patrick.net

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

And since when has religious beliefs allowed a person to disobey the law?

Since October 1, 1946.

The Nuremberg trials convicted the Nazi war criminals and they were sentenced to death. The ones not convicted weren't so because there wasn't sufficient evidence. In no way did the Nuremberg trials state that people could commit atrocities because of their religion.

FortWayne says

Woman is in jail now prosecuted for her religious beliefs.

Come on Wayne, let us all in on the joke. Admit you are really an undercover plant created by progressives, liberals, and moderates, to demonstrate how truly stupid some conservatives sound.

FortWayne says

A person has a right to disobey orders they find morally reprehensible.

OK, I can go with that as long as the standard applies to ALL people regardless of conditions. So then...
1. People can refuse to pay taxes that go to morally reprehensible things like war, domestic spying, and corrupt police.
2. People can refuse morally reprehensible orders from cops including strip searches, body cavity searches, and pat downs. Same goes to the TSA.
3. People can refuse morally reprehensible laws like national security letters that prohibit speaking about them, judge's gag orders, laws prohibiting the disclosure of "national security" and "state secrets", you know, like Edward Snowden did. Agree with him or not, he was clearly acting on his conscious.
4. People can refuse morally reprehensible orders like every drug law that was ever created or will ever be created. Everyone should be able to grow however much pot they want to as well as any other drug no matter how hard. Some people morally object to denying an effective painkiller like pot to cancer patients. Some people find it morally offensive to allow the state to prohibit the freedom to use any drug for any reason including pleasure. Some people consider pot, LSD, opium, peyote to be religious and spiritual materials. Hell, all those "miracles" and "visions" in Christian lore are actually drug induced experiences. So the state should have no right to prohibit the use of these materials.
5. If a person considers his home to be sacred ground, he can lawfully prevent the police from entering under any circumstances because they would desecrate the holy ground and that would be morally reprehensible.

Once again Fort Wayne demonstrates his hypocrisy by advocated something, but only for some people and some of the time.

saroya says

Come on Wayne, let us all in on the joke. Admit you are really an undercover plant created by progressives, liberals, and moderates, to demonstrate how truly stupid some conservatives sound.

Unfortunately, conservatives are that stupid. Wayne, CIC, and strategist aren't plants. They actually are that stupid.

wow. so you are against freedom of speech. wowser.

Dan8267 says

Until then, have a nice cup of shut the fuck up.

Again, Freedom of Speech != Not doing your salaried Job.

If an Hassadic Jew decides all restaurants should be Parve Kosher, and he's the Health Inspector, and decides to shut down Shake and Steak, he's not taking advantage of the 1st Amendment, he's not doing his Job.

So fort wayne are you really comparing the clerk signing off a certificate that conflicts with her 4 time married ass' religious beliefs to the holocaust??

SoftShell says

wow. so you are against freedom of speech. wowser.

Dan8267 says

Until then, have a nice cup of shut the fuck up.

If I proposed that Wayne be arrested for speaking, you would have a valid point. Then again, if you shitted gold you'd be rich.

Ironman says

Yep, Dan's a liberal...

And you're an idiot.

thunderlips11 says

Again, Freedom of Speech != Not doing your salaried Job.

Worst still, this judge was infringing upon human rights. And yes, in Virginia v. Loving the Supreme Court called getting married a fundamental human right.

Married 4 Times, damn, what an evangelical serial marriage failure type. #1 is Divorces, the Family Values People!

lostand confused says

So fort wayne are you really comparing the clerk signing off a certificate that conflicts with her 4 time married ass' religious beliefs to the holocaust??

Human rights do not exempt "clerk signing off a certificate" from having such rights. :)

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, conservatives are that stupid. Wayne, CIC, and strategist aren't plants. They actually are that stupid.

Dan, you know, Patrick did ask us *all* to be less insulting.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, conservatives are that stupid. Wayne, CIC, and strategist aren't plants. They actually are that stupid.

Dan, you know, Patrick did ask us *all* to be less insulting.

Well pardon me if stating a cold, hard fact is insulting to you. We all can't present a delusional world to avoid insulting people.

Dan8267 says

When other people have far more reasonable moral objections to things like war, anti-drug laws and enforcement, systemic poverty, or anything else then they are completely against morality trumping law.

