not to, instead choosing to sue.
When someone commits a crime the party who the crime was committed against is legally allowed to sue.

Fact: The local and state governments, could have made the change to the legal requirements for licenses, but chose not to.
Seeing as how it was something they were legally entitled the local and state governments were not obligated to do so, and our Holy Warrior Mother still has no legal recourse.

Fact: They chose instead to go down the path of a long and presumably expensive judicial process.
Sucks for Kentucky's tax payers that their corrupt representatives would rather impose their will on the people instead of enforce the laws and cost them money. But, again legally entitled.

Fact: This process ultimately resulted in a judge ruling that she must sign the licenses.
No shit! Really? It's like those blasphemous gays were, I don't know, were legally right all along!

Fact: She still refused to do so, on religious grounds.
Are you just repeating what we've been telling you all this time? Or do you think fluffing makes it look like you know what you're talking about? Again, no shit, and she was --

Fact: The judge had her arrested on contempt charges.
Continuation: -- wrong.

Fact: She still refused to sign the licenses, and was placed in jail.
Repetition repetition repetition ...

Fact: The judge ordered her deputies to sign the licenses instead.
... fluff fluff fluff ...

Fact: 5 out of 6 deputies complied with that order and signed the licenses.
And she claims they are void without her approval and refuses to cede authority.

Fact: Those signed licenses are still in violation of the law, and may not be valid until the state makes the very changes she asked for at the start.
Yes, they're in violation of the law because she's breaking the law to impose her will. Actually, the state could also issue an injunction where the deputies signatures are valid and disallow/fire the current clerk in favor of someone who will respect the laws of this country.

Enough facts for you?
Unless you've got more material to prove me right, that looks like plenty. You don't need my permission to embarrass yourself though, so if you've got more shlick, go for it.
gbaji wrote:
Both of which fall squarely in the "religious persecution" area IMO.
And as I've proved for several days now, as well as the law, your opinion is as wrong as Mrs "Sexual Immorality is Okay as Long as I Do It" Davis'. "It's religious persecution to not let me religiously persecute people" still remains, for the most part, illegal.
gbaji wrote:
Again, they chose a course of action designed to require a person to have to chose between following the dictates of their faith
-- their faith that's been proven without a shadow of a doubt that she's not exactly too keen of following, mind. Remember, she's been remarried three times, a very clear violation of what the Bible says a pious person would do, and is in clear violation of one of the ten commandments. Notice how being gay isn't one of the big ten yet adultry is?
gbaji wrote:
or losing their job, when there was another course of action available to them which could have avoided that dilemma.
Sure, your opinion of what they could have done isn't wrong, but the catch that disproves your whole point is that they were legally in the right and she was legally wrong. So while they could have gone elsewhere, it would have been a matter of courtesy and were in no way obligated, she still has no say in the matter since the first amendment demands that she not act in a manner that places her faith above the will of the people. If you'd have stayed tuned for the whole episode of Law & Order, you'd have realized that "because God said so" didn't work for Michael from Burn Notice.

Anyway, thanks for proving me right again. I know you had to gamble and ultimately out yourself as an America hating commie, but it's the small sacrifices that make people like me look good. Also, don't think that your subtle willingness to break the filter for certain words but not others went unnoticed.

Oh, and it should also be noted how funny it is that you called what I said opinions, and then proceeded to write out exactly what I said and called it facts.

Edited, Sep 10th 2015 12:41pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Sep 10 2015 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
It's a bit soon to be expecting state and local governments to respond to her request. They still require that she swear an oath not to fight duels; I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a codicil allowing her to slough off her duties to someone less morally pure.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#61 Sep 10 2015 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
She's as morally pure as the septic tank of a high school.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Sep 10 2015 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Did the sarcasm not come through?

Seriously, the level of poutrage is just silly. She doesn't want to have any part in homosexuals getting married because she's conservative, except in her own behavior, and it's icky. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors and attention seeking.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#63 Sep 10 2015 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
It did, but there are just so few chances to compare someone to a septic tank. Smiley: frown

Edited, Sep 10th 2015 12:38pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Sep 10 2015 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Between the Army and NYC I wouldn't have thought you'd have that problem.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#65 Sep 10 2015 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
... yeah, okay, fine I did miss the sarcasm. There? Happy? I'm busy today and off my A-Game!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Sep 10 2015 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
On the other hand, Muslims probably shouldn't run for city dog catcher and then say that they refuse to touch dogs on account of religious practices.
Run for city dog catcher? Is there anything you guys don't hold elections for?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#67 Sep 10 2015 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, the idea of running for dog catcher is usually tongue-in-cheek but apparently it has happened.

