So if you want to keep saying but Hydra I'll keep posting. I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'll wait until the process is over, and hear real the real arguments made by professionals. You guys aren't that. Religious Freedom Restoration Act will be argued. So your opinion is just that. Opinion. It's legal opinion, mixed with personal opinion. Hardly professional. About as reliable as I am. Not at all.
But it's not law of the land just because the Supreme Court says it is it has no legislation dealing with this matter no law was passed by the people who can pass laws Example pot is legal in certain states under state law but illegal under federal law and federal law trumps state law reguardless how you look at it She took an oath to uphold the law since there is no law she shouldn't have been put in jail
^ see more opinion. It's his. He is entitled to it, but it's not settled. It wasn't a personal attack on anyone. Just pointing it out. It's important the random person who possibly could stumble across this thread know that. Dumb ideologues are dumb. Good luck. Don't care anymore.
Also if she did violate her oath the only thing the court can do is fine her a certain amount of money not jail time she was not in contempt of court
Actually if you don't do what a judge orders you to do you are in contempt and judges have lots of options to punish you
Look the religious freedoms act protects public officials from being forced to violate their personal believes IF the official is willing to provided accommodations. Which this late has no problem doing. The federal judge did not take this into account. They will argue this, the state of Kentucky will most likely make the required changes for her to keep doing her job. I'm curious to see this play out. It's still up to Kim Davies, she didn't follow the guidelines out forth in that act. Welcome to America.
Actually, yes, it is the law of the land because the Supreme Court said so. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is, or is not, Constitutional. (See Marbury v. Madison). And alleged majority rule does not trump Constitutional rights. Remember, it is through this same Court and rule of law, that we have rights, including the right to bear arms and many others that no-one wants questioned. If you dislike their decisions, there are means to rechallenge those decisions, and ways to legislate changes to the Constitution. This what the Constitution, and the entire US legal system is about. Many people disagree with Supreme Court decisions. That does not suddenly render those decisions unenforceable. In this instance, Ms. Davies, acting as an official government agent, decided to impose her personal beliefs on people, in violation of the law of the land, including the First Amendment wherein the government shall not establish a religion. She appealed to the Supreme Court, and they refused her. She was found in contempt of Court and jailed until the Clerks in her office started following the law. She is not a religious objector, she is exactly what religious objectors hate - someone who uses a position of authority to take away others' Constitutional rights. And there is no viable argument to the contrary.
This thread is still running? Davies is free from jail. She has kept her job. The state is removing her name from the marriage liscense and gays can still tie the knot in her county. Everyone wins. YAY! So, let's all kick back and have a beer, as it seems common sense has won out in the real world
We are still going to test the freedom of religion act Moose. It will the first major test since it was passed. It needs settled. No one cares what these people think, people want to test it out. That's all. I'm not sure exactly how they will go about it, but her rights may have been violated is my best understanding.
People who said, "this would be different if it were a Muslim person," Are right. September 6, this Sunday on express jet a woman named Charee Stanley was put under suspension because she refused to serve alcohol due to her beliefs. If you've heard of this story, which I doubt most of you have, you'd notice how this went with so little air coverage. No conservatives, no Mike Huckabee flying over to support her. Charee is virtually invisible. Of course I guess because the conservatives only like to support white Christians, would explain that. If you want a link I could post one too.
She marries straight people now. She did that in protest at the fact that she couldn't get married but now she can like everyone else hence no issue. She didn't marry any gay ppl during that time either. You failed to say that tho typical old tha don being as ignorant as usual. Btw your clan sucks so bad now. No wonder with you leading I'm sure your clannies read some of your d posts over the summer
Judge Tonya Parker refused to perform any wedding ceremonies. However, she would politely lead people to the chambers of judges one door down. She did not stop people from getting married and she did not shove her beliefs in their faces. She did not inconvenience anyone, and she did not discriminate against anyone. Unlike Ms. Davies who used her position to push her personal agenda on people as a government official, preventing, impeding, and insulting people who wanted to exercise their Constitutional Rights. Keep digging. You don't have an argument in this one, so keep trying to make false comparisons that ultimately show how far you have to twist things to feel justified.