How did Obama do on the war thing? Didn't pull out until he completely lost it years later. And we still have troops there.
What is wrong with anti-drug laws and enforcement, when it saves lives?
Your solution to systemic poverty is more poverty through communist style equality.
Liberals aren't known for "morality", Bill Clinton was doing interns left and right, and it was ok with the left.

It's conservatives who simply want our nation to stick to morality, and it's usually liberals who want to let every pervert do everything they please. And when perverts win, it's how societies fall, just like Roman empire decayed when it's morality fell apart.

Dan8267 says

Well pardon me if stating a cold, hard fact is insulting to you.

I'm not insulted Dan, it was advisory only. It's free speech, you do what floats your boat.

FortWayne says

And when perverts win, it's how societies fall, just like Roman empire decayed when it's morality fell apart.

But Fort Wayne, Rome fell when they adopted Christianity.

As long as they worshipped their pantheon gods and acted in hedonistic ways-they were at the top of the world. When the accepted Christianity, they fell.

Her mother was Clerk for decades, she wants to be Clerk for decades; entitlement plays a role here as well.

She's a public servant. If she can't serve the public as the law dictates she should resign.

Dan8267 says

How is Davis any better for being a bigot against gays than this guys is for being against interracial couples?

Integration is illegal, integration is communism, integration is unchristian-wow and that kid's sign -well.

The majority, which is increasing rapidly as old folks die, supports gay marriage. Quoting George Will again "The opposition to gay marriage is literally dying."

You would be surprised how little gays getting married affects you FW, or anyone else for that matter. Also, to the extent that there is a genetic component to preferring sex with ones own gender, allowing gays to marry with most not having their own kids (or kids at all for that matter), it will probably decrease the number of gays in the future. That should please you, since you seem so obsessed with these "perversions."

Nobody is as stupid as FW claims to be.

Obama = the Dark Ages
uses Science like the linquisition and jails and tourtures Christians.

Some statistics.

A Constitutional Question: A 2013 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin (64-33%) Americans believe that this question should be decided based on the U.S. Constitution, not left to families to struggle over case-by-case, battle by battle.

Evangelical Millenials: Pollster and Former Romney Director of Data Science, Alex Lundry, found that 64% of self-identifying Evangelical millenials support same-sex marriage.

Catholics: A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted February 23-27, 2013 shows 62% of American Catholics are in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples.

African Americans: A national Gallup poll conducted November 26-29, 2012 found 53% of African Americans thought marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized officially and should have the same rights as straight married couples.

Hispanics: A Quinnipiac Polling Institute poll conducted February 27-March 4, 2013 showed 63% of Hispanic voters support same-sex marriage.

Republicans: A 2014 Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that support for the freedom to marry crosses party lines, with 40% of Republicans saying they support marriage for same-sex couples, with 23% strongly supportive. Among self-described moderates, support is at 64%, with just 27% opposed. A 2014 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 56% of Republicans under the age of 45 and a 2014 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Republicans under 30 support marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling

Note: These numbers are a few years old, and now that it's legal that will affect the numbers in the positive direction further. By 2030 there will probably be less than 10% that have a problems with gay marriage. Maybe way less.

Even for someone with the lack of reasoning skills that this made up character Fort Wayne pretends to have (or not have), there is only one almost reasonable argument that could be made against gay marriage. And that is that it will adversely affect population growth as being gay becomes popular. And I hate to say it, but one would have to be at least somewhat bisexual if not a closet homo now to think that being gay is going to become more popular in the future, just because society is more tolerant of it.

THe fact that it's legal doesn't change much. But even if it did, should we really have a government that's so authoritarian that it actively tries to prevent nature from taking it's course ?

I think things will look differently 50 years from now, on this issue, not because there will be many more gay couples. It might be slightly more, but what will be different is that everyone else will be very accepting of it on a deep level.

marcus says

Even for someone with the lack of reasoning skills that this made up character Fort Wayne pretends to have (or not have),

This is rich. You REALLY have no business accusing others of lacking reasoning skills.

FortWayne says

The only reason she is in jail, since there were other ways to handle this, is because the left is flexing their muscle trying to intimidate religious folks into submission.

