It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.
I would have supported Kim Davis allowing her deputies to issue the marriage licenses she wasn't comfortable with. But she forbade them.
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Seems a disgruntled coworker brought the suit. There's more going on there than we know, I think.
The 1857 Dred Scott decision is widely viewed as the worst Supreme Court ruling in history. In it, the Court ruled that no one with African ancestry could be a citizen of the United States and voided prior legislation that had blocked the expansion of slavery into parts of the country. Huckabee, like some other conservatives, argued that a 19th-century ruling requiring discrimination against black people is similar to a 21st-century ruling barring discrimination against LGBT people.
There is nothing to rectify. She was following what she believed was right, without specifically hurting anyone. Its true she failed to help gay people in the way they wanted help getting married, but failure to help someone in the way they wish to get help should not be considered something that makes someone a dangerous person worthy of jailing. Rather, it makes them a disagreeable person. And those who punish her for such a trivial problem them self deserve prison. The judge who put her in jail should go to prison for his injustice.
originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: wayforward
She was given ample opportunity to rectify the situation. She KNEW jail was a very possible consequence. She CHOOSE not to comply. This is a problem of her own making.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: wayforward
I haven't once said I am happy this woman went to jail. I think she should have:
1. Permitted her staff to issue marriage licenses OR
2. Stepped down because her beliefs and her commitment to the people that elected her and pay her salary were incompatible.
originally posted by: BubbaJoe
originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: BubbaJoe
If my employer doesn't have the right to imprison me over failure to perform a work duty, then neither does any government employer. Why should our rights not be equal? If someone has the principle that it is okay to imprison people over failing to do a job according to a certain standard, then I'm fine with that person going to prison for not doing a job according to spec. But otherwise, I consider it an extremely harmful thing to do to someone.
Apparently you have never spent time in the military, they can take action against you for something as little as getting a sunburn that causes you to miss a formation, I spent 7 years under those rules. Her employer has not jailed her, a court did for defying them, just like they can jail you or I for defying a court order. This woman is fighting a losing battle, and should take her evangelical christian BS back to church where it belongs, it does not belong in our government, federal, state or local. She is sitting her fat behind in jail because she denied another US citizen their rights guaranteed to them by the constitution.
Where we would agree is that people who are a danger to others belong in jail. Now show me the slightest shred of evidence that putting people who are not a danger to others in jail is helpful in any respect at all.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: wayforward
1. To be precise, I offered Biblical proof that Kim is not following the directives/commandments/beliefs of the Christian religion, i.e. she is following her own beliefs, not Christian beliefs.
2. I can't help you with your flawed interpretation of our legal system.
3. Your employee is not an officer of a Court nor an elected official of a County or City. Different rules apply. See #2.
It will make them bitter that such injustice can occur in a supposedly civilized society.
She should not permit her staff to do things she views to be immoral.
Its simply you bullying people into submission.
Now show me the slightest shred of evidence that putting people who are not a danger to others in jail is helpful in any respect at all.
Have you not read the reason given by the judge?
originally posted by: wayforward
She was following what she believed was right, without specifically hurting anyone.
Its true she failed to help gay people in the way they wanted help getting married, but failure to help someone in the way they wish to get help should not be considered something that makes someone a dangerous person worthy of jailing.
originally posted by: wayforward
I'd be quite happy if the judge who imprisoned her without a trial would himself be placed in prison, as he is clearly a dangerous man.
If you lock someone in a cage over work quality issues, you are violating people's human rights.
People who are dangerous belong in jail. People who are not dangerous, do not belong in jail. This is simple,
So tell me, what is putting someone who isn't dangerous supposed to achieve?
originally posted by: wayforward
If this woman signed a contract waiving her rights, then please link that to me as evidence in your favor.
My politics are based on the principle of equal rights and maximum liberties.
If you don't think what you are doing is moral, don't do it. And if your employer doesn't like it, they can stop paying you money.
I am not exactly a man of faith, so when the government wants to put someone in jail, I've to be convinced they actually are a danger to others.
Obama encouraged to end religious hiring exemption
When the George W. Bush administration allowed an evangelical organization in 2007 to hire only members of its own religion to work on a government contract, Sen. Barack Obama criticized the decision, saying taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize discrimination in hiring, and that he would end it if elected president.
But Obama’s Justice Department has followed the same policy, and it is now being invoked by religious organizations that have applied for federal funds while refusing to hire gays or lesbians, offer accommodations to transgender employees, or provide information to minors about abortion or contraception. Groups promoting civil rights for minorities, women and the LGBT community say it’s time for the president to act.
www.sfchronicle.com...