Have the cities been taken to court and have judges ruled one way or the other?

 

To be fair everyone who spoke out against Kim Davis did so even before a judges ruling. So making that exception doesn't really hold up.

Zing! :lol2:

 

#teamVatican haha

Yes, it absolutely matters.

 

Did you not speak out against Kim Davis before Judge Bunnings ruling ?

It's possible. As Jesus died for all of us, even those who do not follow Him.

 

Actually I believe the Catholic faith belives you can not enter heaven with original sin and isn't that what baptism is suppose to erase ? That is why Purgatory exists in the Catholic faith correct.

 

I'll have to refresh on my catechism.

I think this comparison is still uneven. Like the issue with Colorado and Oregon over marijuana, state law and federal law can differ. From my understanding, immigration laws are the purview of the federal government and states are not compelled to enforce federal law. But, when there is a dispute between state and federal law, federal law wins out. So, states might say "we aren't going to waste our time and money doing the feds job for them" but they may not say "immigration is legal here and the federal government can't contradict us." Again, from my understanding, "sanctuary cities" are cities that aren't enforcing federal law.

 

(Someone may correct me if I'm wrong since this is coming from the top of my head over what I've been thinking the last few times it has come up. Might be worth it's own thread.)

 

In the Kim Davis case, the SCOTUS held that the constitution forbids same-sex couples from being excluded from marriage laws. There's no gray area or recourse for states outside of an amendment or appointing new judges who might interpret it differently later on.

 

They don't have to enforce but they can't ignore or enact laws that contradict federal laws. This has already been determined by the Supreme Court.

 

The only reason those state officials are not in jail is because the Federal government ignores it and doesn't deem it top priority. . But make no mistake sanctuary cities are in direct violation of federal law . This isnt even a question.

I must be one the very small minority that couldn't care less about Kim Davis or who the pope meets with .

To be fair everyone who spoke out against Kim Davis did so even before a judges ruling. So making that exception doesn't really hold up.

 

It wasn't before SCOTUS ruled.

It wasn't before SCOTUS ruled.

 

She went for religious objection. We didn't know yet how the courts would rule on that. You were picking at straws so I just think it's fair if we are 100% accurate.

Trying to wrap my head around what the significance of the Pope's meeting with Davis? Was the Vatican on the fence about homosexuality and gay marriage? If they were it would carry much more weight.

 

This is along the lines of showcasing Charlton Heston as a guiding voice against the gun regulation movement.

She went for religious objection. We didn't know yet how the courts would rule on that. You were picking at straws so I just think it's fair if we are 100% accurate.

Trying to follow along, but we didn't know who Kim Davis was before the Supreme Court ruling. After the Supreme Court ruling, she denied the licenses and the case before the local federal court ensued. My bad if I am not following the exchange.

Trying to wrap my head around what the significance of the Pope's meeting with Davis? Was the Vatican on the fence about homosexuality and gay marriage? If they were it would carry much more weight.

 

This is along the lines of showcasing Charlton Heston as a guiding voice against the gun regulation movement.

Thank you. Fourteen pages into the thread and we're finally getting to the heart of the matter. Indeed, what message is the Vatican sending by having the pope meet with Kim Davis? Is the Vatican going to take a more active role in support of these so-called "religious freedom" statutes? Did our socialist pope even know who Kim Davis is before meeting with her?

 

If nothing else, Kim Davis just raised her speaking fee by $500 after getting an audience with the pope ... thanks to the hard work of her Liberty Counsel handlers.

I don't see the argument that the "rules changed" as being valid.

 

Let's say that after she was elected the state changed the law and made it age requirement for a driver's license to be 21.

 

Would we give her a pass for still issuing them to 16 year olds?

 

The only valid question is in regards to her right to object based on religion. The courts have answered that one.

 

Disagree. Doesn't directly relate to religious freedom, which is Constitutionally protected...therefore the quandry. The argument is which is the greater Constitutional right...

Disagree. Doesn't directly relate to religious freedom, which is Constitutionally protected...therefore the quandry. The argument is which is the greater Constitutional right...

 

My argument was in regards to you stating that her job changed. Jobs change. That , in and of itself, does not allow someone to disregard the new law.

I'm going to pretend like you first paragraph doesn't exist since that is essentially what you are advocating we can do with Supreme Court decisions.

 

Regarding the rest of this post, are we supposed to believe that the General Assembly will never pass future legislation? Or the courts will never review other laws?

 

You're right, Davis should have resigned. Of course that fat check is pretty enticing too, so what other recourse does she have? First she could have sucked it up and signed her name. Since that was out of the question, she could have let her deputy clerks sign their names. Since that didn't work, she could have abstained from instructing all her clerks to not issue licenses. Since she didn't do that, she could have allowed her clerks issue the amended forms created after her time in the slammer without making her own changes.

 

But she didn't, and what has happened ? Someone in Frankfort came out and said it was a travesty...

 

Not one person on this entire thread has been able to answer why no one in the State of Kentucky, with jurisdiction over this area, has done and virtually not said, anything about this situation.

 

Ultimately Kim Davis did a few days in jail for her beliefs. Whether you agree with those beliefs or not, she stepped up and took whatever it was that was coming to her. Since then, nothing, yet she has apparently violated more laws.

 

Where is the State of Kentucky on this other than a 5 second sound bite ?

My argument was in regards to you stating that her job changed. Jobs change. That , in and of itself, does not allow someone to disregard the new law.

 

Correct, however, in this case her job changed and the change affected what she believes is her Constitutional right to practice her religion. A job change is quite different than this situation.

 

My point about all of it is all the people calling for her to resign, etc....doesn't matter, because she did and continues to do what she believes is right in God's eyes and not one person has been able to "force" her out of the job. Infuriating for some, but a legal quandry for the balance. That's all.

 

If she is so wrong, why hasn't she been removed ? Just a question...To answer your statement the change in her job apparently "does allow someone to disregard the new law" or else something would have been done. Would you not agree with that argument ?