No, really its not. The only reason this is in the news is because of the subject matter (gay marriage). Fact of the matter is, this is a routine issue which I deal with once every 2 or 3 years. When a county clerk is wrong (sadly, this happens a lot), and I cant get something recorded, I go to court and get a writ of mandamus (basically latin for DO YOUR FUCKING JOB). Problem is, the clerks aren't lawyers, so they sometimes assume their department is their own personal fiefdom, and the writ usually sets them straight.

in my case, I came in with a particular type of transaction which per statute was tax free. Bitchy clerk said, "oh no, that may be the way you do it in the big city, but that's not how we do it in MY county". After I got the writ, she still wouldn't comply, and was giddy about going to court and "exposing" me to "her friend" the judge. She got up on the stand, with a bunch of emo nonsense about freedom, and civic duty. Judge cut her off "Im sorry Linda, none of that matters, that is not why we are here, you either sign the form or I have to throw you in jail for not complying with my order.

It really is that simple. As an elected official no one could fire her, and long before you ever move to impeach or have a special election (a months long process costing 50K in attorneys fees), you have to go the quick and easy route and get your writ of mandamus as was the case here. In any event, kinda like it was with your earlier comments on real estate which are now about ready to explode in your face http://patrick.net/housing/2015+Real+Estate+Prediction there are certain subject matters where you have clearly demonstrated you are simply unqualified to speak. This issue happens to be one of them.

FortWayne says

How did Obama do on the war thing?

Don't try to throw a red herring in here. According to your statement, people shouldn't have to follow orders they find morally reprehensible. I and tens of millions of other Americans find paying taxes that go to unjust wars, drone strikes, and the military industrial complex to be highly morally reprehensible. Are you saying that we should be allowed under law to refuse to pay income taxes? How about not registering with the selective service? That's a moral issue as well.

FortWayne says

What is wrong with anti-drug laws and enforcement, when it saves lives?

It costs lives, innocent lives.

Again, according to YOU any person should be legally allowed to disobey any state order that he or she finds morally reprehensible. Guess what, regardless of whether or not you think the war on drugs is morally, there are tens of millions who think it is extremely morally reprehensible. Should these people be allowed to
- violate drug laws
- hide drug offenders from the police like people hide Jews from the Nazis
- hinder law enforcement efforts

According to YOUR statement, the damn well should be legally allowed to do those things if they find the state orders prohibiting drug usage or enforcing drug bans to be morally reprehensible.

FortWayne says

Your solution to systemic poverty is more poverty through communist style equality.

I haven't presented any solution for you to critique, so you're just pulling shit out of your ass again.

Nonetheless, billions of people on this planet find "greed is good" capitalism to be morally reprehensible including the pope. Yes, that pope.

Funny how everything is communism to dumb-asses with 1950s mentality.

thunderlips11 says

FortWayne says

Liberals aren't known for "morality", Bill Clinton was doing interns left and right, and it was ok with the left.

Clinton was a centralist, not a liberal by any measure. And as for morality, liberals beat conservatives every day, every year, every century.

Conservatives enslaved people. Liberals set them free.
Conservatives raped child slaves. Liberals stop that.
Conservatives abused children in sweatshops. Liberals got child labor laws passed.
Conservatives practiced segregation. Liberals stopped that.
Conservatives denied minorities the right to vote. Liberals ensured all adults get to vote.
Conservatives constantly want war. Liberals strive for world peace.
Conservatives pollute the Earth killing people through diseases, famine, floods, and miscarriages. Liberals strive to maintain the planet.

Conservatives are just plain evil. There is no comparison.

FortWayne says

It's conservatives who simply want our nation to stick to morality, and it's usually liberals who want to let every pervert do everything they please. And when perverts win, it's how societies fall, just like Roman empire decayed when it's morality fell apart.

If conservatives had any moral backbone, they would never had embraced slavery. They wouldn't have committed a multitude of genocides. They wouldn't have tortured, raped, and murder not only prisoners in Gitmo but also of children in the U.S. That's the morality you conservatives profess.

And as for Rome, it fell because it tried to rule the entire world. Conservatives are doing to the U.S. what they did to Rome, weakening it by over-expanding using excessive military force.

And Rome was never morally sound. It practices slavery, rape of conquered people, and the gory death of humans for pleasure in the Colosseum. For you to say that it was every a moral empire shows how perverted your sense of morality is.

