Politics

[wizards8507]

While I agree that jail time feels excessive, the judge seems to have done it because a fine wouldn't compel her to issue the marriage licenses (and maybe because a lot of people had offered to pay her fines so there would be no monetary loss for her). She also refuses to resign and she can only be removed by being impeached.

Impeachment shouldn't be too difficult. I'm sure there's something in the oath of office about "faithfully upholding the laws and duties blah blah blah."

 

[NDgradstudent]

We have to enforce the law? That's a laugh.

The fact that this woman is a government employee is supposed to mean that she cannot be accommodated (of course, she can be: just pass a law saying that everybody in the office can sign the paper). But in fact, this is not really that relevant. Remember, liberals believe that all other persons -religious schools, non-profits, business owners, anybody with a government contract, subsidy, etc.- should be treated exactly like her. In other words, they regard all of these persons as, essentially, government employees who cannot be accommodated. So while this woman's case is relatively unsympathetic, don't think her status as a government worker changes anything. To liberals, it does not.

Bear this in mind when they go after ND's tax-exempt status because it won't hold a same-sex wedding in the Basilica.

 

[wizards8507]

Bear this in mind when they go after ND's tax-exempt status because it won't hold a same-sex wedding in the Basilica.

Unlikely. They'd absolutely try if a case ever came up, but most likely won't.

1. Notre Dame only lets practicing Catholic alumni get married in the Basilica. The only reason a gay couple would even try to do this would be to embarrass the University. The odds that there's a practicing Catholic gay alumnus that's openly hostile to his or her alma mater is razor thin.

2. Notre Dame is tax exempt as a non-profit educational institution even if they weren't a religious institution. Only profits are taxed and Notre Dame, by definition, doesn't have any.

 

[pkt77242]

Impeachment shouldn't be too difficult. I'm sure there's something in the oath of office about "faithfully upholding the laws and duties blah blah blah."

The problem is how Kentucky Legislature works. They already finished for the year and won't meet again till January (and the Governor already refused to call a special session to handle this), so you are talking about 4 months or longer (depending on when they address it or if they will even address it). In Kentucky it is about an even split amongst people supporting her and people wanting her out.

 

[NDgradstudent]

1. Notre Dame only lets practicing Catholic alumni get married in the Basilica. The only reason a gay couple would even try to do this would be to embarrass the University. The odds that there's a practicing Catholic gay alumnus that's openly hostile to his or her alma mater is razor thin.

Even conceding the intense loyalty of ND alumni, that is an awfully optimistic picture. There are plenty of ND alumni who would want to change that 'policy' (Church doctrine, of course, too). Some gay couples are specifically picking businesses that they think will not want to make a gay wedding cake in order to put them out of business, in jurisdictions where that is possible. Most gay couples would not do this out of spite, but some have done. And it only takes one person to file a suit.

2. Notre Dame is tax exempt as a non-profit educational institution even if they weren't a religious institution. Only profits are taxed and Notre Dame, by definition, doesn't have any.

When Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was revoked, its non-profit status no longer mattered, either. That can just as easily be revoked by the IRS.

 

[Cackalacky]

Even conceding the intense loyalty of ND alumni, that is an awfully optimistic picture. There are plenty of ND alumni who would want to change that 'policy' (Church doctrine, of course, too). Some gay couples are specifically picking businesses that they think will not want to make a gay wedding cake in order to put them out of business, in jurisdictions where that is possible. Most gay couples would not do this out of spite, but some have done. And it only takes one person to file a suit.



When Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was revoked, its non-profit status no longer mattered, either. That can just as easily be revoked by the IRS.

The test for Bob Jones was for segregationist issues that had yet to comply with. They refused to admit black students for seven years until 1971 and denied applicants who were in interracial relationships/marriages. It was years and years of defiance of the Civil Rights Act that got them in trouble and the government decided enough was enough. The SCOTUS ruling ruled that the undue burden placed on the public by their policies far outweighed their claims for tax free status as they were basically holding a rigid political stance. I don't think ND refusing marriages at this point would justify that course of action as they are a very inclusive Private institution. Not saying it won't at some point.

