TH3 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R13S220150901 Figgered most of you would be all over this typical public worker - not working, can't be fired, making $80k plus bennies..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R13S220150901 Figgered most of you would be all over this typical public worker - not working, can't be fired, making $80k plus bennies..... Your terrible thread title, and intentionally mocking and inflammatory post aside, this is actually the first I'd heard of this. If this were a private business which she owned, I would defend her, but as an employee of a the government, she should be fired. The government, since we all own it collectively, must not ever be in the business of discriminating, otherwise justice breaks down. Likewise, if she were an employee of a private company, and the private company opposed her position, she should be fired if that's what the company desired. To the rest of your point, this is one of the major problems with public sector unions. Edited September 1, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Your terrible thread title, and intentionally mocking and inflammatory post aside, this is actually the first I'd heard of this. If this were a private business which she owned, I would defend her, but as an employee of a the government, she should be fired. The government, since we all own it collectively, must not ever be in the business of discriminating, otherwise justice breaks down. Likewise, if she were an employee of a private company, and the private company opposed her position, she should be fired if that's what the company desired. To the rest of your point, this is one of the major problems with public sector unions. She's elected, thus can't be fired. Plus, if she could be and were fired, she's have a good case for religious discrimination. Labor regulations require an employer to make "reasonable accommodations" for religious beliefs. And while firing someone for not doing their job is okay; firing someone for not doing their job because of a religious objection to part of it, without attempting to provide accommodation, would be discrimination. Note, too, that most of the stories are inaccurate. She's not refusing to issue marriage licenses to just gays. She's refusing to issue them to anybody, She's not actually discriminating - she's giving everyone equal treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I am laughing my ass off at this. Muh freedoms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R13S220150901 Figgered most of you would be all over this typical public worker - not working, can't be fired, making $80k plus bennies..... The fact that she's making $80K+ for that job in Kentucky in bad enough. But it's the media's need to make a celebrity of her that is really infuriating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 The fact that she's making $80K+ for that job in Kentucky in bad enough. But it's the media's need to make a celebrity of her that is really infuriating. You must admit she is perfect to figurehead the oppression. She's a plain jane middle aged woman wearing a dress that she likely bought from KMart or Walmart and probably flats from Payless. She's not dressed fancy, like you'd figure. She looks very domesticated and like a housewife, not to mention has a demeanor displayed in these videos as quiet and withheld. She is the perfect face for what is going on. She is the perfect victim to the oppressors. The perfect bully to be bullied by the anti-bullies. She has no chance, and I am sure people are trying to get her removed from office by executive order, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 !@#$ that she should be transferred just like that Muslim sales clerk who refused to handle alcohol and pork products -or fired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R13S220150901 Figgered most of you would be all over this typical public worker - not working, can't be fired, making $80k plus bennies..... What a false title to your OP. Why didn't you just link the Peter Pan pic instead? It would be about as pertinent to your title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 She's elected, thus can't be fired. Plus, if she could be and were fired, she's have a good case for religious discrimination. Labor regulations require an employer to make "reasonable accommodations" for religious beliefs. And while firing someone for not doing their job is okay; firing someone for not doing their job because of a religious objection to part of it, without attempting to provide accommodation, would be discrimination. Note, too, that most of the stories are inaccurate. She's not refusing to issue marriage licenses to just gays. She's refusing to issue them to anybody, She's not actually discriminating - she's giving everyone equal treatment. Huh, after reading that article I had no idea she was elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Well color me shocked... Who says conservatives play it safe! Interesting points DC... Can't they just get somebody else to issue the license to the gay couples? OR does she have to sign every single one in the county. Can't a deputy/assistant have the same ability? Edited September 2, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) You must admit she is perfect to figurehead the oppression. She's a plain jane middle aged woman wearing a dress that she likely bought from KMart or Walmart and probably flats from Payless. She's not dressed fancy, like you'd figure. She looks very domesticated and like a housewife, not to mention has a demeanor displayed in these videos as quiet and withheld. She is the perfect face for what is going on. She is the perfect victim to the oppressors. The perfect bully to be bullied by the anti-bullies. She has no chance, and I am sure people are trying to get her removed from office by executive order, etc. Of course she is. And that's all part of what's so annoying. It's all framed like a live action play just for our amusement and so we can post "I'm outraged at this!!" on Facebook. Gimmie a !