Pointing out the double standard

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: kellyjay

but do the ends justify breaking the law?

Ask Rosa Parks and the billions who love her for what she did.

rosa parks isnt the topic here...

Well, making valid comparisons is exactly how a person is supposed to debate.
That's not a secret or a liberal thing...

It's all encompassing across a myriad of subjects.


And you asked about ends justifying breaking the Law, there is no comparison more pertinent than that of Rosa Parks.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

in both cases the law has been broken

Newsome based his actions on the California constitution, which like the US constitution, trumps state law. When he was told to stop, by the court, he did. Kim, on the other hand...

No equivalence.

as gay marraige at that point was against the law

Which law?

you are going by the assumption that im using her going to jail as part of the comparrison, im not...she went to jail for contempt of court not because she didnt issue the liscenses,

The comparisson im using is that both broke the law based on their own feelings ...thats the only comparisson im making

a reply to: intrepid

Put ten Christians in a room and you'll get 10 different versions of Christianity.

It's absurd to call them a majority in the sense of what's socially agreeable as opposed to whether they follow Christ.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: kellyjay

but do the ends justify breaking the law?

Ask Rosa Parks and the billions who love her for what she did.

rosa parks isnt the topic here...

Well, making valid comparisons is exactly how a person is supposed to debate.
That's not a secret or a liberal thing...

It's all encompassing across a myriad of subjects.


And you asked about ends justifying breaking the Law, there is no comparison more pertinent than that of Rosa Parks.

rosa parks was 60 years ago during a revolution, during the civil rights era, and to do with race, where she sat on the bus had nothing to do with the desegregation laws...

originally posted by: kellyjay
you are going by the assumption that im using her going to jail as part of the comparrison, im not...she went to jail for contempt of court not because she didnt issue the liscenses

Then why the comparison at all if the point is not the issuing of marriage licenses? That seems to be the whole basis of the OP. If you are saying it's not the case then there is NO comparison, as Phage pointed out.

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: kellyjay

but do the ends justify breaking the law?

Ask Rosa Parks and the billions who love her for what she did.

rosa parks isnt the topic here...

Well, making valid comparisons is exactly how a person is supposed to debate.
That's not a secret or a liberal thing...

It's all encompassing across a myriad of subjects.


And you asked about ends justifying breaking the Law, there is no comparison more pertinent than that of Rosa Parks.

rosa parks was 60 years ago during a revolution, during the civil rights era, and to do with race, where she sat on the bus had nothing to do with the desegregation laws...

Civil disobedience is civil disobedience is civil disobedience........

Just depends which side of fence one is sitting on to determine who's right and who's wrong.

a reply to: kellyjay

where she sat on the bus had nothing to do with the desegregation laws...

Nice obtuse gymnastics.

I've entertained this thread long enough.

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: kellyjay

but do the ends justify breaking the law?

Ask Rosa Parks and the billions who love her for what she did.

rosa parks isnt the topic here...

Well, making valid comparisons is exactly how a person is supposed to debate.
That's not a secret or a liberal thing...

It's all encompassing across a myriad of subjects.


And you asked about ends justifying breaking the Law, there is no comparison more pertinent than that of Rosa Parks.

rosa parks was 60 years ago during a revolution, during the civil rights era, and to do with race, where she sat on the bus had nothing to do with the desegregation laws...

WHAT? It had EVERYTHING to do with them. You DO know that saying something doesn't make it true, right?

a reply to: kellyjay

The comparisson im using is that both broke the law based on their own feelings

There was no law against issuing marriage licenses to gays.
There is no law against not doing your job, unless a judge tells you to.
No laws were broken until Kim refused to follow a court order.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
you are going by the assumption that im using her going to jail as part of the comparrison, im not...she went to jail for contempt of court not because she didnt issue the liscenses

Then why the comparison at all if the point is not the issuing of marriage licenses? That seems to be the whole basis of the OP. If you are saying it's not the case then there is NO comparison, as Phage pointed out.

her going to jail is not part of the comparisson, the comparrison is that both broke the laws based on their feelings...i cant make it much clearer....he broke the law by issuing liscenses, she broke the law by not issuing liscences...her going to jail for contempt is irrellavant to the comparrison

