Quote: (09-04-2015 02:08 PM)ElConquistador Wrote:
-She is an official that was elected before the SCOTUS ruling
Irrelevant. Are you trying to suggest you only have to follow laws in place the date of your election, and not new ones?
Quote:Quote:
-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage
Doesn't matter what Kentucky thinks, its now Federal law. This has all been discussed, fought, in court, and now its over. Kentucky doesn't need to recognize it, its recognized as a right federally, and all states must comply.
Quote:Quote:
-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution
Yes, and Kentucky must follow U.S. federal law, and thus the clerk must as well.
Quote:Quote:
-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names
She doesn't get to refuse service to anyone based on her personal beliefs in her position as a government agent, and thankfully so. And
no one at that office was able/willing to issue licenses with her there, so thats a bogus argument. It's only now that she has been removed from her position that the other clerks have been allowed to proceed.
Quote:Quote:
-She has been imprisoned for "contempt of court" (not actually breaking a law in the first place before going before the judge) without due process and will remain so until she starts signing gay marriage licenses
She's refusing a lawful court order- that's contempt of court.
The matter has already been decided, and she's refusing to comply. Jail for contempt of court
is due process.
Quote:Quote:
-A little old woman refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper and she is imprisoned without due process.
Jailed, not imprisoned, and
with due process.
Quote:Quote:
Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a respect for the law.
The only correct thing you've said. And thankfully the personal beliefs of some old lady aren't getting in the way of people following the law anymore.
I really, really do not understand how people don't see the very bad precedent that would be set had this government worker been allowed to refuse service to who she chooses, based on her personal beliefs. Thank God that is not the case.
Quote:Quote:
If you think it is unacceptable for a state official to follow her oath that she swore and refuse to follow the federal government, then by logical consistency you would not tolerate soldiers in the military refusing to execute un-constitutional orders. For example; I'm sure most people here agree that a solder is in the right for refusing to execute an unarmed citizen. Please, let's have an ethical framework that offers logical consistency instead of making Ad Hoc arguments.
Gay marriage is legal now, whether we like it or not, period. She's not refusing to follow "un-constitutional orders", she's refusing to follow
lawful orders, because of the god she prays to. Next time will it be a muslim lady refusing to serve
you? Thankfully this is stopped now, not later.
This is not comparable to our great soldiers refusing to follow bad orders, in any way at all.