 

[phgreek]

I thought her underlings were all given the ability to issue marriage licenses. If so, it would seem the problem is solved. She is an elected official, so impeach her, or make a policy that excludes her from re-running. In the mean time the license issue should be remedied...throwing her in jail costs money, and makes her a hero...why can't we learn the lesson...do what needs done, and silence the idiot and their supporters.

FTR...I think Civil Unions were fine...was/am against marriage being used to describe Homosexual Unions. That said, only irresponsible selfish assholes ignore the law, and support such behavior.

 

[NDgradstudent]

That said, only irresponsible selfish assholes ignore the law, and support such behavior.

But there is a limit to that, right? If a state passed a law requiring that all licensed OB/GYNs perform abortions, would a long-time Catholic OB/GYN be an "irresponsible selfish asshole" for disobeying it? Perhaps you would say the person should find a new job. But that is not obviously a fair solution, considering that the person has worked as an OB/GYN for a long time, before this law was on the books. An easier solution for everybody would be to simply change the law. In this case, that just means letting somebody else sign the license (and yes, that is what eventually happened anyway).

The test for Bob Jones was for segregationist issues that had yet to comply with. They refused to admit black students for seven years until 1971 and denied applicants who were in interracial relationships/marriages. It was years and years of defiance of the Civil Rights Act that got them in trouble and the government decided enough was enough. The SCOTUS ruling ruled that the undue burden placed on the public by their policies far outweighed their claims for tax free status as they were basically holding a rigid political stance. I don't think ND refusing marriages at this point would justify that course of action as they are a very inclusive Private institution. Not saying it won't at some point.

The Supreme Court simply said that the IRS acted within its power in revoking Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status. There is no reason to think that the Court would rule differently if the IRS attempted to do that to Notre Dame (of course, they would more likely target a school like Christendom, or some other school that is less iconic and easier to destroy). All that matters is that the policy is a "fundamental national public policy." Liberals, and a majority of the Supreme Court, regard same-sex marriage as a "fundamental national public policy." In other words, there is no ground of principle for preserving ND's tax-exempt status. Simply grounds of expedience- it is unpopular to take it away at the moment. But this moment will pass, and then nothing will hold them back. And that should startle all of us.

 

[pkt77242]

But there is a limit to that, right? If a state passed a law requiring that all licensed OB/GYNs perform abortions, would a long-time Catholic OB/GYN be an "irresponsible selfish asshole" for disobeying it? Perhaps you would say the person should find a new job. But that is not obviously a fair solution, considering that the person has worked as an OB/GYN for a long time, before this law was on the books. An easier solution for everybody would be to simply change the law. In this case, that just means letting somebody else sign the license (and yes, that is what eventually happened anyway).



The Supreme Court simply said that the IRS acted within its power in revoking Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status. There is no reason to think that the Court would rule differently if the IRS attempted to do that to Notre Dame (of course, they would more likely target a school like Christendom, or some other school that is less iconic and easier to destroy). All that matters is that the policy is a "fundamental national public policy." Liberals, and a majority of the Supreme Court, regard same-sex marriage as a "fundamental national public policy." In other words, there is no ground of principle for preserving ND's tax-exempt status. Simply grounds of expedience- it is unpopular to take it away at the moment. But this moment will pass, and then nothing will hold them back. And that should startle all of us.

They didn't change the law. Davis was refusing to let her employees do it as well. Here is what is going on.

But Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, whom U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning found in contempt of court, said through her lawyers that she will not authorize any of her employees to issue licenses in her absence.

I think you are misunderstanding what is going on, here is what the issue is:

Among Davis' deputies, the holdout was her son, Nathan Davis. Yet as the other deputy clerks individually answered Bunning's questions under oath, several had reservations in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, partly based on religion and partly because of worries about their legal authority to sign forms without an elected official's consent.

She isn't just saying that she won't issue them, she was/is refusing to allow any of her employees to sign them.

