TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Federal court rules against Obamacare Plan B requirement for a NON-religious organization - March for Life

Ohfour · Hooker

Good new two days straight!!!!!! Yesterday, the KY court clerk was released from jail and on 8/31, LIFE won!!!!!!

Liberal heads must be twisting and mouths vomiting peas soup! Can you IMAGINE?????

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Can we finally return State's to their own laws? The foundation of this Country!

WYSIWYG · Guru

Good new two days straight!!!!!! Yesterday, the KY court clerk was released from jail and on 8/31, LIFE won!!!!!!
- Ohfour

______________________________

I believe that the Kentucky clerk being released from jail wasn't the win you believe it to be. She was released only because the office was issuing licenses, and the judge felt keeping her in jail would serve no purpose. She was released and ordered to not interfere with the issuance of licenses from her office, if she interferes (and I believe that she will) she will find herself right back in jail.

Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite.

I don't agree with the ruling either. I have the same disagreement that I've had since the Hobby Lobby decision. If the mandate for Birth Control is invalid for one, for any reason; it should be invalid for all.

weltschmerz · Guru

"Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite."

Exactly! I'm sure folks wouldn't be too pleased if they went to their DMV office and saw this sign.

"Due to my religion (praise Allah and blessed be his name!), I will not be issuing driver's licences to women. Thank you for respecting our religious beliefs."

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Well, they came to a compromise. Her second in command will be issuing the licenses. And quite frankly, I don't give a rat's arse who issues my drivers license as long as it's legal and I can walk out with it. So if that means the second in charge at the DMV has to do it, I'm fine with that. Doesn't bother me one little bit.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
"Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite."

Exactly! I'm sure folks wouldn't be too pleased if they went to their DMV office and saw this sign.
"Due to my religion (praise Allah and blessed be his name!), I will not be issuing driver's licences to women. Thank you for respecting our religious beliefs."

You would be the first one yelling that she shouldn't have to violate Allah. confuse

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Good.

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
"Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite."

Exactly! I'm sure folks wouldn't be too pleased if they went to their DMV office and saw this sign.
"Due to my religion (praise Allah and blessed be his name!), I will not be issuing driver's licences to women. Thank you for respecting our religious beliefs."

Do you even read? If so, do you have a hard time retaining information? Evidently...

The office is still going to issue licenses. She will not issue one to a gay couple, but any of her clerks will. Her name has been removed from the licenses, as per her request. There is no sign, that says anything like you ignorant post. And if I went to the DVM and the muslim guy behind the counter didn't want to serve me because I had on a strapless dress, as long as someone there would, I wouldn't really give a rats ass. I wouldn.t want to deal with him anyway...

weltschmerz · Guru

"Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite."

I was responding to the above. I agree with it totally. Where does it end? We have Muslim stewardesses refusing to serve alcohol to passengers, court clerks refusing to issue marriage licences, Somali cabbies refusing to pick up passengers who have a bottle of wine or a seeing eye dog with them. Next, we'll be having fast food workers refusing to handle bacon cheeseburgers, waiters refusing to serve pork ribs and womwn demanding to work at Hooters in a burqa.

JUST DO YOUR DAMN JOB!!

Lindley · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
"Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite."

I was responding to the above. I agree with it totally. Where does it end? We have Muslim stewardesses refusing to serve alcohol to passengers, court clerks refusing to issue marriage licences, Somali cabbies refusing to pick up passengers who have a bottle of wine or a seeing eye dog with them. Next, we'll be having fast food workers refusing to handle bacon cheeseburgers, waiters refusing to serve pork ribs and womwn demanding to work at Hooters in a burqa.

JUST DO YOUR DAMN JOB!!

Fire them or place them in a different position. You should not be arrested for not doing your job. Yes The supreme court ruled it legal. My goodness there are a lot of federal workers who break federal laws including presidents,senators,and congressmen who break federal laws worse then this woman and they are not put in jail.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, when Obama actually follows the law, then you can have something to Squawk about.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Lindley wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
"Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite."

I was responding to the above. I agree with it totally. Where does it end? We have Muslim stewardesses refusing to serve alcohol to passengers, court clerks refusing to issue marriage licences, Somali cabbies refusing to pick up passengers who have a bottle of wine or a seeing eye dog with them. Next, we'll be having fast food workers refusing to handle bacon cheeseburgers, waiters refusing to serve pork ribs and womwn demanding to work at Hooters in a burqa.