The idea of people holding elections for every minor public servant position dates back to the Jacksonian era. Charitably, you could argue that it gives the public more control than an appointment system but it mainly came down to people liking elections. An election meant people holding events and hobnobbing and the voter gets to feel important and, well, what the fuck else was there to do during the Jacksonian era besides evict Indians? So local elections were in vogue and got themselves enshrined into state laws and constitutions. In some areas, many of them have been phased out although quite a few places still have them for positions that'd probably be better suited for a general hire based on qualifications rather than handshakes. County coroner comes to mind.

Edited, Sep 10th 2015 5:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Sep 11 2015 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
To be fair, county coroner sounds like a pretty sweet gig in some places.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Sep 14 2015 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The law allows for a deputy clerk to sign the license in the clerk's absence.


Does it? Because her statements, and those of her lawyer, and those of the governor (linked from the article you linked below), all suggest otherwise. It may be that they can sign when she is not able (so on leave, or perhaps in a jail cell), but that still leaves the issue firmly in the "she must either do this, or quit). She's not able to continue to fulfill her normal day to day duties whilst just having her deputies sign marriage licenses. At least, that's my understanding of the KY law.

Quote:
However, Davis was recently insisting that none of the licenses NOT signed by her were valid. That isn't the path of a poor soul who just wants someone else to do her job for her.


Again, I don't see anything in that article that disputes her claim regarding the requirement that she sign the licenses for them to be legal. It's not like I've gone pouring through the KY legal requirements here, but while I see lots of articles saying that her deputies have been signing licenses, I've yet to see anything that confirms that said licenses are legal, or that some other additional process may be required to make them legal (which perhaps could have been implemented at the start of this).

More interestingly, the article itself is about how she's saying those licenses are void, yet the article never actually addresses this, or attempts in any way to determine and/or inform the reader as to whether this is true. Which I find to be odd journalism.

Quote:
She's still, in her own way, abusing her power and shirking her responsibility to try and actively block these people from getting married.


Or, we can grant her the benefit of the doubt and accept that while she objects to signing her own name on the licenses, she actively sought out means to get around this, by having her deputies do so, and was informed (by the state legislature and the governor) that she could not do this. I mean, maybe she's been lying about this the whole time, but I've yet to see any evidence that she didn't ask the legislature to change the requirements, or ask the governor to intervene. And along the way, I've seen evidence that she did, in fact, do these things (the statement from the governor certainly seems to support the fact that she did attempt to find a way so that her deputies could sign the licenses instead of her).


Quote:
NPR wrote:
But discussing that and other marriage licenses issued to same-*** couples today, [Davis' attorney] said they are "void," because they did not come under Davis' authority.

"They are not worth the paper that they are written on," Staver said.

Exploring that idea, he said the county clerk has the authority to distribute marriage licenses — and Davis hasn't ceded that authority to her deputies who issued licenses Friday.

This certainly sounds like the work of someone who -- boohoo -- only ever wanted someone else to sign the licenses...


How? Again, I don't see anything that refutes that claim. She hasn't ceded her authority, but what does that mean? Is she legally allowed to do so? Can she do so while remaining the county clerk in all other areas? I'm seeing a lot of verbal tap dancing going on here, but nothing definitive. Given the assumption that if you'd been able to find some source saying so definitively, that you'd have quoted that instead of this one, I'm going with "couldn't find it". Doesn't mean that's not the case. I don't know. I've admitted that I don't know. In the absence of my direct knowledge, I kinda have to go with the folks who are directly saying "this is how the law applies" rather than those who just kinda hint and suggest that maybe it might work otherwise.

Quote:
Also, the Christian Science Monitor puts a number on how many same-sex couples have applied for licenses in Rowan County: eight.


In a small town in KY? Sounds like a "flock" to me.

Quote:
Well, I suppose eight couples might constitute a "flock". We might need to also ignore the couples actually native to the county. Golly, we could be talking numbers as high as six! Smiley: rolleyes


I can't say how many gay couples in Rowan County, KY might normally choose to get married in any given 6 month period of time. But doing some quick math on the percentage of the entire population in the US who get married each year (about .7%), and the percentage of those marriages that are SSM (7% in such backwater places like Massachusetts, presumably lower in other states), we could expect that a population of 23k people should produce about 10-11 SSM/year. So half that in a 6 month period of time. Which is just under your number (six). Um... But that assumes a completely homogenous rate of gay couples and SSM in the entire country. Assuming we can safely say that the rate of openly gay couples, much less SSM in Mass is much higher than the rate in Rowan County, KY (or any small county in any state, for that matter), I'm still sticking with my guess that there was one local gay couple seeking a marriage license, and then after getting denied and the issue circulating among gay rights sources, more people deliberately chose to go there to get their licenses as a means of forcing the issue.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it. We've seen this exact tactic used so many times that it's hard to imagine that a call for gay couples to go there and demand their licenses would not have been made, and answered (by at least a few people).


