Kentucky court clerk....

[Dale00]

Many of y'all (not all) are failing to communicate. Communication begins with listening and consideration of other points of view. It cannot happen if you think those with whom you disagree are intolerant, hypocritical, bigoted swine.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Does the same argument apply to the President's deliberate failure to enforce immigration laws?

The Obama administration deported a record 438,421 unauthorized immigrants in fiscal year 2013, continuing a streak of stepped up enforcement that has resulted in more than 2 million deportations since Obama took office, newly released Department of Homeland Security data show.



In 2011, the administration announced a policy of making deportation of criminals (think violent offenders, gang members and drug traffickers) who are in the U.S. illegally a top priority. Those with no criminal record or threat to public safety became a low priority and would likely be allowed to remain in the U.S.
"ICE … has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency's enforcement priorities, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system," Morton wrote. That meant that family members, students and other longtime resident immigrants would not be targeted.



Bush officials didn't just embrace the idea that the government can prioritize whom to deport—they expanded it. "The universe of opportunities to exercise prosecutorial discretion is large," Bush immigration adviser William Howard wrote in a 2005 memo. Howard recommended letting people stay in the country when "compelling reasons exist," such as an unauthorized immigrant being a relative of a US servicemember or for "sympathetic humanitarian factors." ...the Obama administration has been aggressive in pursuing deportations of unauthorized immigrants, removing more than a million since taking office...until now Obama had actually granted fewer deferred actions than his predecessor—a little over 500 in 2010 compared to more than 1,000 in the last year of the Bush administration



Under Secretary Napolitano’s leadership, we have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible," Obama said in his May 10, 2011, speech. "They wanted more agents on the border. Well, we now have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history. The Border Patrol has 20,000 agents –- more than twice as many as there were in 2004, a buildup that began under President Bush and that we have continued."
Obama said that commitment is beyond what was requested by some Republicans "who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement."
"I suspect there will be those who will try to move the goal posts one more time," Obama said. "They’ll say we need to triple the border patrol. Or quadruple the border patrol."


Obama's failed to enforce immigration laws? I see you're a believer in the adage, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

 

[donner]

To get it before the court she has to be removed or jailed which is what she seems to be trying to do.

I'm not a court expert, but i believe the court could have voted to hear her case when she appealed to them earlier this week (as opposed to having to wait until she is jailed or impeached to bring the case). I believe one article i read said that Kagen, who is the justice overseeing this district presented the appeal to the whole court and the case was declined. I also read that it only take four justices to vote yes to hear a case, which would imply that even the four who voted against the majority earlier this summer couldn't agree to hear this case.

Also, any justice that disagrees with the decision not to hear a case can issue a written descent stating why they wanted to hear the case. But no statement was issued at all.

Maybe someone will correct me, but i believe cases can come to the court in this manner.

She is also playing a dangerous game. If she is jailed, and her appeal reaches the high court, they could easily set the clear precedent that public servants do not have the same protection of religious freedom as private employees. This action could lead to a strike down of religious freedom laws all over the country. If it even makes it to the court, though.

 

[JD8]

Many of y'all (not all) are failing to communicate. Communication begins with listening and consideration of other points of view. It cannot happen if you think those with whom you disagree are intolerant, hypocritical, bigoted swine.

If the shoe fits. Granted nobody threw out the word swine? The hypocritical part is easy to prove as this site is dedicated to Constitutional freedoms and I think all would agree that they are concrete over local law or even a court clerk. I'd also say that if this was a muslim clerk up in Michigan imposing her religious bias, the christians on this board would lose their mind. I'm sure that's different somehow. Her morality notwithstanding, is it her place to judge people by the definition of her own religion?

In the end, let's call a spade a spade.

 

[donner]

Many of y'all (not all) are failing to communicate. Communication begins with listening and consideration of other points of view. It cannot happen if you think those with whom you disagree are intolerant, hypocritical, bigoted swine.

Ha! Very rich.

