Careful what you say in relation to the threads you're in. This could be some odd innuendo.
Heh! Maybe it was intend....annnnd....maybe it wasn't.
Careful what you say in relation to the threads you're in. This could be some odd innuendo.
It's so difficult to decide when civil disobedience is going to be sanctioned and when it's going to be denounced around here...
Well, not really.
This is not about liberty, this is about an agenda. If you're not a subscriber, you will pay a price.
This county clerk has an agenda, the governor is telling him to follow the law. The county clerk is denying the liberty of a right for gays to be married. Especially as a public servant you have no legal liberty to cherry pick the laws you choose to follow.
Precisely. When the one county clerk I heard of from my home state of Mississippi had an issue with it she did the right thing and resigned her position, so it could be filled by someone who could do their duty. They took an oath of office and have to do their job, (just like the rest of us). The governor in KY has already told them they could be facing penalties, including removal from office or even criminal penalties. Do your job or get out. It ain't rocket surgery.
Sounds like a statist to me...kinda reminds me of this sort of meme:
Let me get this straight.. This county clerk, a public servant, is refusing to step down from his post that requires him to execute lawful marriage licenses. He is refusing to do his job, because of self-righteousness issues, and is therefore unable to do the duties as required by the job. He should be relieved from this post, but this OK apparently? It is now OK to keep people in a government position that cannot perform their duty?
Let me get this straight..It is now OK to keep people in a government position that cannot perform their duty?
Let me get this straight.. This county clerk, a public servant, is refusing to step down from his post that requires him to execute lawful marriage licenses. He is refusing to do his job, because of self-righteousness issues, and is therefore unable to do the duties as required by the job. He should be relieved from this post, but this OK apparently? It is now OK to keep people in a government position that cannot perform their duty?
So we no longer believe: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"? Just because 5 judges said something ought to be a law doesn't mean it's just.
I understand there is a lot of butt-hurt to go around because of it.
Whether it is just or not is a matter of opinion. The Supreme Court decided it was just. I understand there is a lot of butt-hurt to go around because of it. If he wants to disobey, then he should step down and start a constitutional amendment movement to ban gay marriage.
So we no longer believe: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"? Just because 5 judges said something ought to be a law doesn't mean it's just.
So if it comes to it, a repeat of Japanese internment camps should be followed because the president ordered it and the Supremes upheld it. No civil disobedience allowed.
Is this the butt hurt we are looking for?
Apologetics Press - Gay Man Sues Bible Publishers Over ?Homosexual? Reference
Also known as the "Nazi defense"......
"But I was just following orders from our legal Government...If the Government says it is just I have no moral obligation but to obey the Government...Now where is the pilot light for that oven???? Looks like God's chosen people just got chosen by my Government to hop in this Government oven..."
Remember the "Occupy Movement"????? Illegal to set up camp in the park but they did it anyway.......Let's pull up those threads and see what our resident "Freedom Fighters" thought about those folks breaking the law....Should be interesting.....
Statists always are.....
I would imagine they couldn't just resign their position, as they probably would have been shot by the Nazis next to the people they intended to murder. Or they agreed with it and lied about having a conscience. If they really didn't condone it then it's either shoot or get shot, and you lose either way. The nazis were truly evil.
I think you've hit on something here. That's why it's being ignored.Yes. Like a certain president who won't enforce his own health care law, or see that illegal aliens are deported, or clean up the IRS?
You have a point. He cannot or will not perform his duty, and should resign.
Sadly (not really) that is kind of how our system works. The buck KINDA stops with the USSC doesn't it? They make decisions that I do not like, I may ***** and moan about it, but I still follow it. It is not being a "statist", it is obeying the Constitution that created the system we currently have. There are laws I do not agree with, some I have discretion, however, the vast majority I do not and must follow through with them even if I do not agree.So we no longer believe: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"? Just because 5 judges said something ought to be a law doesn't mean it's just.
Also known as the "Nazi defense"......
"But I was just following orders from our legal Government...If the Government says it is just I have no moral obligation but to obey the Government...Now where is the pilot light for that oven???? Looks like God's chosen people just got chosen by my Government to hop in this Government oven..."