JUST DO YOUR DAMN JOB!!
Fire them or place them in a different position. You should not be arrested for not doing your job. Yes The supreme court ruled it legal. My goodness there are a lot of federal workers who break federal laws including presidents,senators,and congressmen who break federal laws worse then this woman and they are not put in jail.

How about let's start jailing the ones that NEED jailing. Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, and a few others.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yeah, really. But, let's focus on some no name clerk in Kentucky instead, lol.

Honeys_Mom · Mod & Permanent Board Sweetheart

Ohfour wrote:
Good new two days straight!!!!!! Yesterday, the KY court clerk was released from jail and on 8/31, LIFE won!!!!!!

Liberal heads must be twisting and mouths vomiting peas soup! Can you IMAGINE?????

LOL Ohfour... such a mental image. biggrin

Lindley · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Lindley wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
"Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite."

I was responding to the above. I agree with it totally. Where does it end? We have Muslim stewardesses refusing to serve alcohol to passengers, court clerks refusing to issue marriage licences, Somali cabbies refusing to pick up passengers who have a bottle of wine or a seeing eye dog with them. Next, we'll be having fast food workers refusing to handle bacon cheeseburgers, waiters refusing to serve pork ribs and womwn demanding to work at Hooters in a burqa.

JUST DO YOUR DAMN JOB!!
Fire them or place them in a different position. You should not be arrested for not doing your job. Yes The supreme court ruled it legal. My goodness there are a lot of federal workers who break federal laws including presidents,senators,and congressmen who break federal laws worse then this woman and they are not put in jail.
How about let's start jailing the ones that NEED jailing. Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, and a few others.

I agree.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Right, let's not bother with the REAL criminals. You know, the ones that steal MILLIONS of dollars from us or commit other serious crimes. Let's just lock up an old lady who doesn't want to issue marriage certificates because of her religious beliefs.

Oh, and if she had been Muslim the law would have bent over backward accommodating her.

Lindley · Guru

She was jailed to make a example out of her. They could have just fired her or given her a different position.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lindley wrote:
She was jailed to make a example out of her. They could have just fired her or given her a different position.

I think people are missing the point. She is an elected official. She can't be fired. Nor can you just move her to another job. She could be impeached or they could charge her with official misconduct.

-- Edited by Lady Gaga Snerd on Thursday 10th of September 2015 02:38:32 PM

Lindley · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lindley wrote:
She was jailed to make a example out of her. They could have just fired her or given her a different position.
I think people are missing the point. She is an elected official. She can't be fired. She could be impeached or they could charge her with official misconduct.

They should just impeach her then. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. Of course they didn't vote to remove him as president if I remember correctly.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, that is up to the State of Kentucky. If their house of reps want to move to impeach her, they may. Or, they may not.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And, Kentucky doesnt' allow recall elections. Let the voters decide if they like her actions or not.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lindley wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
"Also her whole stance on this is actually a loss for those of us that believe, not only in various religions, but also in the separation of Church and State. When one clerk can use her beliefs to determine what her government office will do, another can do the same thing in their government office. Once government offices are run according to the religious beliefs of those in the offices, there will be no more freedom of religion. What if the religious beliefs of a government office you need to deal with aren't the same as your beliefs? What then? If you support Kim Davis' efforts, you cannot fight against the efforts of believers in a different religion without being a hypocrite."

I was responding to the above. I agree with it totally. Where does it end? We have Muslim stewardesses refusing to serve alcohol to passengers, court clerks refusing to issue marriage licences, Somali cabbies refusing to pick up passengers who have a bottle of wine or a seeing eye dog with them. Next, we'll be having fast food workers refusing to handle bacon cheeseburgers, waiters refusing to serve pork ribs and womwn demanding to work at Hooters in a burqa.

JUST DO YOUR DAMN JOB!!
Fire them or place them in a different position. You should not be arrested for not doing your job. Yes The supreme court ruled it legal. My goodness there are a lot of federal workers who break federal laws including presidents,senators,and congressmen who break federal laws worse then this woman and they are not put in jail.