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
you are going by the assumption that im using her going to jail as part of the comparrison, im not...she went to jail for contempt of court not because she didnt issue the liscenses

Then why the comparison at all if the point is not the issuing of marriage licenses? That seems to be the whole basis of the OP. If you are saying it's not the case then there is NO comparison, as Phage pointed out.

her going to jail is not part of the comparisson, the comparrison is that both broke the laws based on their feelings...i cant make it much clearer....he broke the law by issuing liscenses, she broke the law by not issuing liscences...her going to jail for contempt is irrellavant to the comparrison

OK. Let's look at it this way. What was she jailed for contempt for?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

The comparisson im using is that both broke the law based on their own feelings

There was no law against issuing marriage licenses to gays.
There is no law against not doing your job, unless a judge tells you to.
No laws were broken until Kim refused to follow a court order.

she was breaking the law by not issuing the liscences otherwise why would the judge/courts get involved? she was ultimately jailed for refusing still to issue the liscences thus being in contempt of the judges order

a reply to: kellyjay

he broke the law by issuing liscenses, she broke the law by not issuing liscences

No he didn't. No she didn't.

her going to jail for contempt is irrellavant to the comparrison

Then your comparsion is about what, then? Public opinion? Both were cheered as well as vilified. Is that a double standard? I guess, if the basis of the opinions was the legality of their actions, but it isn't.

she was ultimately jailed for refusing still to issue the liscences thus being in contempt of the judges order

Yes. She was not jailed because she did not issue licenses. If it had been illegal, there would have been no reason for a contempt charge. She was jailed for defying a court order, that's what the term contempt is referring to. Contempt of court. Not "illegally not issuing marriage licenses."

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
you are going by the assumption that im using her going to jail as part of the comparrison, im not...she went to jail for contempt of court not because she didnt issue the liscenses

Then why the comparison at all if the point is not the issuing of marriage licenses? That seems to be the whole basis of the OP. If you are saying it's not the case then there is NO comparison, as Phage pointed out.

her going to jail is not part of the comparisson, the comparrison is that both broke the laws based on their feelings...i cant make it much clearer....he broke the law by issuing liscenses, she broke the law by not issuing liscences...her going to jail for contempt is irrellavant to the comparrison

OK. Let's look at it this way. What was she jailed for contempt for?

because she was breaking the law by not issuing the liscences, so the judge got involved, told her to issue the liscences, she refused and the jusge held her in contempt

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
you are going by the assumption that im using her going to jail as part of the comparrison, im not...she went to jail for contempt of court not because she didnt issue the liscenses

Then why the comparison at all if the point is not the issuing of marriage licenses? That seems to be the whole basis of the OP. If you are saying it's not the case then there is NO comparison, as Phage pointed out.

her going to jail is not part of the comparisson, the comparrison is that both broke the laws based on their feelings...i cant make it much clearer....he broke the law by issuing liscenses, she broke the law by not issuing liscences...her going to jail for contempt is irrellavant to the comparrison

OK. Let's look at it this way. What was she jailed for contempt for?

because she was breaking the law by not issuing the liscences, so the judge got involved, told her to issue the liscences, she refused and the jusge held her in contempt

So exactly the same thing then.

a reply to: kellyjay

because she was breaking the law by not issuing the liscences

Then why was she not arrested and charged for it?

a reply to: Phage

the basis of the opinion is that both situations are the same in that both made decisions that broke the laws based on their personal beliefs, and that one is being vilified..eg she tried to set a gofundme account up and gofundme refused it, he on the other hand has articles written calling him a hero and he is re-elected as governor...yet both are guilty of putting thier personal beliefs before the law

ok hold on...is it the law that gay marraige is legal...or is it a mere opinion passed down by scotus?

a reply to: kellyjay

I've never seen so much denial.

No one is going to willingly acknowledge the double standard that you pointed out clear as day.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

because she was breaking the law by not issuing the liscences

Then why was she not arrested and charged for it?

ask the judge....maybe he didnt want to catch heat from all the christians for charging her for not dismissing her morality based on her religion....