Christian Martyrs

[mistermack]

As an elected official the most pertinent question is whether the court has the authority to compel her
to do any thing especially something she does not as an elected official believe she has authority to do

The reason why she is refusing to carry out her duty as a public servant is because of her religious belief. However as that public
servant she is obligated to do what she is employed to do regardless of anything else. Otherwise she is in breach of contract and
so could lose her job as a consequence. Whether she believes she has the authority to do what is incompatible with her religious
belief or not is just an excuse for her not to carry out all her duties to the letter of the law. But employees cannot get to decide
which parts of their job they want to do and which they do not. They have to do all of it regardless of whether they like it or not

Why do you have all those line breaks in the wrong places? Do you write in pdf files first or something?

If you switched to text files, you wouldn't get it.
Or you can paste it here : http://www.textfixer.com/tools/remove-line-breaks.php to remove it.

[JimC]

As an elected official the most pertinent question is whether the court has the authority to compel her
to do any thing especially something she does not as an elected official believe she has authority to do

The reason why she is refusing to carry out her duty as a public servant is because of her religious belief. However as that public
servant she is obligated to do what she is employed to do regardless of anything else. Otherwise she is in breach of contract and
so could lose her job as a consequence. Whether she believes she has the authority to do what is incompatible with her religious
belief or not is just an excuse for her not to carry out all her duties to the letter of the law. But employees cannot get to decide
which parts of their job they want to do and which they do not. They have to do all of it regardless of whether they like it or not

Why do you have all those line breaks in the wrong places? Do you write in pdf files first or something?

If you switched to text files, you wouldn't get it.
Or you can paste it here : http://www.textfixer.com/tools/remove-line-breaks.php to remove it.

I think it's simply part of his writing style. Somewhat eccentric, but I don't dislike it...

[Seth]

As an elected official the most pertinent question is whether the court has the authority to compel her
to do any thing especially something she does not as an elected official believe she has authority to do

The reason why she is refusing to carry out her duty as a public servant is because of her religious belief. However as that public
servant she is obligated to do what she is employed to do regardless of anything else. Otherwise she is in breach of contract and
so could lose her job as a consequence.

That would be true if she were a public employee. She is not an employee, she is an elected official. This means that she cannot "lose her job" by any means other than impeachment, a recall election, being replaced at a regular election, or pursuant to some state statute that prescribes specific punishments for non-feasance or malfeasance. As it happens, the Kentucky State Legislature has prescribed certain punishments for refusing to perform duties for certain elected officials in Kentucky and it sets forth the process for removing someone from office for "neglect of duty." It's a formal process and requires, in the case of a county clerk, a bill of impeachment, something that the Kentucky legislature has as yet declined to pursue.

Whether she believes she has the authority to do what is incompatible with her religious belief or not is just an excuse for her not to carry out all her duties to the letter of the law.

Of course it is, pending final adjudication by, ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States or the Kentucky Supreme Court, neither of which has ruled on her case.

As I said, whether she personally declines to sign a marriage license is not relevant to whether or not gay couples in that county are able to obtain a valid marriage license, so the complaint made by the gay couples involved against this particular individual must first be adjudicated and appealed if that's what is necessary. The question is whether their complaint is ripe for a court decision at all because, as I said, gay couples in Kentucky have no right to demand that a specific person sign their marriage license. Since they can obtain a marriage license from either her deputy clerks or from a county judge/executive, they do not appear to me to have a cause of action against the particular person they wish to coerce and force into signing their wedding license.

If the legislature of Kentucky feels that the gay couples are being denied their rights then the legislature can impeach the county clerk, but it has not done so.

In the meantime, any gay couples who want to obtain a valid marriage license in Kentucky can in fact do so, so the controversy here is entirely manufactured and is part of a radical political agenda by gays to force acceptance of their lifestyle upon those who may disagree with it.

While I have no objections at all to gays being "married" and enjoying all the legal rights that accrue to any married persons, the misuse of the law to attack one particular dissenting individual and pillory her in the press as an example of what happens if you dissent from the gay lifestyle is reprehensible, disgusting and evil and I hope the plaintiffs in this case do rot in hell, if there is a hell, for being complete assholes. They give homosexuals a bad name and they do far more harm to the cause of equal rights for gays than they do advance social acceptance of gays by society, which is NOT something that can be legislated. Persuading society to accept the gay lifestyle does not work when the methods chosen are militant, radical and offensive to the rights of others.