@#$ing break. So some ignorant hick refuses to perform her lawful duty. Can that really not be handled at the local level, without an ongoing national spotlight? Are thousands of County Clerks conspiring to systematically deny gay rights? Are gays are being treated like blacks trying to register to vote in Mississippi in the early 60s? Is there going to be a great "victory" when this women is eventually booted from her job? Does this need to be extrapolated into some global political commentary? No. It's just another stupid story of the day to give the idiots something to write about to get people all worked up. btw, #KONY2012!!! Edited September 2, 2015 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Hey, the present administration doesn't follow the law, and nothing happens to them............. Justice Scalia explains why Kim Davis should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or find a new job. Hillary ignores the law. She hasn’t been charged. And, hey, Kim Davis is an elected Democrat, so why bother following the law? . Edited September 2, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Hey, the present administration doesn't follow the law, and nothing happens to them............. Justice Scalia explains why Kim Davis should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or find a new job. Hillary ignores the law. She hasn’t been charged. And, hey, Kim Davis is an elected Democrat, so why bother following the law? I completely agree with Scalia. I also prefer your justification to Davis'. "Other elected officials follow the laws selectively. Why shouldn't I? I have a phone and a pen..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 What takes precedent, Church or State? Break the laws of your religion or break the laws of your country. Can't somebody else issue the license in their name. ?? She probably does selectively break the laws of her religion (ie: like "Cafeteria Catholics", etc...). So what is the big deal here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 What takes precedent, Church or State? Break the laws of your religion or break the laws of your country. Can't somebody else issue the license in their name. ?? She probably does selectively break the laws of her religion (ie: like "Cafeteria Catholics", etc...). So what is the big deal here? ; The State says Church does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Aaaaand jailed for contempt. Well, let's see how strongly she believes in the pen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Aaaaand jailed for contempt. Well, let's see how strongly she believes in the pen... I'd use it as a free health & fitness plan! She can stand to lose a few pounds... :-) Take maybe a year or two... Bank that 80k a year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Yet another Democrat official arrested for violating the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Aaaaand jailed for contempt. Well, let's see how strongly she believes in the pen... As well she should be. The legal responsibilities of the job are not supposed to be a buffet you can pick and choose from. Well color me shocked... Who says conservatives play it safe! Interesting points DC... Can't they just get somebody else to issue the license to the gay couples? OR does she have to sign every single one in the county. Can't a deputy/assistant have the same ability? Depends on the local and state law, I'd guess. If the law explicitly says the town clerk has to sign, probably not. Though that would mean no license are being issued currently, since she's in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) They didn't want her thrown in jail... Didn't they want fines? But, the judge threw her in jail. Like that will have any effect on a true religious zealot (if she really is one)? Wouldn't jail just galvanize their ideals even more. If it was really important to me, I would rot in there. 3 hots and a cot. When's the next election? Maybe she would just wait it out. Something this major and having to put your name on a license going against your God... Isn't that major? Don't the laws of God come first over country? I wonder if she will crack... I hope she doesn't. Edited September 4, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 They didn't want her thrown in jail... Didn't they want fines? But, the judge threw her in jail. Like that will have any effect on a true religious zealot (if she really is one)? Wouldn't jail just galvanize their ideals even more. If it was really important to me, I would rot in there. 3 hots and a cot. When's the next election? Maybe she would just wait it out. Something this major and having to put your name on a license going against your God... Isn't that major? Don't the laws of God come first over country? I wonder if she will crack... I hope she doesn't. you really want to make a mockery of this? Fine her $500,000. In an hour she would have $500,001 donated to pay it. Hell, any bail is the same thing. Go read that link that B-Man posted. There is absolutely no easy way out of this and someone is going to be left holding the bag of **** and it sure as hell ain't going to be the lady in jail right now, as crazy as that sounds. Does the Democratic governor have the balls to stand up in a Republican state and issue an order against state law? Does the Federal judge risk making an order further separating state and country by telling the deputy clerks to circumvent state and local law? Does Obama step in (HA!)