Ky. clerk's office will issue marriage licenses Friday — without the clerk

 

[NDgradstudent]

I think you are misunderstanding what is going on, here is what the issue is:

I understand what is going on, but I was imprecise above. I was trying to say that what eventually happened was that somebody else signed the form, whatever the law was. I was also saying that if the law had been changed, all of this could have been avoided in advance (and could be avoided in the future).

 

[pkt77242]

I understand what is going on, but I was imprecise above. I was trying to say that what eventually happened was that somebody else signed the form, whatever the law was. I was also saying that if the law had been changed, all of this could have been avoided in advance (and could be avoided in the future).

No it doesn't. What if her clerks have religious objections? Some of them expressed religious objections to the judge but didn't want to go to jail.

 

[EddytoNow]

IMHO it's pretty straightforward. If you take the job and you want to keep the job, you have to do what the job requires. If the job requirements change, you have two choices: perform the new job requirements or get a new job. She should be fired or removed from her job.

As a Catholic who grew up during a time when meat was not to be consumed on Friday, did I have the option to tell my boss at McDonald's that I wouldn't serve anyone hamburgers on Fridays? You know how far I would have gotten with that. I would have been fired without delay.

No one is forcing this lady into a gay marriage. She is a civil servant. She has no right to keep the job and continue receiving a paycheck if she won't do what the job requires. It's simple. Obey the law and do your job or get out.

 

[phgreek]

But there is a limit to that, right? If a state passed a law requiring that all licensed OB/GYNs perform abortions, would a long-time Catholic OB/GYN be an "irresponsible selfish asshole" for disobeying it? Perhaps you would say the person should find a new job. But that is not obviously a fair solution, considering that the person has worked as an OB/GYN for a long time, before this law was on the books. An easier solution for everybody would be to simply change the law. In this case, that just means letting somebody else sign the license (and yes, that is what eventually happened anyway).

I believe if the law is passed, you seek relief from it through the courts, or through other action which brings pressure upon legislators...ie you change the law...or make changes in your life. But people who simply decide not to comply...I'm sorry, thats not something I can support. Everyone always has some "Reason", or the stakes are too high to them. Well I grow tired of that attitude. The health of the nation first...which is injured every time a person or group of people decide to ignore rules and laws, for whatever their reason. This attitude is rampant, and it needs to be shut down decisively, and by force if necessary.

 

[connor_in]

Record 56,253,000 Women Out Of Labor Force

Obama and the democrats war on women

 

[GoIrish41]

Record 56,253,000 Women Out Of Labor Force

Obama and the democrats war on women

That's what population growth gets ya! Curious wording in the article talks about number of women in the workforce shrinking, but suggests the expanding number of women participating is attributed to population growth. Wouldn't both be attributed to more women?

 

[NDgradstudent]

No it doesn't. What if her clerks have religious objections? Some of them expressed religious objections to the judge but didn't want to go to jail.

Well then they will do it, won't they? Plenty of people have religious objections but don't want to go to jail. What is it to you if they have objections as long as they sign the form?

 

[NDgradstudent]

IMHO it's pretty straightforward. If you take the job and you want to keep the job, you have to do what the job requires. If the job requirements change, you have two choices: perform the new job requirements or get a new job. She should be fired or removed from her job.

This is not actually the way that politics works. Obama has declined to enforce our immigration law, but that is (supposedly) okay. Difference between that and Kim Davis? She is a white-trash Southerner who wouldn't fit in at all! at an Upper West Side dinner party.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I believe if the law is passed, you seek relief from it through the courts, or through other action which brings pressure upon legislators...ie you change the law...or make changes in your life. But people who simply decide not to comply...I'm sorry, thats not something I can support. Everyone always has some "Reason", or the stakes are too high to them. Well I grow tired of that attitude. The health of the nation first...which is injured every time a person or group of people decide to ignore rules and laws, for whatever their reason. This attitude is rampant, and it needs to be shut down decisively, and by force if necessary.

The health of the nation is harmed by someone else performing the abortion, or signing the paper?

 

[phgreek]

The health of the nation is harmed by someone else performing the abortion, or signing the paper?

