State Constitution vs. US Constitution

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The losing side of any legal decision has to forsake their beliefs. You still have to accept the legal decision or face the consequences.

Putting Xians in jail until they forsake their beliefs (or die of old age) is likely to end up counter to Freedom of Religion.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Her freedom of religion does not give her cause to force it on someone else. What is this freedom of religion, anyway?

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Her freedom of religion does not give her cause to force it on someone else.

She is not forcing anyone to change their religious beliefs.

roger wrote:

What is this freedom of religion, anyway?

The right to not have your head chopped off if you disagree with Islamic State.

0 Replies

Kim Davis' life is not being destroyed, and if it were, it would be her own fault for raising a stink about doing the job she was hired to do. Far from ruining her life, she is likely to have a career on the fundamentalist chrisitian rubber chicken circuit for life.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Kim Davis' life is not being destroyed,

The people who lost their business and were then prevented from receiving donations from sympathizers, however, had a pretty severe disruption to their lives.

Setanta wrote:

and if it were, it would be her own fault for raising a stink about doing the job she was hired to do.

If she spent the rest of her life in jail because certain people wanted to force her to violate her religious beliefs, I would place the blame on the people who put her in jail in an attempt to force her to violate her religious beliefs.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The losing side of any legal decision has to forsake their beliefs. Let me explain this in terms you might understand.

There have been several government officials that have tried to follow their sincere belief by restricting access to handguns. There have been several judges who have told them that their beliefs were against the law and ordered these officials to issue legal handgun permits anyway.

Do you believe that a government official needs to forsake their beliefs that handguns are bad in the face of a judge's order? Do you believe that a government official should face sanctions if they defy a judge's order concerning the right to carry?

(I hope you understand this issue, Oralloy).

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Which business was that, and how is that relevant to Kim Davis' situation? Kim Davis is not going to spend the rest of her life in jail, get a grip. Finally, no one is attempting to force her to change her religious beliefs. In fact, she was using her religious beliefs in an obstructionist manner, and doing it for the publicity. If she sincerely held those beliefs, and her object was to reconcile her situation with her conscience, she would have resigned. Her life is not ruined, she'll be able to get a few bucks now and again for the rest of her life on the religious nutters dinner speaker circuit.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The losing side of any legal decision has to forsake their beliefs. Let me explain this in terms you might understand.

There have been several government officials that have tried to follow their sincere belief by restricting access to handguns. There have been several judges who have told them that their beliefs were against the law and ordered these officials to issue legal handgun permits anyway.

Do you believe that a government official needs to forsake their beliefs that handguns are bad in the face of a judge's order? Do you believe that a government official should face sanctions if they defy a judges order concerning the right to carry?

(I hope you understand this issue, Oralloy).

I don't think hatred of freedom is as protected as religious beliefs are.

However, if an official were to steadfastly refuse to issue permits to carry handguns in public, instead of putting that official in jail for the rest of their life, I would simply remove them from office.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I don't think hatred of freedom is as protected as religious beliefs are.

However, if an official were to steadfastly refuse to issue permits to carry handguns in public, instead of putting that official in jail for the rest of their life, I would simply remove them from office.

And what about the case of Kim Davis, who can't be removed from office? If Kim Davis were defying a judge's order to issue a handgun permit, what would you suggest the judge do (knowing that if he applies a fine, there will be hundreds of thousands of liberals who will gladly pay it making sure that Davis can continue to defy the order without any real cost to her).

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Which business was that,

I think it might be this one, but I'm not entirely sure:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/02/03/3618433/sweet-cakes-discrimination/

Setanta wrote:

and how is that relevant to Kim Davis' situation?

It isn't. It is relevant to the issue of gay rights activists ruining the lives of people who disagree with them.

Setanta wrote:

Kim Davis is not going to spend the rest of her life in jail, get a grip.

It has been suggested in this thread that she should stay in jail until she willingly violates her religious beliefs.

That suggestion, if enacted, would likely result in a lifetime stay in jail.