I think most people here have read what the other side is saying and have politely pointed out why the logic being applied by those supporting this woman is flawed.

And speaking for myself, i'll still support the rights of someone to be intolerant and bigoted all they want, but just not in a government position and not if it means denying equal access as protected by law.

She is free to hold her views, no matter how intolerant or bigoted i might view them to be. But i will not support her doing so in an official capacity.

 

[coolhandluke]

However, I would direct you to Mark 12:17 "And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him". Not to mention "You cannot serve two masters." She should step down.

Agreed...and I'll add another example.

Romans 13:1

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.


She is in the wrong and doing nothing more than advancing the sentiment that Christians are hypocritical bigots that cannot recognize separation of church and state. Execute the duties of your public office or step down.

 

[Hobbes]

Here's how it should typically work: If a same-sex couple shows up at a county clerk's office to get married, an individual official can refuse to grant them a license. But the official would have to hand the case over to another county staffer, who would then give the license to the couple. The issue is that individual government employees may refuse — based on genuine religious objections — to marry same-sex couples, but the county government as a whole has a compelling interest to accommodate the couple and avoid violating their constitutional right to marry.

"The conscientious objector clerk and the clerk who is willing to issue the license need to just trade places," Douglas Laycock, an expert on religious freedom laws at the University of Virginia School of Law, wrote in an email in July. "I don't think the county could require the same-sex couple to go stand in a different line, or come back on a different day."
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/1/9239011/kim-davis-gay-marriage

 

[donner]

Can a sheriff refuse to arrest an abusive father if the official thought the child was beaten because he refused to honor his father?

 

[Glocktogo]

While understand what you are saying and agree with much of it, if she steps down the issue will not be resolved because only someone harmed by the ruling has legal standing to file suit. To get it before the court she has to be removed or jailed which is what she seems to be trying to do.
She stopped issuing all marriage licenses to be fair until something happens, she is not just issuing them to straight couples.

On a side note, if removed she probably has a good chance to be elected to a higher office, depending on the makeup of her counties population.

How can a government position be harmed by this ruling? A government position has no feelings and no religion. It has no rights. It only has a responsibility, to serve all with equality.

You're allowing your emotions to override common sense.

 

[Rooster Cockburn]

She's collecting $80k a year while refusing to do her job. Even the far-right Heritage Foundation says she's in the wrong. I think her lawyers are setting her up for some hard times. She needs new legal representation.
And the fact she's divorced at least two husbands seems a bit hypocritical

How is it hypocritical to do something wrong but still realize that it (and other things) are still wrong? Oh shucks, I drove under the influence once when I was young, I guess I can't express to others that driving under the influence is a bad idea now....

She is trying to get fired so that she can sue, that way there can be a ruling on religious freedom vs gay rights. Right now both are protected under the law.

And people are free to go somewhere else to get married. Many go to Vegas.

It comes down to gay rights over her rights and while the court has ruled that gays have the right to marry it has also ruled that government can not intrude in a major way on someones religious rights. Forcing her to go against her beliefs or lose her livelihood does that. You notice that she stopped issuing all marriage licensees until it is resolved?

You know what I think is awesome about this whole gay marriage thing? I think it's great that the government chose to meddle with a fundamental right and got slapped in the face as a result of that decision. Who in the HELL is the government to say who can and can't get married?? The power to license implies the power to refuse a license. Can you imagine a heterosexual couple getting turned down for a marriage license? Ridiculous no?? I find it amusing that a bunch of so called "Christians" were ok with the government being so big for its britches but not ok with the government having to treat all citizens the same afterward.

I didn't think that it was possible, but you topped your most ridiculous b*llshit with this post. She's a self-righteous b!tch taking advantage of her position to abuse the rights and happiness of others. Personally, I'd like to see her in front of a firing squad along with some WBC and ISIS members.

You want to see someone with a divergent viewpoint executed?? How very ANTI WBC and ISIS of you!!!!