Dan8267 says

I and tens of millions of other Americans find paying taxes that go to unjust wars, drone strikes, and the military industrial complex to be highly morally reprehensible. Are you saying that we should be allowed under law to refuse to pay income taxes?

That's the point Dan. MLK did just that, he disobeyed orders which he thought were immoral.

FortWayne says

MLK did just that, he disobeyed orders which he thought were immoral.

MLK went to jail. The point you were making was that Kim Davis should not be subject to arrest.

I presented five situations where people have very serious moral objections to the law. Grow a pair of balls and clearly state which of these five should not be illegal if you morally object to the law. Hell, start with this one. Should people be legally allowed to disobey anti-drug laws that they find morally objectionable like growing pot in their backyard?

As of today she has been released. Praise the Lord!!!!

FortWayne says

As of today she has been released. Praise the Lord!!!!

Which one-Allah, Jesus, Jehovah, Shiva or Satan. For all you know the 4 time married woman has secretly embraced Satan-do you think a pious Christian would break her vows of marriage that she took before the Lord?

Religion is silly.

Fixing the title of this post: "Jailing civil officials who refuse to uphold their sworn duty ... has begun."

In the private or public sector, if you have a problem with your job, or object to it on moral grounds, your employment is by choice. Leave. You don't get to obstruct services due to your personal beliefs. There are other forums for that.

Church and state are separate, and if you cannot figure that out, you don't belong in any public official capacity. This lady is a few peanuts short a full jar. God doesn't bless us all with the same capacity, and I know it is her burden to bear, so I am forgiving. Her sentence was just.

lostand confused says

Which one-Allah, Jesus, Jehovah, Shiva or Satan. For all you know the 4 time married woman has secretly embraced Satan-do you think a pious Christian would break her vows of marriage that she took before the Lord?

You are an atheist I get it, but if you don't understand Christians you are not doing yourself any favors L&C.

They jailed her for being a Christian all right, and now she is freed thanks to the lord, god looks out for his children :)

FortWayne says

You are an atheist I get it, but if you don't understand Christians you are not doing yourself any favors L&C.

They jailed her for being a Christian all right, and now she is freed thanks to the lord, god looks out for his children

Nope I believe in God/something bigger than myself. I just don't take anybody else's word for it-I believe it is a force far greater than any puny little human can ever understand. maybe the soul may feel the presence,but I think it is beyond our comprehension. Just like an ant cannot comprehend the solar system. I believe people who believe in one certain way are arrogant and/or deluded-how can you even pretend to know the entire universe, God, all of creation, what the Lord intended for every being in all of his creation. Humans may have tried to interpret it in their circumstances and hence most Gods resemble the people who worship them-with some superhuman strengths.

Now I think Christians are the one doing themselves a disservice by rallying around a 4 time married woman who had babies out of wedlock and slapped and hit her baby daddy.

http://www.tmz.com/2015/09/09/kim-davis-violence-restraining-order-baby-daddy-gay-marriage/

By tying Chirtianity to her level and saying she is the embodiment of Christianity, you are sinking the religion and making all Christians look bad. it is just like Muslims-what si the first thing you think of when you think Muslim-Jihadi nut jobs -the same thing by tying Christians to this hypocritical nutjob -you are saying Christians are like this-4 times married nutjobs who have children out of wedlock, beat up their baby daddies and then refuse to sign a certificate and claim their refusal is the same as some great sacrifice.

I have no illusions and not arrogant enough to think that I know God's plan and his/her will and that one small book covers everything in this universe and beyond , every star, every planet and who knows what else is out there?

That is the problem-the dems have established a feminazi and welfare paradise. The repubs want to establish a Christian theocracy-minus the "bad" behaviors they indulge in.
Where is the freedom lover supposed to turn to??

lostand confused says

That is the problem-the dems have established a feminazi and welfare paradise. The repubs want to establish a Christian theocracy-minus the "bad" behaviors they indulge in.

Where is the freedom lover supposed to turn to??

I think both of those are unfair characterizations of what the parties want. The extremism and sensationalism would have you believe it though. (it may only be marginally more true for the Right, right now, but that won't last long.)

Marriage is the union of one Christian with one pagan. Same religion marriages should not be allowed lest society collapse.