Setanta wrote:

Finally, no one is attempting to force her to change her religious beliefs.

Telling her she can only leave jail if she violates her religious beliefs seems an awful lot like force to me.

Setanta wrote:

In fact, she was using her religious beliefs in an obstructionist manner, and doing it for the publicity. If she sincerely held those beliefs, and her object was to reconcile her situation with her conscience, she would have resigned.

That would also be contrary to her religious beliefs.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

And what about the case of Kim Davis, who can't be removed from office?

Why can't she be removed from office???

maxdancona wrote:

If Kim Davis were defying a judge's order to issue a handgun permit, what would you suggest the judge do (knowing that if he applies a fine, there will be hundreds of thousands of liberals who will gladly pay it making sure that Davis can continue to defy the order without any real cost to her).

I'd suggest removing her from office.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

She can't be removed from office because she is an elected official. The judge suggested that she resign and she refused. The judge can't force her to resign.

The gun registration example is applicable. Without court protection, a community could restrict handgun ownership by refusing to issue reasonable gun licenses based only on the belief of local officials that handguns are bad. There have been several cases where judges have ordered local officials to issue reasonable gun permits in cases where they have been reluctant to do so.

If one of the elected local officials (who like Kim can't be forced to resign) refused to give out gun licenses where directed by a court order, what would you want done?

Should an elected official be able to defy the order of a judge (to issue gun permits)?

1 Reply

We had a slightly similar situation locally. A county commissioner was arrested a couple of times and routinely did not show up for council meetings, but because he was an elected official, there was nothing the board could do. They tried to revive some ancient, never used procedure to kick him off the board and a judge promptly put him back on. At least he failed to get re-elected.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

She can't be removed from office because she is an elected official.

Generally there is a process to remove elected officials. Like impeachment.

What happens if a public official is convicted of a crime and starts serving a long prison sentence? Does the office just remain vacant?

maxdancona wrote:

The gun registration example is applicable. Without court protection, a community could restrict handgun ownership by refusing to issue reasonable gun licenses based only on the belief of local officials that handguns are bad. There have been several cases where judges have ordered local officials to issue reasonable gun permits in cases where they have been reluctant to do so.

If one of the elected local officials (who like Kim can't be forced to resign) refused to give out gun licenses where directed by a court order, what would you want done?

I still say removal from office. I am unsure why this is impossible.

maxdancona wrote:

Should an elected official be able to defy the order of a judge (to issue gun permits)?

No. But removal from office seems to me to be the best answer.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I agree with you that removing Kim Davis from office would be the best solution. I am sure that if it were possible, they would have done so by now.

But yes, we agree that Kim Davis should be removed from office.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

But yes, we agree that Kim Davis should be removed from office.

Agreed.

I still don't get why it is impossible though. What would they do if she was in a coma for years?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

There is not an issue of "gay rights activists ruining the lives of people who disagree with them" just because you say there is. It continues to not be relevant to this discussion. Kim Davis can get out of gail tomorrow, and simply not interfere with county employees who legally issue marriage licenses to same sex couples--who me were in scripture she is enjoined to actively interfere with others because they (allegedly) do not follow the laws of her imaginary friend. You're really going off the deep end with your last claim about her religious beliefs. Those may be her personal beliefs, but they are not supported by scripture.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Well Setanta... I think you are wrong about religious beliefs. There is little doubt that she is following her religious belief (which is shared by by thousands of other religious people). The fact that you don't agree with it (even based on your particular interpretation of scripture) doesn't take away from the fact that she holds a religious belief that tells her not to issue licenses to same sex cultures.

It is not reasonable for anyone to judge the religious beliefs of others.... and there is no reason to suspect that she is not operating under her own sincerely held religious convictions.

The real point is that she is disobeying a judge's order and breaking her oath to uphold the law. The religious belief part is irrelevant.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

. . . Those may be her personal beliefs, but they are not supported by scripture.

State Constitution vs. US Constitution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know