? Does the lady cave and give up? Does the Gov call a special session of the state government to order to attempt to change the law here? This is not a soap opera. This is not an issue of romantic religious ideologies. This is an issue of state rights vs. federal rights. If anyone thinks it is more then they are lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 you really want to make a mockery of this? Fine her $500,000. In an hour she would have $500,001 donated to pay it. Hell, any bail is the same thing. Go read that link that B-Man posted. There is absolutely no easy way out of this and someone is going to be left holding the bag of **** and it sure as hell ain't going to be the lady in jail right now, as crazy as that sounds. Does the Democratic governor have the balls to stand up in a Republican state and issue an order against state law? Does the Federal judge risk making an order further separating state and country by telling the deputy clerks to circumvent state and local law? Does Obama step in (HA!)? Does the lady cave and give up? Does the Gov call a special session of the state government to order to attempt to change the law here? This is not a soap opera. This is not an issue of romantic religious ideologies. This is an issue of state rights vs. federal rights. If anyone thinks it is more then they are lost. The bolded. There's ample precedent, and not many would have a problem with it, because very few people see this as anything other than a "Gays good/bad!" issue. I'll say it again: were I a state governor, I would have suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses with the Supreme Court's decision, on the basis that if the federal government is assuming the responsibility of defining marriage from the states, they can assume the responsibility of licensing it as well. That would be an appropriate line in the sand, not what this friggin' dingbat is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 The bolded. There's ample precedent, and not many would have a problem with it, because very few people see this as anything other than a "Gays good/bad!" issue. I'll say it again: were I a state governor, I would have suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses with the Supreme Court's decision, on the basis that if the federal government is assuming the responsibility of defining marriage from the states, they can assume the responsibility of licensing it as well. That would be an appropriate line in the sand, not what this friggin' dingbat is doing. but think of the children Jesus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 but think of the children Jesus! I am thinking of Jesus. He's doing the lawn right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I am thinking of Jesus. He's doing the lawn right now. Poor Tom. He gets to see other people being outside in the sun, he just can't join them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Poor Tom. He gets to see other people being outside in the sun, he just can't join them... What do I need the sun for, when you're the light of my life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Can opened, worms all over the floor.... The Supremes ruled that gays have a "right" to marriage, while this lady has claimed her Constitutional right of religious freedom. The 1st states that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment, nor the free exercise thereof..... " In it, we have a challenge of a Constitutional right vs a perceived right through case law. This very act seems to say that case law can trump the Constitution. If that is in fact the case, how long before we begin to force churches and pastors to violate their beliefs or be thrown in jail? Personally, I like Tom's idea... Since the fed decided to interject, let them now bare the responsibility of issuing licenses... Or, just give it back to the churches where it started.. Why the F### is the government involved anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Crap, I thought this was another Obama thread, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) 2 summers during college my dad made me work "blue collar jobs" so that "I would know what I'd be doing if I didn't finish". It may surpise, but college was touch and go for me for quite a while. I wasted a lot of time, and $(thankfully not mine, or my family's), not realizing that perspective on a subject is just as important as the content. When that pentrated my skull, class became important, and taking tests, getting Bs, and not showing up for class, ever, became less cool. I wised up. I should have got my MBA, but, like a junior that leaves school early for the draft: when I got my schit together, the $ was there. Given all this wonderful sentiment? I'm highly qualified to tell all of you: "the working man" is often the "punch in at 7am, on time, always...so that we can take the truck 40 minutes away and eat breakfast for an hour" man. He's the "I'm a master welder, plumber, electrician and see this belt buckle? National Champion backhoe guy(no, really, I have seen the buckle), so I do what I want". The hilarious part for people like me, given the balancing act I've done working my job in traditional blue collar industries? "It's not bragging if you can do it" applies just as much to CEOs as it does belt buckle guy. Both of them will talk schit in the bar: it's only a matter of which bar. The bottom line: Everbody who truly believes they are competent has a line. They won't cross it, because doing so makes them incompetent. This is the #1 premise of my methodology: those lines can be all over the place. But, when we start demanding that everybody have the same line? We not only lose liberty, we lose individuality. Edited September 5, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Crap, I thought this was another Obama thread, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 The bolded. There's ample precedent, and not many would have a problem with it, because very few people see this as anything other than a "Gays good/bad!" issue. I'll say it again: were I a state governor, I would have suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses with the Supreme Court's decision, on the basis that if the federal government is assuming the responsibility of defining