Well, she can't simply be fired - she is an elected official. There is a procedure called "mandamus" where you file for court order to require a government official to do their job and if they don't, they are held in contempt - which is what was used here.

However, one of the problems we have is that there is no written law that is being enforced. Sure, the Supreme Court handed down a decision, but there are no legislative laws in place.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lindley wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lindley wrote:
She was jailed to make a example out of her. They could have just fired her or given her a different position.
I think people are missing the point. She is an elected official. She can't be fired. She could be impeached or they could charge her with official misconduct.
They should just impeach her then. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. Of course they didn't vote to remove him as president if I remember correctly.

They could. Next legislative session. In February...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lindley wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lindley wrote:
She was jailed to make a example out of her. They could have just fired her or given her a different position.
I think people are missing the point. She is an elected official. She can't be fired. She could be impeached or they could charge her with official misconduct.
They should just impeach her then. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. Of course they didn't vote to remove him as president if I remember correctly.

Think of impeachment as "indictment". The House impeaches, and the Senate tries the case. The Senate did not convict him.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Let the voters of Kentucky decide if she is doing her job.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Yeah, really. But, let's focus on some no name clerk in Kentucky instead, lol.

Oh, please...She WANTED her lousy 15 minutes of "fame."

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Yeah, really. But, let's focus on some no name clerk in Kentucky instead, lol.
Oh, please...She WANTED her lousy 15 minutes of "fame."
flan

Excuse me? She simply refused to do something - she didn't put it in the news. Are you claiming her religious beliefs are nothing more than a political stunt?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Yeah, really. But, let's focus on some no name clerk in Kentucky instead, lol.
Oh, please...She WANTED her lousy 15 minutes of "fame."
flan
Excuse me? She simply refused to do something - she didn't put it in the news. Are you claiming her religious beliefs are nothing more than a political stunt?

Not at all, but she wanted publicity. She could have refused to talk to all those reporters.

flan

Lindley · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Lindley wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lindley wrote:
She was jailed to make a example out of her. They could have just fired her or given her a different position.
I think people are missing the point. She is an elected official. She can't be fired. She could be impeached or they could charge her with official misconduct.
They should just impeach her then. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. Of course they didn't vote to remove him as president if I remember correctly.
Think of impeachment as "indictment". The House impeaches, and the Senate tries the case. The Senate did not convict him.

That's right. I remember now. that was a long time ago.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Yeah, really. But, let's focus on some no name clerk in Kentucky instead, lol.
Oh, please...She WANTED her lousy 15 minutes of "fame."
flan
Excuse me? She simply refused to do something - she didn't put it in the news. Are you claiming her religious beliefs are nothing more than a political stunt?
Not at all, but she wanted publicity. She could have refused to talk to all those reporters.
flan

Why should she refuse talk? She can explain her position too.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Yeah, really. But, let's focus on some no name clerk in Kentucky instead, lol.
Oh, please...She WANTED her lousy 15 minutes of "fame."
flan
Excuse me? She simply refused to do something - she didn't put it in the news. Are you claiming her religious beliefs are nothing more than a political stunt?
Not at all, but she wanted publicity. She could have refused to talk to all those reporters.
flan
Why should she refuse talk? She can explain her position too.

Seriously? People ask her questions and she's at fault for answering them?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And the whole Muslim comparison is dumb. Because she didn't refuse to just issue licenses to gays. She refused to issue licenses to EVERYONE. So no, not only did she not have a sign on the wall if it was a Muslim the comparison would be he refused to issue drivers licenses to all.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
And the whole Muslim comparison is dumb. Because she didn't refuse to just issue licenses to gays. She refused to issue licenses to EVERYONE. So no, not only did she not have a sign on the wall if it was a Muslim the comparison would be he refused to issue drivers licenses to all.

I had not read that, NJN.

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
And the whole Muslim comparison is dumb. Because she didn't refuse to just issue licenses to gays. She refused to issue licenses to EVERYONE. So no, not only did she not have a sign on the wall if it was a Muslim the comparison would be he refused to issue drivers licenses to all.
I had not read that, NJN.
flan

Well, that is a fact. She stopped signing ALL licenses. People are making comparisons and assumptions and they don't even have all the facts straight.