Well you know, with seven years of elected officials disregarding laws, I can see how lines could easily become blurred.
Just had a penitentiary flashback....
- Thread starter usafk9
- Start date
Well you know, with seven years of elected officials disregarding laws, I can see how lines could easily become blurred.
Not at all. While Title VII expressly excludes elected officials, Kentucky has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which, as it does in the 20 or so other states with the same act, extends Title VII to government agencies and, among other things, requires them to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws (unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest), and it includes both employees and elected officials within those agencies. Further, the federal RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) applies to federal court orders issued to state elected officials. And on top of that, the federal RFRA takes things a step further and goes beyond that of the states, by requiring the government must show not merely “undue hardship,” but unavoidable material harm to a “compelling government interest.” In the Supreme Court case of City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court said this requirement exceeded congressional power over the states, so the states aren't compelled to adhere to that level of proof of hardship, but RFRA nevertheless remains in effect for the federal government, and to the court orders issued by it.
So with Kim Davis, you have Title VII which doesn't apply to her, but the KY RFRA which specifically extends Title VII to apply to her, and on top of that you have the federal RFRA which applies explicitly to the federal court order issued to her.
Incidentally, the Oath of Office for all members of the General Assembly, state offices and attorneys, is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
The oath clearly says do the job to the best of your ability (so help me God), and if your ability will not go past what your conscience will allow, whadda ya gonna do?
I still think she should resign if she can't fulfill her basic duties. But I also think the State can accommodate her request to have her name removed from the certificates without any undue hardship. They proved that when they had new licenses at the ready on the day of the SCOTUS decision which had the terms "Bride" and "Groom" removed from the certificates.
That was pretty clear when they expressed surprise at her being sent to jail, lol. They claimed they had no warning that the judge might do that - no, really, they said that. With their mouths, to tv and radio people with cameras and microphones and everything! Then they doubled down and said they expected a fine, like the judge is dumber than they are, and doesn't know how fast there'd be a Gofundme to pay it for her.
Now I'm wondering how many times Matt Staver took the Bar exam before he passed, lol. Mediocre lawyers can take a couple times, Staver is a whole different class of idiot.
Are we all not in a bind in any job as long as the black robed supremes change definitions at will in our culture as we have known it for years? Now we find ourselves or yourself in a bind that goes against your beliefs or principles on the job or for that matter how you guide and correct your families in everyday routines. If they, "the supremes" can change the cultures rules and regulations at will, what are we to do----go to jail??? So what we have here is, "He who controls the definitions, controls the sheeples". If we let a few supremes keep changing ever-day life's cultural routines through law passing's, then we are just robots in their eyes and I know many of you in here would raise hell if they start on the path down that road....but right now you all are comfy in your routines....rumblings of Germany come to mine in the late 30's boys and girls?
Laws have changed or been modified since there were laws.
Change is constant and inevitable.
These changes affect us all, good or bad, at some point or another.
Everything from speed limit laws to voting rights to criminal offenses.
Things that were perfectly legal in the past, now are completely and without a doubt illegal today, and vice versa. Laws must change as society changes.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Wanna be a martyr ?
Take a number ...
Mike Huckabee Begs Judge To Send Him To Jail, Make Him Sexy Christian Martyr Too
Take a number ...
Mike Huckabee Begs Judge To Send Him To Jail, Make Him Sexy Christian Martyr Too
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Apparently, it all depends on the issue.
This applies not only elected officials, but appointed federal bureaucrats and cabinet members who selectively enforce the laws of the land, including those in ICE and IRS. Sanctuary cities are a case in point which have been ignored by the feds. Some may have noticed San Francisco is being sued due to their policy of their elected officials ignoring federal immigration laws to facilitate their policy of being a sanctuary city to illegal immigrants, which has resulted in the deaths of who knows how many of their citizens including Kate Steinle. It wasn't that long ago that the Obama DOJ sued the state of AZ for passing laws that attempted to enforce the same federal laws that the feds ignored. Why shouldn't someone like the mayor of San Francisco be thrown in jail for not performing the duties of his job, regardless of whether or not he agrees with the laws he's legally obliged to uphold? Of course this would require our US Attorneys General to fulfill the duties of the job they're sworn to uphold - which in many cases they do selectively. Congress in turn refuses to hold them accountable, and so it goes.
Failing to enforce laws on the books is one thing, as there are countless laws that are rarely or no longer enforced (desuetude). But selectively enforcing the laws, not applying them equally, is unconscionable. Several presidents in the past have refused to enforce federal laws, but in every case their reasoning was on constitutional grounds. Obama, on the other hand, uses "policy disagreement" as his reasoning. Which, of course, is just one way of saying "I don't wanna."
Get real Sky! Enough of the comparison to the Nazis! You are entitled, even encouraged to voice your opposition to the government when the need arises, but saying their actions are like the Nazis? The Nazis were and are the epidimy evil.
Survivor files 1.2 mil lawsuit against these Wakadoos!!
http://nbc.com.co/survivor-files-1-2-million-lawsuit-against-kim-davis-mike-huckabee/
http://nbc.com.co/survivor-files-1-2-million-lawsuit-against-kim-davis-mike-huckabee/
Nobody is changing laws against ANY relegion. ..religion just thinks so because there not getting there way....if you want to live in a land where relegion trumps law...pack your bags for Iran!
ALSO let's NOT forget ...this horrible woman has been married 4x ..kids out of wedlock..her saying ANYTHING about what God's says is utter HOT AIR @ this point..
In the Christian world, you confess your sins to God and your good to go, but if one is not a Christian or you are an unbeliever, then why take up your cause against her because atheist have no dog in the fight so to speak.
Excuse me?????
When did Christians become the only ones that "have a dog in the fight"?
She came to Christ four years ago. In four years, how many husbands has she had/ how many children out of wedlock? As Skyraider points out, it doesn't matter. God forgives all sins*, even the ones we commit after we're saved. She is under attack because the world hates what she stands for. So much for freedom of conscience....
*except one: rejection of the Holy Spirit. Then again, people who reject the Holy Spirit don't give a **** what the Lord wants from them.
Nobody hates what she stands for...... Just do the job you were elected to do, follow the law, problem solved.