Health of the nation depends on laws. Supporting an environment where people can pick and choose is simply untenable. Enforcement of the laws has many degrees/options, the last of which is force. The marriage license issue is complicated, as she is an elected official. She seems unwilling/unable to abide by the law and use existing channels to fight it, or make changes in her life to maintain her beliefs...ie quit. I think jail for her is stupid. The recourse for her is impeachment or legislation clarifying her role, in the mean time, pay her, and put her on processing traffic tickets. The abortion thing is a hypothetical...but if the government claims it to be somehow compulsory healthcare, you better do it or make some changes in your life while you fight it. Again, sacrifice for what you believe in is admirable...defying laws is criminal. Your reasons for defying laws may mitigate your punishment...but your conduct cannot be ignored. We have processes in place to take on laws...use 'em. If I'm a OB/Gyn/surgeon, and I don't want to do abortions, I guess I go do something else while I fight it...

This may seem "extreme"...being hard over on the criticality of enforcing laws...I know crazy as hell.

 

[phgreek]

This is not actually the way that politics works. Obama has declined to enforce our immigration law, but that is (supposedly) okay. Difference between that and Kim Davis? She is a white-trash Southerner who wouldn't fit in at all! at an Upper West Side dinner party.

I agree Mr. Obama and the justice department are just as guilty as this woman. There is an argument that the President may have power to do what Mr. Obama did regarding immigration (although I disagree), but he should have the character to force the process to work...His leadership here is critically lacking, no question.

 

[pkt77242]

Well then they will do it, won't they? Plenty of people have religious objections but don't want to go to jail. What is it to you if they have objections as long as they sign the form?

So because they don't want to go to jail they should be treated differently then the woman who is willing to go to jail. Do you actually believe what you say? Why should the law be changed to cater to her?

 

[IrishLax]

I don't understand how corporations can't have dress codes that infringe on someone's religious rights and get sued for "discrimination" if they do... but we, as a country, can pass laws that compel someone in their profession to perform acts that go against their beliefs and that isn't "discrimination."

I don't have any issue with this woman going to jail for breaking the law. I do have an issue with the fact that we're now passing laws that compel people to act a certain way or face dire consequences.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't understand how corporations can't have dress codes that infringe on someone's religious rights and get sued for "discrimination" if they do... but we, as a country, can pass laws that compel someone in their profession to perform acts that go against their beliefs and that isn't "discrimination."

I don't have any issue with this woman going to jail for breaking the law. I do have an issue with the fact that we're now passing laws that compel people to act a certain way or face dire consequences.

?

There is a huge difference between having to let someone dress a certain way due to religious beliefs (which has no effect on job performance) and someone refusing to do their job (and also refusing to let her employees do their job). Those aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't understand how corporations can't have dress codes that infringe on someone's religious rights and get sued for "discrimination" if they do... but we, as a country, can pass laws that compel someone in their profession to perform acts that go against their beliefs and that isn't "discrimination."

I don't have any issue with this woman going to jail for breaking the law. I do have an issue with the fact that we're now passing laws that compel people to act a certain way or face dire consequences.

I guess the secular nature of government is the main culprit here IMO. It is supposed to favor no one over another. I feel for her that she feels she is incapable of performing her new job tasks and it is an awkward situation, but these are gonna.arise when a very prominent law is passed.

We are not just now passing these types of laws. Many laws function to deter undesirable behaviors.Whatever one believes its against societal norms to discriminate, for whatever reason, particularly by a government representative. The Civil Rights Act is one of many. Many people justified their opposition to segregation using the same arguments people today are but it s homosexuality and not race. To be CLEAR....., I am NOT saying all people who claim religious freedom are bigots, but they are using the same arguments in both instances. But what she is doing is now inhibiting the right (however new) of two people to be legally married.

 

[IrishLax]

?

There is a huge difference between having to let someone dress a certain way due to religious beliefs (which has no effect on job performance) and someone refusing to do their job (and also refusing to let her employees do their job). Those aren't even in the same ballpark.

This is complete bullshit. There is no difference. It routinely comes up in jobs where appearance directly affects job performance, and besides some rare cases courts come down routinely in favor of the employee despite it compromising their ability to fill the role as the corporation intends.

