It is your contention then, that she defends her divorces and says they were morally right? It is your contention that she does not view them as mistakes?
It is your contention then, that she defends her divorces and says they were morally right? It is your contention that she does not view them as mistakes?
Heard recently, "As Christians, we need to stop judging people for sinning differently than we do".
Irrelevant. The dissonance is her "mistakes" were granted by the government.
Whose to say the married queers can't be born again in a few years, like she was a few years ago, and get a righteous divorce from their sinful marriage? Why shouldn't they be allowed, by the government, the same opportunity for a spiritual journey she was? Mrs. Frumpy here could very well be seated right there in heaven with a posse of reformed pole smokers, depending exactly on whatever her sheetmetal church of choice has to say about Arminius and all that jazz, ya feel me? If God allows us this freedom, man should step the hell out of the way. Maybe walk downtown and get a new haircut and some new clothes and let God and the gays sort it out themselves, right?
e. Just saw shes Apostolic. Good. Acts 2:38. It applies to gays too. She got to have all those years with her sins of choice, but gays can't? What if I want to marry a dude for 10 years, get a divorce and become Apostolic, and write a book? You're fawking with my retirement plan here, folks. You're pokin' the bear (no homo).
Last edited:
We trust God with everything except the judging of the gays. He's not quite ready for that.
I'm humbled. That's the first time anybody's ever awarded me the entire internet. I would have settled for a glass of iced tea.
"Jail" needs to have context. As a criminal matter: would I jail a private citizen for having a belief, or for expressing it, even loudly? Absolutely not, and I'd volunteer for the defense if that happened.
As applied to a public official who refuses to serve her constituents? There appears to be a relevant statute that orders her to do so; under that law--to which she voluntarily subjected herself by running for elected office--it would appear that she has willfully shirked her (voluntarily assumed) public duty, so prosecution seems appropriate.
As applied to any person in a civil (not criminal; I'd be happy to discuss the distinction) court, contempt is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The key to that matter is that the defendant "holds the keys to the cell." She can walk out any time she wants by purging her contempt; that is, she will be freed by complying with the Court's order. In this case, she has chosen to defy the Court. Doing so, she commits indirect civil contempt; if she appears tomorrow and tells the judge "no," she will be committing direct civil contempt.
The High Court's ruling is clear, and under our system of laws, there is no doubt about her duty as a public official. If she wants to be a judge, let her run as such. A clerk's job, though, is not to judge; it's to say "yes, this was properly filed, and here is your proof."
Here in Oklahoma, I've filed all sorts of things. In some cases, I've had to append the title myself: "Letter From the Respondent." The letter wasn't even mailed to the Court; it was mailed to us (the opposing party), but it was relevant, so we went to the Clerk's office and filed it. The Clerk (by and through an assistant) duly stamped it (and several copies) and entered it into the file.* That's their job, and I appreciate them for it. We've never discussed the relevant merits of the claim asserted, but we've often talked of our weekend activities, what our kids are doing, etc. We've a wonderful understanding: their job is to receive papers--regardless of the text thereon--and to pass them on to the Judge, who will rule upon the law presented. In return, I make it a special point to be kind and polite to them (which isn't exactly true: I try to be kind and polite to everybody, but I'll admit that I make a special effort in the courthouse; that said, they've never been anything less to me, and I thank them for it).
Ms. Davis is trying to create a civil rights case. I get that; I appreciate that others have done so (Rosa Parks being an excellent example), and even some on behalf of the 2nd Amendment (Heller and McDonald come to mind). In this instance, though, there's a distinction: she's a public official, refusing to perform the functions of her public office, as defined by law. Nobody is presuming to say she can't believe as she wishes; she's simply being told she can't choose to define the law according to her own interpretation in defiance of a higher court.
You're referring, of course, to what ended as Loving v. Virginia. The very thought of "them darkies" getting involved with us "good white folk" was positively scandalous at the time; today, not so much. I've good friends to whom said case applies, and I smile every time their daughter calls me "Uncle Dave;" hugs are just that much the better.
Were a private business to say "go away," I'd treat them to dinner anywhere they wanted to go. But if a government clerk said "we won't serve you," I'd be in the Clerk's office filing a suit that would rival the 1960's space program in a half-hour flat.
Note the difference: private actors vs. government officials. Refusing patrons is one thing; refusing you constituents (who pay your salary, by force of law) is another.
* It was an adoption case, which means it's not a public matter; you'll just have to take my word for it that happened. Sorry 'bout that.
But a restaurant telling them to "go away" violates title II of the CRA, no?
I have a problem with people refusing to do their job while claiming religious freedom. Religious freedom is an individual right. It's not a community right.
Is someone trying to force her to marry another woman? The answer is no. Doing her job is not violating her religion.
Is someone trying to force her to marry another woman? The answer is no. Doing her job is not violating her religion.
Soooo....if a clerk at the OSBI decided that he/she objects to private citizens owning firearms and will no longer issue carry permits, how many of you who support Mrs Kentucky Crackpot would support the OSBI clerk?
Same issue, they are both denying the rights of others based on their moral objections.
Same issue, they are both denying the rights of others based on their moral objections.
I've always wanted to be baller like Clarence Thomas. When he dissents, he quotes his previous dissent on the issue. Here is my lame attempt:
It's no different than an OK sheriff refusing to issue CCW permits because he has strongly held beliefs against violence. Or strong beliefs most people are lunkheads, and can't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a sharpened crayon. It doesn't matter what he believes, the law is OK is a "shall issue" state. Therefore, he shall issue a permit to anyone eligible, regardless of his beliefs.
Id: post 48.
Zap's holding is:
S4F is correct.
So, I guess I'm not exactly dissenting...more like pointing out I said this already. Jeez, I'm a dick.
Similar threads
