Great Depression of 2016

[hemet dennis]

No, I meant that she would be one of the ones who refused to provide marriage license to a mixed couple even after the law said you had to. Again, if she can't do her job as prescribed by law, she needs to quit.

As for the legislature affecting the courts... My understanding is that the legislature can most certainly tell the courts that they may not hear cases on a given topic. Might just be at the federal level though.

As for the police... From a city official's viewpoint, then yes they should be fired for failure to do their duty. Personally, I could care less if they write tickets. They are little more than revenue generators any more and any time they steal less money from the people is a good time.

Because issuing permits is an executive function. Courts rule on cases and executive branch administer the laws.

Quote:
You are confused about the relationship between the courts and legislature.

So anyone that goes on strike should be fired ? And people should just be allowed to drive however they want without getting a ticket ?

I'm somewhat surprised by the reaction of some of those here that will get chickens in an area that doesn't allow them, and want to fight the law.

She's in jail, she's not winning. Instead of wanting to rush to judgement maybe the legal system should be allowed to do it's job.

 

[MrsBrooke]

If you choose to follow that book, do so. But that doesn't mean you have to make everyone else do it. If you try that with me, I'll tell you what I REALLY think of it -- and it won't be pretty. It's not difficult to discredit it as a moral reference, or as a guidebook for law or public policy in the US. But, hey, if it motivates you personally, that's all fine and good.

I've read it, Old and New, every story, every page. There are far more verses about what not to eat than there are about homosexuality, yet those seem to be ignored with no problem. "Ah, but Jesus did away with the laws of the Old Testament". Really? Then why do you keep referencing things from the same section?

Perhaps a "real Christian" in that situation would remember to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and do her job. And also perhaps "...and when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets so that they might be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their recompense."

You and I agree on many things.

The Bible deals more often than not on how Christians are to treat OTHER Christians. An Atheist cannot be judged by the same standards as a Christian.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the Old Testament. Anyone who says he "did away with them" (I've heard that, too) has missed the point. The purpose of Jesus’ life and work was to fulfill both the Law (the books of Moses) and the Prophets (other Old Testament books). When Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets,” he did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. He meant that the purpose and message of the Law and the Prophets remain exactly the same. The purpose and message of the Law is to keep us on the narrow path.

And as for "Thou shalt not eat shrimp," yes, there are references to eating shellfish being a sin... Which is all fine and good... But there is a huge difference between eating a shrimp and stealing. Or eating shrimp and lying. Or eating shrimp and engaging in what some consider "abomination." The difference is sin that affects your body and your one, single person (ie: choosing to go against God's law and eat shrimp) or to commit a sin that affects other people and your SOUL. Lying affects your soul and deceives other people. Stealing affects your soul and puts hardship on other people. Fornicating affects your soul and another person (or other people). I was listening to a sermon just this past weekend. I didn't do it justice, but I hope I was able to make the distinction in a paragraph.

It is my opinion that if she is going to be "forced" to disregard her personal beliefs in this matter, she has NO OTHER CHOICE but to resign the position.

MrsB

 

[chiques chicks]

Subscribing.

 

[MrsBrooke]

Subscribing.

Welcome to the Mad House.

MrsB

 

[Rosa moschata]

You and I agree on many things.

Hope so.



The Bible deals more often than not on how Christians are to treat OTHER Christians. An Atheist cannot be judged by the same standards as a Christian.

Then Christians shouldn't be trying to legislate their ideas. Instead, let the preachers lead their flocks. Those who choose not to join those churches shouldn't still be held to their standards. Imagine if the Amish tried to legislate their ideas, and you'll understand how the a-religious feel whenever someone uses the bible to justify law or policy.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the Old Testament. Anyone who says he "did away with them" (I've heard that, too) has missed the point. The purpose of Jesus’ life and work was to fulfill both the Law (the books of Moses) and the Prophets (other Old Testament books). When Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets,” he did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. He meant that the purpose and message of the Law and the Prophets remain exactly the same. The purpose and message of the Law is to keep us on the narrow path.

