Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Bottom line, host Joe Scarborough said, is that if Supreme Court makes a decision, that’s the law of land, right?
“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.”
“She can take a pass and let somebody else in the office do it in terms of religious, so you know, it’s a very … tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws,” he said. “And I was talking about borders and I was talking about other things, but you know, it applies to this, also, and the Supreme Court has ruled."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
You mean situations like a vote toward iran getting the bomb? Or wanting to bring in tens of thousands of foreign workers on H1B visas?
How about feeling that a Constitutional Amendment is needed to (re)define birthright citizenship, when Trump (and Levin) said the Amendment already states it to be able to be enforced.
The purpose was to save even a single unborn child's life. I have seen photographs of some of the babies that were saved from being butchered.
Cordially
And in that page linked Wilson gives great perspective on simply not cooperating with their revolution, and more importantly, why.
Cordially,
Thanks dan for the ping and thanks P-Marlowe for the very well reasoned rebuttal.
I’ve been encountering the same arguments about this lady and this is good to know.
We thought...
you wuz...
a TOAD!
How DARE you use logic on some FReepers!
Either one, really.
That is not a valid comparison unless the sheriff was elected or hired to be a guard whose duties were radically changed, such as defining anyone who wanted to come over the border as American citizens, regardless of how they themselves even defined patriotism.
Or a person was elected as a bank guard but whose duties were changed to guarding a gay parade against conservative protesters.
Or one enlists in the Marines, but now, defending American from enemies now means threatening or using force against peaceful Americans due to them owning a registered handgun, or engaging in homeschooling, etc.
Davis obviously does not disagree with the terms of the job to which she was elected, which was to issue marriage licenses to people of opposite genders, not to men and monkey, or women and whales or men with men, which Kentucky law forbade.
Would you say that in any of these cases, esp. if jobs whose description can be so radically changed, that those who object should face unemployment?
I can see the say when what recently happened in NJ , in which judges are instructed to "instantly remove any jurors who display conscious or subconscious racist beliefs" (talk about subjectivity) will be applied to those who display subconscious aversions to homosexuality.
Your job performance can now, at least implicitly , be related to your degree of support for LGBT rights. Soon your company could require you to affirm racial equality, since your job requires you to be a team player, or but racial can now mean supporting LGBT rights,
I think it is going to be very difficult to prevail with a religious liberty argument. She wasn’t conscripted, she was elected to perform an administrative duty which by necessity must be performed impartially, this necessity was understood when the job was accepted.
A far better argument, one that is more likely to prevail and is more justifiable, is to reject the illegal order of the court which no one is bound to obey.
For the moment I will stipulate to this part of the holding: “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”, however this part goes too far, “The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.” The USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States, Kentucky can not be forced to issue marriage licenses contrary to its laws or to have it’s laws written for them by the federal Supreme Court.
Thank you. I marched with the freedom riders in the early 60’s, was arrested and threatened by men of anger with shotguns.
As a pastor I stood against the church when it lost its ability to follow Christ. My greatest sorrow and pain was being pushed out of the UMC.
The Lord has never abandoned me, I remain in His grace and benevolence.
My waning years are spent here at FR working to put in words the power of living by conviction in spite of the evil that seeks to engulf us.
The little tyrants enforcing their own religion/ideology are the 5 fools who made the radical change of marriage which homosexual marriage is, which Kentucky law opposed. Equating fighting to be removed from affirming (by signing it) such a radical change to being a police chief who won't enforce immigration law is perverse. If Davis took office after the SC changed marriage then that would be a fitting analogy, with immigration law having suffering a like radical change under which the chief took his position.
But I would look at PO as a hero who refused to arrest conservative American due to a change in law that made them as illegal immigrants, even though you may stand by and support him doing his job, or tell him he should just quit so that the job of imprisoning these patriots may go on.
There were a few German commanders who did not subscribe to your "do your job or its anarchy" reasoning, and saved Jews thereby.
As I posted on another thread, I highly recommend everyone take 22 minutes out of their time to listen to this fellow, Stefan Molyneux. He is no Christian (by any stretch of the imagination); but his common sense arguments against the jailing of the Kentucky Clerk should be required listening for every Christian – for every American.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6v8kBV9B8w&feature=youtu.be
Then may God destroy this evil country, which it richly deserves.
I CAN pick and choose! Don't ever tell us Christians we don't have a choice! We can choose NOT TO COMPLY and I don't care if you or anyone else things we are "little tyrants enforcing [our] own religion"! This country would be better off if we did!
I hope and pray of course that he does something like this, however it looks like it would take a sea change in the philosophy he’s living out.
If the country is going to doggedly treat any idea of religion as tantamount to any other, to hell is exactly where it will go, and not the least because you can’t do that anyhow. Christianity is not a carbon copy of Satanism.
The founding fathers would have slapped Dave across the face, IMHO. Even the ones that were just deists.
OF COURSE!
Because CHRISTIANS ARE NO LONGER WELCOME as public servants in the US of A now, right?
Backlash is coming. You just wait. The Law of Unintended Consequences will never be denied.
Is the Supreme Court of the United States wrong in this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.