Again though, this is beside the point. My argument has been that there were other ways to work around this that didn't require putting her in a "violate your beliefs, or leave government service" situation. But in many cases, the pursuit of a "cause" requires putting people in precisely that situation, so as to force a conflict. Hence my belief that this is what was done here. I suppose it's possible that other avenues which could have allowed for gay couples to obtain licenses from her office without her having to sign them did exist. But that's just a possibility that you've done nothing but speculate about. On the other side, there absolutely are a number of well understood routes by which gay couples could have obtained a license to marry, without creating a conflict with her beliefs. They chose not to pursue them at all. And that's not speculation. It's fact.

Edited, Sep 14th 2015 7:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Sep 14 2015 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
My argument has been that there were other ways to work around this that didn't require putting her in a "violate your beliefs, or leave government service" situation.

No one should have to seek another way. Her job is to issue licenses, the court said her job is to issue licenses and her appeals at the appellate and Supreme Court level all failed. No one should need to or be expected to accommodate her when she's plainly in the wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Sep 14 2015 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
The Governor has explicitly stated that the licenses issued by the assistant county clerk are valid.

I'm not completely shocked that Davis and her attorney disagree.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#72 Sep 14 2015 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
You still seem to have a hard time distinguishing facts from opinions or conclusions.

lolgaxe wrote:
Fact: When she was elected, *** couples could not legally obtain marriage licenses in KY.
And? When I signed up for the military we were still allowed to wear the old jungle camo along with the newer digital camo, but now we're not. Law's change, and we have to change with them. While a fact, an irrelevant one that you should be embarrassed to even suggest.


I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a fact. Get it?

Quote:
Fact: She holds a religious belief that marriage should only exist between couples consisting of one male and one female.
Another irrelevant fact. She, "as an elected county clerk for Rowan County, KY," is not allowed to impose her beliefs over the laws of the land. You know, that pesky first amendment? Yeah, that.


Agian. I'm stating a fact. You have to first determine the facts, and *then* construct an argument, form an opinion, or derive a conclusion. You're trying to skip the steps along the way by interpreting each fact not as "true/false", but "does this by itself support a position". That's the wrong way to do this.

I'll also point out that our law goes both ways (haha!). She's not allowed to impose her beliefs over others, but the law can't restrict her beliefs (or practice of her beliefs either). If the law (or in this case, the application of the law) seems more aimed at attacking her for her beliefs then achieving the presumed end objective (granting marriage licenses to gay couples), then one can say that we have violated the latter. She does not lose her religious beliefs as a consequence of holding public office. To suggest so flies in the face of the 1st amendment. The question is only one of how to balance her beliefs and the responsibilities of her office. If she did indeed attempt to find a way around the problem, but was denied that solution, then the problem rests not with her, but with those who denied that more reasonable solution.

Again though, I'm just stating a fact here.

Quote:
Fact: She proposed that the law be changed to allow for her deputies to be able to sign the licenses instead of her.
She can, but Fact: Until those laws change she still has to enforce the will of the people and not impose her own.


Any by "will of the people", you mean "5 unelected judges who decided that they didn't like what the people (75% in this case) wanted". Say they were upholding constitutional rights, if you want, but don't use the phrase "will of the people" when discussing gay marriage in KY. The court ruled strongly against the will of the people when making that ruling.

And yes, that's also a fact.

Quote:
Fact: The couple in question could have simply gone to another county clerks office to get a license, or in fact, any other location in the state.
See now, that is an opinion. The fact is that they were not legally obligated to do so, but she was legally obligated to issue the license. McDonalds can't tell you to go somewhere else to get a burger, no matter how vegan the manager is.


Huh? No, it's not. It is a fact that they could have gone to another county clerks office to get a license. That's not opinion. It's fact. Marriage licenses are state documents. While they are commonly issued by county clerks, they are valid for the entire state. Any county clerk can issue a marriage license, and that licenses is a legal license for that state everywhere in that state (and everywhere in the US as well). Just because they're not legally obligated to go to another clerks office does not mean that they are unable to do so. The correct counter would be if it were somehow illegal for them to obtain a license from any office other than that in the county in which they reside. Then you would have a point.

But that's not the case. They chose to delay obtaining a marriage license for 6 months out of a desire to force this one clerk who had a religious objection to signing gay marriage licenses. Think about that. This meant that it was more important to this couple (and apparently 7 others) to get a license from this one clerk in this one office than to actually get married in a reasonable time frame. They put their own marriage plans on hold in order to fight this fight. So yeah, this was not really about them getting a license, so much as forcing her to violate her religious beliefs. They put the fight ahead of their own life plans.

I'm not even placing some kind of moral judgement on that here. Just stating that it was a fact that they could have done something differently if "getting married" was more important than "get this religious person to sign the license". It's clear which one of those two things this couple (and the other 7) placed more weight on.