That's your interpretation. Others interpret differently, and there are passages which are quoted for either side. This is one of many examples of the bible's ambiguity, and why there is no "one brand" of religion based upon it. And this ambiguity is why secularists like myself don't want that book being used as a reference for law or public policy.

And as for "Thou shalt not eat shrimp," yes, there are references to eating shellfish being a sin... Which is all fine and good... But there is a huge difference between eating a shrimp and stealing. Or eating shrimp and lying. Or eating shrimp and engaging in what some consider "abomination." The difference is sin that affects your body and your one, single person (ie: choosing to go against God's law and eat shrimp) or to commit a sin that affects other people and your SOUL. Lying affects your soul and deceives other people. Stealing affects your soul and puts hardship on other people. Fornicating affects your soul and another person (or other people). I was listening to a sermon just this past weekend. I didn't do it justice, but I hope I was able to make the distinction in a paragraph.

The Old Testament's "rules to follow" were more about maintaining a cultural identity for those who followed the book, so as to avoid becoming assimilated by the cultures of their neighbors as they wandered. Now think about that for a minute. Their neighbors ate shellfish. Their neighbors ate pork. Their neighbors worked on Saturdays. And their neighbors had no qualms against same-sex relations. Funny how that last bit was maintained through Christianity but the other stuff was forgotten. I guess it was just an easier thing for most to give up, leaving behind a minority who couldn't, and that minority made for one of several handy scapegoats.

And about that "engaging in what some consider 'abomination'" bit -- some others would consider those claiming that to be suffering from a particular "delusion". Anytime a religious person admonishes someone outside his/her flock, that religious person should be prepared to have his/her beliefs admonished in turn. If they can hate the sin but love the sinner, I can hate the belief but love the believer. Yet those most vocal in broadcasting their religions' rules to others are so very quick to cry "oppression" when they get responses in kind.

It is my opinion that if she is going to be "forced" to disregard her personal beliefs in this matter, she has NO OTHER CHOICE but to resign the position.


MrsB

She is certainly free to do so. But to remain in her position and refuse to perform one of her duties, despite orders from the courts, is certainly grounds for her current incarceration.

Rosa moschata

 

[hemet dennis]

Local governments and state governments CAN NOT be forced to enforce federal laws !
But some people say that she should be illegally fired, or should resign.

The only way things get to the Supreme Court to decide anything is for someone to bring a case in the lower courts. That is what will happen in this case, because that is the legal system we live under.

She will be in jail until the appeals court hears her case and let her out, or the judge that put her there lets her out, or she agrees to issue the permits, or she is replaced by an election. And if the people reelect her will the judge still keep her in jail. At some point the judge has to realize that she isn't going to back down, then he can't keep her in jail any longer.

 

[JD4570]

Ahem. Rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights are to be decided by the states unless it affects interstate commerce. That is what the 10th Amendment says. That includes licensing. I might be mistaken but I believe she was following State law.

 

[WYNot]

The kicker of that argument though is that licenses and contracts are supposed to be given full faith and credit by other states. That is why one's driver license is good in all 50 states. That is why a title/deed for a piece of property is honored by all other states. Because of other issues, I have NO problem with the full faith and credit being enforced. I'd love to have my CHL (aka CCW) honored in all 50 states.

Ahem. Rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights are to be decided by the states unless it affects interstate commerce. That is what the 10th Amendment says. That includes licensing. I might be mistaken but I believe she was following State law.

 

[JD4570]

Driving across state lines affect interstate commerce just as commercial fishing licenses affect multiple states fisheries but ccw licenses must be recognised by individual states although the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Up until recent times driving a car was a privledge, not a right. . .but somehow hunting and fishing which had been a right has become a privledge. Marriage been a privledge up until the last few years (some people would differ on that point) now it has become a right.......it seems a thing becomes a right after being a privledge if enough people have an agenda (and visa versa) . It reminds me of a saying that I grew up with " When a want becomes a need, that is the process called greed". Am I wrong on this?:/

 

[WYNot]

Which brings us back around to a simple solution. Get the State out of marriage, all marriages. Do away with all licensing, penalties, and benefits. If you want to get married, then go talk to who ever is in charge of whatever church you go to. Everything else is a simple matter of contracts, PoA, wills, trusts, etc.