 

[IrishLax]

I guess the secular nature of government is the main culprit here IMO. It is supposed to favor no one over another. I feel for her that she feels she is incapable of performing her new job tasks and it is a lbs and awkward situation, but these are gonna.arise when a very prominent law is passed.

We are not just now passing these types of laws. Many laws function to deter undesirable behaviors. Traffic violations, fines and fees for any number of reasons. The Civil Rights Act is one of many. Many people justified their opposition to segregation using the same arguments people today are but it s homosexuality and not race. To be CLEAR....., I am NOT saying all people who claim religious freedom are bigots, but they are using the same arguments in both instances.

What we're really talking about can be boiled down to "you must perform Service X even if it violates Religious Belief Y, and if you do not you face Penalties Z." So whether any of us subjectively believes a law is fair depends on how we feel about the service, the belief, and the associated penalty. In most cases, laws are going to be such that we're not going to cause anyone to compromise a valid Religious Belief by having them perform an egregious Service, and hopefully the Penalty isn't going to be out of line. Like I said, I don't really have sympathy for the person, I'm more just drunk musing at the inherent contradiction in our laws right now.

You're right, we already have many laws that restrict religious freedoms. We have for a really long time. I'm just not a fan of the logical inconsistency... laws to protect people from intolerance that inherently push people to a choice between their livelihood or their beliefs. They can't have both. Reminds me of the South Park episode from a decade ago about the Death Camp of Tolerance. Those guys are prophetic as hell.

 

[Cackalacky]

What we're really talking about can be boiled down to "you must perform Service X even if it violates Religious Belief Y, and if you do not you face Penalties Z." So whether any of subjectively believes a law is fair depends on how we feel about the service, the belief, and the associated penalty. In most cases, laws are going to be such that we're not going to cause anyone to compromise a valid Religious Belief by having them perform an egregious Service, and hopefully the Penalty isn't going to be out of line. Like I said, I don't really have sympathy for the person, I'm more just drunk musing at the inherent contradiction in our laws right now.

You're right, we already have many laws that restrict religious freedoms. We have for a really long time. I'm just not really understanding the inherent contradiction... laws to protect people from intolerance that inherently push people to a choice between their livelihood or their beliefs. They can't have both. Reminds me of the South Park episode from a decade ago about the Death Camp of Tolerance. Those guys are prophetic as hell.

Totally agree here and not arguing.the fundamental point. It's a sucky position to be in but so is my sibling not being able to fully experience her life in the manner I do.She is a devout Catholic yet is obviously at odds with the Church.

But it's also the MO of our democracy since Jim Crow was deconstructed leading up to the Bob Jones case. That's where a lot of this starts IMO. It was obvious with blacks and now.has extended to the ADA and now the LGBTs. I honestly wish it was not so polarizing or there were steps that could be taken to have others do the ones she doesn't or there was some.time in between the ruling to figure these things out.

 

[pkt77242]

This is complete bullshit. There is no difference. It routinely comes up in jobs where appearance directly affects job performance, and besides some rare cases courts come down routinely in favor of the employee despite it compromising their ability to fill the role as the corporation intends.

Which ones would that be? I can't think of a case (doesn't mean that there isn't one) where the person's dress would significantly affect their ability to do their job.

Again not only is she refusing to do her job she had literally ordered all of her employees to not do it as well.

Also she is an elected official not a regular worker. I have much more sympathy for an regular employee then one who is elected.

 

[ACamp1900]

Pole dancer

 

[BobD]

Which ones would that be? I can't think of a case (doesn't mean that there isn't one) where the person's dress would significantly affect their ability to do their job.

Again not only is she refusing to do her job she had literally ordered all of her employees to not do it as well.

Also she is an elected official not a regular worker. I have much more sympathy for an regular employee then one who is elected.

I wonder if she took an oath? Don't most elected officials? If she did, then wouldn't she have swore to uphold laws and faithfully execute etc. I wonder?

Btw hi everyone! I hope everyone is having a great opening day eve!