Revolution in the United States

[Hand]

Originally Posted by PSM

She just set up a sanctuary city for those who still believe in morality. What's the problem?

Pat

Wow. That's an interesting angle Pat. I would definitely like to see your idea discussed seriously amongst some calm and intelligent policy makers.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Do you see a lot of Muslims being prosecuted for not selling pork, alcohol, or picking up drunk passengers?

Do you think they are refusing to make cakes for gay couples?

Some animals are more equal than others.

TR

Hell will freeze over before a couple queers walk into a Muslim bakery and request a wedding cake. The LGBT Community is a pawn used against Christianity and it is assisting in the spread of Islam.

If Islam takes hold it is only a matter of time before they began throwing gays off buildings......

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Hand

Wow. That's an interesting angle Pat. I would definitely like to see your idea discussed seriously amongst some calm and intelligent policy makers.

Good luck with that!

We live in an age of hyper-polarization and hyberbole, no rationale discourse allowed.

As for the KY clerk's actions - out of line IMO. Yes, she has a moral conviction and I respect that. But we (ostensibly) live under the rule of law and the law has been upheld. She is in a position as the Clerk of Courts she follows the law and cannot re-interpret it for her own sake.

The proper course for her would have been to recuse herself on grounds of religious and/or conscientious objection. I can respect that. But NO, she has to grand stand and act in a manner that is extra-judicial.

If we are to support her "actions" (note I said her actions not her "beliefs") then by that same line of thinking we would have to support the "actions" of Black Lives Matter.

Both are equally inappropriate and for the same reasons. JMHO

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Good luck with that!

We live in an age of hyper-polarization and hyberbole, no rationale discourse allowed.

As for the KY clerk's actions - out of line IMO. Yes, she has a moral conviction and I respect that. But we (ostensibly) live under the rule of law and the law has been upheld. She is in a position as the Clerk of Courts she follows the law and cannot re-interpret it for her own sake.

The proper course for her would have been to recuse herself on grounds of religious and/or conscientious objection. I can respect that. But NO, she has to grand stand and act in a manner that is extra-judicial.

If we are to support her "actions" (note I said her actions not her "beliefs") then by that same line of thinking we would have to support the "actions" of Black Lives Matter.

Both are equally inappropriate and for the same reasons. JMHO

And if that law is immoral, should she still recuse herself or issue the license? What if Muslims were successful in petitioning the courts to respect their religious convictions according to Islamic doctrine that they should be able to marry child-brides?

Perhaps SFC Martland should have refused to confront the immorality of a man raping a boy. After all, that is 'morally' acceptable in Afghanistan.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

And if that law is immoral (change law), should she still recuse herself (Yes) or issue the license? What if Muslims were successful in petitioning the courts to respect their religious convictions according to Islamic doctrine that they should be able to marry child-brides?(Courts should follow U.S. law and deny any such petition)

Perhaps SFC Martland should have refused to confront the immorality of a man raping a boy.(tolerance when applied to evil is criminal) After all, that is 'morally' acceptable in Afghanistan.(Irrelevant. Evil is universal)

[Box]

Liberals have successfully removed the issue of morality from social discourse so all of you will need to pick a better building block t use for your arguments...
...morality is an irrelevant concept now as far as law makers are concerned.

"You" simply cannot be allowed to define "my" morality...

Just ask Bruce Jenner (if he is still around)
...or you can ask his alter ego

Who gets to decide what is "immoral" and what standard do "they" use to define it?
That is the question we need to answer before we can move forward.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Irrelevant. Evil is universal

Who defines evil?

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

Who defines evil?

I am reminded of the comment from a judge when asked what defines pornographic? His reply - "I know it when I see it"

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

Liberals have successfully removed the issue of morality from social discourse so all of you will need to pick a better building block t use for your arguments...
...morality is an irrelevant concept now as far as law makers are concerned.

"You" simply cannot be allowed to define "my" morality...

Just ask Bruce Jenner (if he is still around)
...or you can ask his alter ego

Who gets to decide what is "immoral" and what standard do "they" use to define it?
That is the question we need to answer before we can move forward.

Good points Billy. But, I think morality and immorality is still a relevant question despite the progressive attempt to blur the lines of distinction between the two.

Our body of law still reflects our morality and collectively the laws distinction between what is acceptable from that which is unacceptable based largely on what we as a culture believe to be the distinction between moral and immoral.

Morality in our Judeo-Christian culture is bench marked by the Ten Commandments as applied and interpreted over several thousand years. So in the present any acts morality or immorality can be evaluated against those thousands of years of "case law".

But as I said in my comment re: the KY County Clerk, I am not judging her beliefs (morality or immorality) I am only criticizing her choice of actions in light of her secular obligation to the court.

Whereas an argument can be made as to the appropriatnes or inappropriateness of the court decision, at the present it is the law. And as servant to the court she has the obligation to follow the law. As she has a moral objection to the law she has the right, even the obligation, to recuse herself from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. She does not have the right to impose her morality on them.

[Box]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

re: the KY County Clerk, I am not judging her beliefs (morality or immorality) I am only criticizing her choice of actions in light of her secular obligation to the court.

Whereas an argument can be made as to the appropriatnes or inappropriateness of the court decision, at the present it is the law. And as servant to the court she has the obligation to follow the law. As she has a moral objection to the law she has the right, even the obligation, to recuse herself from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. She does not have the right to impose her morality on them.

I agree with you 100% in the case of her actions...



My critique is more on the fact that she cannot and SHOULD not impose 'her' morality on someone else, yet liberal ideology absolutely demands that she succumbs to THEIR morality if she wishes to keep her job.

[Sdiver]

The thing about the KY County Clerk that isn't being reported .... She's a registered Democrat.

Just a little food for thought.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

...change the law...

There is no law. SCOTUS, once again, misinterpreted, on purpose, the constitution. Read Scalia's dissent on the ruling:
Summary (The ruling is the link in the first sentence and Scalia's dissent begins on page 69 of the PDF file.)

ETA: Mark Levin (a real constitutional lawyer) defends Kim Davis: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...not-kim-davis/ (Embedded in 2 parts.)

The fight has to start somewhere.

Pat

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

I agree with you 100% in the case of her actions...



My critique is more on the fact that she cannot and SHOULD not impose 'her' morality on someone else, yet liberal ideology absolutely demands that she succumbs to THEIR morality if she wishes to keep her job.

When she ran for the office and was sworn in, signing licenses for same sex marriage was not in the job description.

Let the people who elected her decide.

Pat

[I am Al]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

...
As for the KY clerk's actions - out of line IMO. Yes, she has a moral conviction and I respect that. But we (ostensibly) live under the rule of law and the law has been upheld. She is in a position as the Clerk of Courts she follows the law and cannot re-interpret it for her own sake.
...

I agree with you that she needs to follow the law, but when she refuses to follow the law, isn't that the definition of malfeasance in office? Instead of having a federal judge toss her in jail for contempt, shouldn't it be handled using the laws they have in Kentucky for malfeasance? That's where it seems like federal overreach to me.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

My critique is more on the fact that she cannot and SHOULD not impose 'her' morality on someone else, yet liberal ideology absolutely demands that she succumbs to THEIR morality if she wishes to keep her job.

As usual you are absolutely correctomundo! Oh wait, i used a pseudo-spanish word - was that a micro-aggression? So sorry.