I must have missed the part where he went to jail for defying the law. Oh wait he didnt.

 

I must have also never read or saw where he stopped because he was told to

it isn't hard to do research. If he would have continued to issue Same Sex marriage licensesafter the order and before the law change, he would have surely went to jail for Contempt

And this guy also defied the law and didnt go to jail. He said it was moral obligation. Seems I heard that before too from some clerk in KY who is in jail.

 

 

A municipal clerk who issues a marriage license outside these guidelines, and any person who solemnizes such a marriage, would be violating state law and subject to the penalties in law," the department said.

CNN.com - New York town's mayor marries same-sex couples - Feb. 28, 2004

This is so simple my dog is following along.

 

She never stopped and he did.

 

it isn't hard to do research. If he would have continued to issue Same Sex marriage licensesafter the order and before the law change, he would have surely went to jail for Contempt

 

So he broke the law

I never read where he quit.

 

Regardless he did it and never went to jail.

So he broke the law

I never read where he quit.

 

Regardless he did it and never went to jail.

Kim Davis defied a judge for many days before she finally went to jail. Then the judge gave her a "get out of jail free card" -- she tore it up...

So he broke the law

I never read where he quit.

 

Regardless he did it and never went to jail.

 

Ms. Davis is not in jail because she broke the law. She is in jail because she was ordered to stop breaking the law and refused. The other gentleman was ordered to stop breaking the law and complied.

Down right scary

...

 

Why?

So he broke the law

I never read where he quit.

 

Regardless he did it and never went to jail.

 

You do realize that Ms. Davis didn't go to jail until she defied the court's order (aka contempt). If he stopped when told, he obeyed the court's order (aka not contempt). That there is the difference.

You do realize that Ms. Davis didn't go to jail until she defied the court's order (aka contempt). If he stopped when told, he obeyed the court's order (aka not contempt). That there is the difference.

 

I understand completely

 

But that doesnt take away the fact that the other elected officials broke the law too and got nothing but praise.

I'm sorry but how is this so hard to understand?

I understand completely

 

But that doesnt take away the fact that the other elected officials broke the law too and got nothing but praise.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges

I understand completely

 

But that doesnt take away the fact that the other elected officials broke the law too and got nothing but praise.

 

Where did Bruce Hanes disobey a court's order? Show me that and we'll compare apples to apples.

 

On July 23, 2013, Hanes announced[2] that his office would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On September 12, 2013, Judge Dan Pellegrini issued an order[3] to cease the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania.

 

Because of his public support of same-sex marriage, Hanes has been removed from his volunteer position at Little Flower Catholic High School for Girls, effective September 17, 2013.[4]

 

In late May 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dropped its case against Hanes, as the law Hanes was accused of having violated is unconstitutional. A federal district court essentially vindicated Hanes's stance that the state law discriminating against same-sex couples was unconstitutional.[5] On May 28, 2014, Montgomery County resumed issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples.[6]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Bruce_Hanes

 

The bold above shows that he stopped issuing licenses when ordered to by a judge.

I'm sorry but how is this so hard to understand?

 

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

So he broke the law

I never read where he quit.

 

Regardless he did it and never went to jail.

 

Had she ceased her refusal she would not have been put in jail.

 

He stopped when ordered to do so by a court.

 

She did not stop when ordered to do so by a court.

 

Bypassing the obvious gender descriptors in the pronouns of each sentence what are the major similarities and differences?

 

Similarities:

1) Both were doing something they were not supposed to be doing.

2) Both were ordered by a court to cease what they were doing.

 

Differences:

1) He ceased as ordered and as such no further action was taken.

2) She did not cease when ordered and further action was taken.

 

Now these are some subtle differences, I know. However if we look closely the differences, no matter how slight, may come to light. It seems to me, in my humble interpretation, that one of these is not like the other. It looks like while both did something illegal and both were given a chance to stop and avoid any legal probelms, only one of them actually stopped when ordered to do so.

 

Now admittedly I am no legal scholar, but it would seem to me that this subtle difference is the key to understanding on this issue. 2 people violated the law, yes. 2 people were given a chance to avoid further trouble with a judge, yes. 1 person chose to listen to the judge, 1 person chose to ignore the judge. You know, this is getting awfully difficult to grasp, any chance I could get some of our BGP attorneys to help me grasp this? I am just not getting it.

Had she ceased her refusal she would not have been put in jail.

 

He stopped when ordered to do so by a court.

 

She did not stop when ordered to do so by a court.

 

Bypassing the obvious gender descriptors in the pronouns of each sentence what are the major similarities and differences?

 

Similarities:

1) Both were doing something they were not supposed to be doing.

2) Both were ordered by a court to cease what they were doing.

 

Differences:

1) He ceased as ordered and as such no further action was taken.

2) She did not cease when ordered and further action was taken.

 

Now these are some subtle differences, I know. However if we look closely the differences, no matter how slight, may come to light. It seems to me, in my humble interpretation, that one of these is not like the other. It looks like while both did something illegal and both were given a chance to stop and avoid any legal probelms, only one of them actually stopped when ordered to do so.

 

Now admittedly I am no legal scholar, but it would seem to me that this subtle difference is the key to understanding on this issue. 2 people violated the law, yes. 2 people were given a chance to avoid further trouble with a judge, yes. 1 person chose to listen to the judge, 1 person chose to ignore the judge. You know, this is getting awfully difficult to grasp, any chance I could get some of our BGP attorneys to help me grasp this? I am just not getting it.

 

You lost me

You lost me

 

Methinks he's making a funny.