Quote:
Fact: The local and state governments, could have made the change to the legal requirements for licenses, but chose not to.
Seeing as how it was something they were legally entitled the local and state governments were not obligated to do so, and our Holy Warrior Mother still has no legal recourse.


Again, not legally obligated to do something doesn't mean that something isn't a choice one *could* make. I find it odd that you seem to be approaching this as though we should only ever do those things which the law requires us to do. Kinda leaves free choice out of the picture, doesn't it? It's just a bizarre way of approaching the world. Some of us believe that we should minimize the number of laws that mandate our actions, and allow people to make their own choices (and yes, have to live by them). Apparently, in your world, the fact that there's no law requiring you to help a little old lady cross the street means you should never do so.

gbaji wrote:
And as I've proved for several days now, as well as the law, your opinion is as wrong as Mrs "Sexual Immorality is Okay as Long as I Do It" Davis'. "It's religious persecution to not let me religiously persecute people" still remains, for the most part, illegal.


You haven't proven anything. Except maybe that you don't really understand the concepts of "facts", "evidence", "argument", "opinion", "conclusion", and "proof".

Refusing to do something *for* someone is not the same as persecuting that person. Demanding that someone do something that violates their beliefs *is* persecution. Especially when there are ways to achieve your objective without forcing that conflict. As with all rights considerations, it's a matter of balance. At some point, one persons rights outweigh another opposing right. But it's never 100%. You're acting as though she has no rights at all in this situation, but she does. And, as I mentioned earlier, taking a job, even a government job, does not mean that her rights disappear. The correct course of action is to find a way to resolve the situation with a minimal amount of compromise on each side.

You're declaring her wrong because you don't agree with her beliefs. But that's kind of the point of the 1st amendment. We're supposed to make every effort to respect and accommodate the beliefs of others, even when we disagree with them. Heck. Especially when we disagree with them. It's a sad day when we only respect the rights of those who are just like us.


Quote:
Oh, and it should also be noted how funny it is that you called what I said opinions, and then proceeded to write out exactly what I said and called it facts.


You keep using those words. I do not think you know what they mean.

Edited, Sep 14th 2015 7:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Sep 14 2015 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
The Governor has explicitly stated that the licenses issued by the assistant county clerk are valid.

When? Where? The article you linked says this:

Quote:
A possible resolution to the conflict between Davis' religious beliefs and her public responsibility could be reached, Staver said, if a Kentucky statute were to be changed to have a central group approve and distribute marriage licenses, rather than forcing clerks to act against their beliefs. He added that either the governor or the Legislature could make that happen.

In that, Staver seemed to disagree with Gov. Steve Beshear, who has repeatedly said that he has no authority to intervene because the statute gives sole authority over marriage licenses to county clerks. Beshear said that the Legislature would have to take up the issue when it reconvenes in January.


If you have some other source that quotes the governor explicitly stating that those licenses are legal, then how about linking and quoting that site, instead of one that at best sheds no light on the subject, and really kinda supports her argument that it would require a state legislative change to remove the requirement that her name appear on the licenses in question. It's just strange because she's saying, quite clearly that marriage licenses issued by her office aren't legal unless they have her signature on then, and your response is... this? It doesn't address that at all.

Did you actually read what was written, or just the part where it says the governor disagrees? Because the disagreement wasn't over the legality of the licenses, but over whether or not the governor could change the issue of the legality of the licenses. That's not the same thing.

Quote:
I'm not completely shocked that Davis and her attorney disagree.


To what? Again, you have yet to provide any information that refutes the core claim that marriage licenses are only legal if the signature of the elected clerk for the office they are granted by appears on them. Questions about whether the governor could intercede are interesting, but don't in any way change that core issue. Did you just read that he disagrees and stop there? Cause that's what it looks like you did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Sep 14 2015 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a fact.
Well, no. A fact exists in reality (If you need a reference, the things I said are facts), and nothing you said does, and an argument implies your statement is somehow in the neighborhood of realistic, which they're not.
gbaji wrote:
You're acting as though she has no rights at all in this situation, but she does.
Sure, she has the right to bitch, whine, complain, petition, and try to get the law changed. She just doesn't have the right to take the law into her own hands, and no matter how much you hate America and the constitution doesn't change that.

I've already proved everything else you wrote wrong twice now.

Edited, Sep 14th 2015 11:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Sep 14 2015 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
The Governor has explicitly stated that the licenses issued by the assistant county clerk are valid.

When? Where?

Here, Now!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Sep 14 2015 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Davis had the right to present her case in court and have them issue a ruling. She did, they did and she lost. She also lost at every subsequent level of appeal. This isn't difficult or filled with nuance -- Davis is wrong and should be issuing licenses, not throwing petulant fits and expecting the state machinery to revolve around her.

Personally, I think she should be back in jail until she complies with the court's ruling but then I don't have a state to manage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 300 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (300)