But employees cannot get to decide which parts of their job they want to do and which they do not. They have to do all of it regardless of whether they like it or not

Once again, she's not an "employee" she's an elected official. The distinction is important. While she has duties and obligations, enforcement of her duties and obligations is a complex matter of law.

[surreptitious57]

In the meantime any gay couples who want to obtain a valid marriage licence in Kentucky can in fact do so the
controversy here is entirely manufactured and is part of a radical political agenda by gays to force acceptance
of their lifestyle upon those who may disagree with it

The state of Kentucky allows gay marriage and when two gays from there go to a registry office to get married
they expect any elected official to be able to perform her duty. They were not there to force a radical agenda
They went there to get married. They had no idea they would be denied their legal right. They are not forcing
their lifestyle on anyone. Since no one in the state of Kentucky has to marry a gay unless they actually want to

[JimC]

"I'm not gay, but I've slept with a few of 'em. Hell, I even married one!"

[Seth]

In the meantime any gay couples who want to obtain a valid marriage licence in Kentucky can in fact do so the
controversy here is entirely manufactured and is part of a radical political agenda by gays to force acceptance
of their lifestyle upon those who may disagree with it

The state of Kentucky allows gay marriage and when two gays from there go to a registry office to get married
they expect any elected official to be able to perform her duty.

Well, their expectations are not necessarily the metric involved.

They were not there to force a radical agenda
They went there to get married.

Wrong.

They had no idea they would be denied their legal right.

Wrong. They knew full well they would be denied because they were part of a deliberate and calculated plan to target just such public officials to make examples of them, which is why several states and several different plaintiffs sued in federal court rather than the individuals simply going to a judge/executive in Kentucky to be issued a license.

They are not forcing
their lifestyle on anyone.

Sure they are. And they have a right to do so in the case of gay marriage, but that does not mean that any individual or society as a whole is obliged to cooperate or approve of their actions or their lifestyle. Disapproval of the gay lifestyle is just as much a civil right as being in a gay marriage is.

Since no one in the state of Kentucky has to marry a gay unless they actually want to

Indeed. But in this case, where the couple had plenty of other avenues to get a license to get married, they chose to pillory this one dissenting individual for political reasons and political reasons only, thus their successful efforts to have her jailed for standing by her religious beliefs. They chose to literally make a "federal case" out of it because they are radicals who want to force public social acceptance of gay marriage on everyone else by using the law to punish those who exercise their own religious beliefs by refusing to participate in such activities.

[surreptitious57]

where the couple had plenty of other avenues to get a license to get married they chose to pillory this one dissenting individual
for political reasons and political reasons only thus their successful efforts to have her jailed for standing by her religious belief

As I already said If religious belief prevents someone from doing what is required of them then they resign their position
That would actually be the honourable thing to do. So she did not have to go to jail. That was entirely her own choosing

[Seth]

where the couple had plenty of other avenues to get a license to get married they chose to pillory this one dissenting individual
for political reasons and political reasons only thus their successful efforts to have her jailed for standing by her religious belief

As I already said If religious belief prevents someone from doing what is required of them then they resign their position
That would actually be the honourable thing to do.

I don't disagree, but then again I'm not a voter in her county. She may be refusing to resign because the voters who elected her do not want her to resign.

So she did not have to go to jail. That was entirely her own choosing

No, it was the judge's choosing, not hers. As I said, the plaintiffs in the case failed to exhaust their options for obtaining a marriage license and failed to exhaust their rights of redress in the STATE COURTS, and so the federal judge should never have taken the case because it was not ripe for a decision by a federal court to begin with because their rights had not been denied. Thus, he was complicit in the oppression of the county clerk because he took up a case that he had no reason to take up other than to insert his own bias into the proceedings before it was time for him to do so.

[mistermack]

The couple had no obligation to look elsewhere.

They were being illegally discriminated against, by some ignorant cunt who wouldn't do her job.
Being elected doesn't give you carte-blanche to do whatever you like.
Neither does it give her voters any say whatsoever in the job that she does.

Their wishes apply only to who gets the job. After that, she's employed and paid for by the State machinery, and she has an obligation to put aside her own prejudices, and treat people equally without favour or prejudice.

If she disapproves of something, she should keep her fucking stupid mouth shut, and do her job. Just like all other people in public office have to do.