marriage from the states, they can assume the responsibility of licensing it as well. That would be an appropriate line in the sand, not what this friggin' dingbat is doing. Yep... I have been saying it for years. Make everybody equal and recognize nothing. Feds want to pick and choose... Leave it up to them. See the mess they made with immigration. LoL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Can opened, worms all over the floor.... The Supremes ruled that gays have a "right" to marriage, while this lady has claimed her Constitutional right of religious freedom. The 1st states that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment, nor the free exercise thereof..... " In it, we have a challenge of a Constitutional right vs a perceived right through case law. This very act seems to say that case law can trump the Constitution. If that is in fact the case, how long before we begin to force churches and pastors to violate their beliefs or be thrown in jail? Personally, I like Tom's idea... Since the fed decided to interject, let them now bare the responsibility of issuing licenses... Or, just give it back to the churches where it started.. Why the F### is the government involved anyway? Historically, marriages originated with governments, not religion. The Church should stay out of Government business! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Historically, marriages originated with governments, not religion. The Church should stay out of Government business! Historic ally, religion and government were one and the same. Separation of church and state is less than 300 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 For the gov't... Tax everybody as an individual. A woman in today's day does not need to be tied to a man's name. No riding the coattails of another. Everybody, gender, straight, gay, whatever need to make their mark in the world. Only reason people get married in the eyes of the state is for benefits. Where is it going to stop if society keeps liberalizing everything. We are headed to financial ruin. Both sides of every equation needs to be balanced. There is no reason why gov't can't start separating itself from the whole union/marriage business. Everybody is an individual connected to their own name. Gov't should just get out of the whole union/marriage business. Everybody fend for themselves in this world. Minor children of course can latch on to one of the parents benefits. If people want to get married, do it in the eyes of their God and/or religion only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 For the gov't... Tax everybody as an individual. A woman in today's day does not need to be tied to a man's name. No riding the coattails of another. Everybody, gender, straight, gay, whatever need to make their mark in the world. Only reason people get married in the eyes of the state is for benefits. Where is it going to stop if society keeps liberalizing everything. We are headed to financial ruin. Both sides of every equation needs to be balanced. There is no reason why gov't can't start separating itself from the whole union/marriage business. Everybody is an individual connected to their own name. Gov't should just get out of the whole union/marriage business. Everybody fend for themselves in this world. Minor children of course can latch on to one of the parents benefits. If people want to get married, do it in the eyes of their God and/or religion only. There are other legal benefits outside taxes. Property ownership, inheritance...and one of the big motivators for gay marriage has been medical. Practices at the start of the AIDS epidemic, where long-term partners could be barred from seeing a dying partner by family who'd been estranged for 20 years, are a significant and mostly forgotten issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) There are other legal benefits outside taxes. Property ownership, inheritance...and one of the big motivators for gay marriage has been medical. Practices at the start of the AIDS epidemic, where long-term partners could be barred from seeing a dying partner by family who'd been estranged for 20 years, are a significant and mostly forgotten issue. I know... It is is so sticky. But if rules and structure are broken down, liberalized... Where does it all end? What about plural marriages? Why is that discriminated against and considered "wrong." Whatever floats your boat right? Edited September 6, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 What about plural marriages? Why is that discriminated against and considered "wrong." Whatever floats your boat right? It's already gone to court. I'm waiting for the result before I file for the right to marry my cats. I really need the extra tax deductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 It's already gone to court. I'm waiting for the result before I file for the right to marry my cats. I really need the extra tax deductions. /priceless Don't give my wife and her three cats any ideas! Maybe I should go in the basement and start digging out the camping gear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Historically, marriages originated with governments, not religion. The Church should stay out of Government business! Good idea... And maybe government should reciprocate?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) Good idea... And maybe government should reciprocate?? The seperation between church and state SHOULD put neither above the other. Gay marriage just may be the donnybrook that destroys that equilibrium. Be careful what some wish for. We are the land of good intentions and unintended consequences! Unfortunately, both sides do not know how to moderate. There is absolutely no compromise w/this debate. One side wants recognition and equality while the other side treats it as a sin akin to murder. How the heck can this resolve itself? Edited September 6, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts