WWTBAM Bored

earendel wrote:A federal judge has ordered Kim Davis to be jailed for contempt of court.

Interestingly she issued a statement that included this sentence:

To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience."

I'm sure where she's going she can have some enlightened conversations with her fellow inmates about God's definition of marriage.

When a judge ruled that same-sex marriages were legal in N.C., several county magistrates resigned rather than issues the licenses. Many of our more rural magistrates are part-time, and many of them are preachers on the weekends.

They were applauded from both the folks who thought the licenses were moral and those who didn't. If your conscience prevents you from doing a job, don't do that job. I sympathize that when they signed up for this job, that aspect of it didn't exist. But we didn't arrange it for them to be grandfathered in, so they are right to resign from the position.

We used to use a similar case study in my ethics class about pharmacists who were required to sell birth control items they thought were immoral. If there is a second person on staff who can take care of it, fine. Otherwise, if you accept public money, you have to serve the public. If it is a privately-owned store, you don't. Easy cheesy.

Curiously, her political affiliation hasn't been brought up much. This "right-wing" "extremist religious nut" is <clutching my pearls> a Democrat!

In other news, Texas Quakers are now refusing to issue gun licenses, citing their pacifist religious beliefs. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:In other news, Texas Quakers are now refusing to issue gun licenses, citing their pacifist religious beliefs. --Bob

I have zero problem with that. Although I'd be curious how that compares to the "Christian" baker stories. I feel neither the baker should have to bake nor the Quaker should have to issue gun licenses, unless, of course, they're violating some oath of office by refusing.

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:In other news, Texas Quakers are now refusing to issue gun licenses, citing their pacifist religious beliefs. --Bob

I have zero problem with that. Although I'd be curious how that compares to the "Christian" baker stories. I feel neither the baker should have to bake nor the Quaker should have to issue gun licenses, unless, of course, they're violating some oath of office by refusing.

I should have used Sarcafont. I also should have upped the ante by saying they're refusing to let their offices issue gun licenses. --Bob

elwoodblues wrote:If you work for the government you don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to follow. You have to follow all of them or look for some other line of work.

Really? Tell that to Mr. Obama, who decides what laws he wants to enforce, what laws he doesn't and makes up laws that don't exist.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:If you work for the government you don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to follow. You have to follow all of them or look for some other line of work.

Really? Tell that to Mr. Obama, who decides what laws he wants to enforce, what laws he doesn't and makes up laws that don't exist.

When the courts have told him he's wrong (which hasn't happened much), he has obeyed their directives.

By the way, do you believe that a District Attorney is obligated to prosecute each and every crime that comes to her attention? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:If you work for the government you don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to follow. You have to follow all of them or look for some other line of work.

Really? Tell that to Mr. Obama, who decides what laws he wants to enforce, what laws he doesn't and makes up laws that don't exist.

When the courts have told him he's wrong (which hasn't happened much), he has obeyed their directives.

By the way, do you believe that a District Attorney is obligated to prosecute each and every time that comes to her attention? --Bob

Yes, there are MANY things wrong with the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our federal government, which is the result of cronyism, blatant party politics and ignoring and convoluting the Constitution. That is why I support the Article V effort to convene a Convention of the States to propose Amendments. Washington ain't never gonna fix itself.

Survivor Files $1.2 Million Lawsuit Against Kim Davis & Mike Huckabee

http://nbc.com.co/survivor-files-1-2-mi ... -huckabee/

The band Survivor has filed a $1.2 million lawsuit against Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee over the unauthorized use of its hit song “Eye of the Tiger.”

Not quite.

http://www.thatsfake.com/are-survivor-s ... -2million/

I wonder what she'll do when she goes back to work on Monday. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:I wonder what she'll do when she goes back to work on Monday. --Bob

She's said she won't obey the order then.

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I wonder what she'll do when she goes back to work on Monday. --Bob

She's said she won't obey the order then.

She's all in now- she can't change her mind.

The interesting thing will be what her underlings do.

Jeemie wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I wonder what she'll do when she goes back to work on Monday. --Bob

She's said she won't obey the order then.

She's all in now- she can't change her mind.

The interesting thing will be what her underlings do.

One has said he'll issue licenses even if she orders him not to. They all have been issuing licenses in her absence. She's said those are invalid.

The question is what will the Oath Keepers do when the U.S. Marshals come to take her away?

Well the first same-sex couple to get their license with her in the office got preached at a lot but got it.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... is_present

Gay man denied marriage license by Kim Davis will run against her

Two years ago, Kim Davis denied David Ermold a marriage license because he was gay, despite it being legalized.

Today, she had to watch as he signed up to run against her in the next election.