Kentucky court clerk....

[cowadle]

So you fight hyperbole with hyperbole?



You're pretending we live in a pure Democracy. We don't.

we live in a representative republic. it has many similarities with a democracy but one major difference is our privilege to VOTE on every elected office.in a democracy you vote on a party and then your representation is appointed.

 

[Eagle Eye]

we live in a representative republic. it has many similarities with a democracy but one major difference is our privilege to VOTE on every elected office.in a democracy you vote on a party and then your representation is appointed.

That does not mean that once you are elected you can ignore the ruling of a judge and be exempt from law.

 

[Billybob]

Persecution? Throughout history in most parts of the world including including the allegedly tolerant land of the free people have been tortured and killed for not believing or believing the wrong way. To say loosing your little kingdom of control supported by Gov. authority, having the truths of history exposed, or opposing views be tolerated is persecution is an insult at best to those who really suffered, and at worst it's playing the victim card like others are said to play the race card.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/

 

[cowadle]

we've been through this
she was not elected for her religious beliefs? She was elected because people though she would do her job. This was no problem when she was elected cause gay marriage was not legal at the time. Now that it is, she can no longer do her job by CHOICE. Therefore she should resign from her job or do it (as was ordered by the highest court, whose opinion she sought voluntarily). She chose not to do it, which resulted in her being in contempt of court, and resulted with her being put in jail. This decision was made by a judge who thought that fines would not be appropriate punishment

read some of Dave's posts some pages back.. He explains it better than i do.

how can you identify the voters intentions when she was elected? I can't.

 

[Eagle Eye]

how can you identify the voters intentions when she was elected? I can't.

nice, how does that improve the argument you are making? I can't follow your logic

 

[donner]

how can you identify the voters intentions when she was elected? I can't.

true, but even if the voters elected her to obstruct gay marriages, that doesn't mean she has the right to do so.

She is not allowed to violate the rights of others just because she was elected by people who want her to do so. She is in jail for failing to follow a court order.

The desires of the majority does not supersede the rights of the minority.

 

[RidgeHunter]

she is representing the people who voted her into her postilion. if the voters feel they aren't being properly represented in this then they should impeach her. if the voters that put her there don't like her christian ethics they should impeach her. if the lgbt community in her represented district are powerful enough to to get her impeached they should do so,if they aren't then they should shut up until they have the vote. the judge should uphold the constitution and advise the VOTERS of the proper leagle method to resolve this. she should not be in jail she should be facing a possible impeachment. the LGBT don't want this because they can't win the vote.

Only that's not how it works at all. See, how it actually works when an elected official shuts down the office they swore to run is it goes to court and she goes to jail.

The judge has upheld the constitution.

Do you have anything accurate to add, or are we just gonna leave it at this?

 

[Dale00]

and i agree with you. Frankly, i don't care if she is bigoted and selfish or a true believer. Her personal views do not make her actions here right or wrong in my mind.

What i'm trying to say is that her personal views should not control what the position of county clerk does. That the county clerk should act within the law, regardless of how she as a person feels about the law. If she cannot find a way to do that then she needs to find a new job.

Ok, thanks. Yes her actions are most probably illegal.

I wonder how people feel about the idea that this episode shows that we in this country have entered into a period in which such law breaking is increasingly likely because Obama and perhaps Bush have acted to circumvent laws with which they disagreed. Should a President's personal views allow them to suspend the enforcement of laws? Likewise, did not the Supreme Court overstep its bounds by forcing the legalization of gay marriage instead of letting individual states decide legislatively? Many believe this to be so and as a result the respect for the authority of the Supreme Court has been lessened.

Are we entering into a period in which we are becoming a nation ruled by men rather than laws?

 

[Eagle Eye]

Ok, thanks. Yes her actions are most probably illegal.

I wonder how people feel about the idea that this episode shows that we in this country have entered into a period in which such law breaking is increasingly likely because Obama and perhaps Bush have acted to circumvent laws with which they disagreed. Should a President's personal views allow them to suspend the enforcement of laws? Likewise, did not the Supreme Court overstep its bounds by forcing the legalization of gay marriage instead of letting individual states decide legislatively? Many believe this to be so and as a result the respect for the authority of the Supreme Court has been lessened.

Are we entering into a period in which we are becoming a nation ruled by men rather than laws?

I always knew dale would come around, or we came through to dale. either way....we can get along at OSA

Your question is a good one! I'll have to do some Gedankenexperimente

 

[farmerbyron]

she is representing the people who voted her into her postilion. if the voters feel they aren't being properly represented in this then they should impeach her. if the voters that put her there don't like her christian ethics they should impeach her. if the lgbt community in her represented district are powerful enough to to get her impeached they should do so,if they aren't then they should shut up until they have the vote. the judge should uphold the constitution and advise the VOTERS of the proper leagle method to resolve this. she should not be in jail she should be facing a possible impeachment. the LGBT don't want this because they can't win the vote.

Does this work for an elected representative who wants to bring back separate but equal? I mean if a majority agrees that certain people should not enjoy the same rights as others they are GTG right?