Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Not Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

Pammalamma · Sep 5, 2015

durangodawood said:
People should resist injustice, even if it means breaking the law in extreme cases.
---
But that does NOT mean we should have a policy of law officers setting their own individual agendas.

Oh, so now you change your tune!

You need to think about this more deeply. What I'm seeing is that you do not know or understand when it is right to break a law, and you also don't seem to know how to identify an unjust law.

Pammalamma · Sep 5, 2015

bhsmte said:
I think he just made it.

"Might makes right" was disproved very effectively by Plato in Gorgias, so if your point is that the law should be our ethical guide in all circumstances, that is clearly false.

SepiaAndDust · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
"Might makes right" was disproved very effectively by Plato in Gorgias, so if your point is that the law should be our ethical guide in all circumstances, that is clearly false.

Huh?

durangodawood · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
1. "If someone insists on being an officer of the law, but the law conflicts with their beliefs, they should leave the country."
2. The officers who tried to kill Hitler were officers of the law, and the law conflicted with their beliefs.
Therefore, they should have left Germany.

That is what you have given me. So, you really disagree with Operation Valkyrie? Would you say it was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler? They should have left Germany instead of trying to fight the corruption that had taken over their government?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valkyrie

If you try to assissinate your leader, "law" is no longer the issue. It has completely broken down, and you have war. Its not relevant to our discussion.

What is relevant is this, which I will repeat:
People should resist injustice, even if it means breaking the law in extreme cases.
But that does NOT mean we should have a policy of law officers setting their own individual agendas.

durangodawood · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma · Sep 5, 2015

durangodawood said:
If you try to assissinate your leader, "law" is no longer the issue. It has broken down, and you have war. Its not relevant to our discussion.

What is relevant is this, which I will repeat:
People should resist injustice, even if it means breaking the law in extreme cases.
But that does NOT mean we should have a policy of law officers setting their own individual agendas.

You have not defined, "extreme case," "case," "extreme," "agenda," or "individual agenda," so those words can basically be used any way you want. You have not established any way of dividing right conduct from wrong.

bhsmte · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
"Might makes right" was disproved very effectively by Plato in Gorgias, so if your point is that the law should be our ethical guide in all circumstances, that is clearly false.

Let me explain grandfather clauses.

In a town I used to live in, they voted to make the town a "dry town" and no establishment could sell liquor. At that time, there was one establishment, that did sell liquor and they wrote in the law, that any existing establishments, could continue to sell liquor.

When the supreme court ruled on same sex marriage, they did not include, any grandfather language such as; any state, which did not legalize same sex marriage upon this ruling, would not have to comply with the ruling.

So, all states have to comply with the ruling, it is really quite simple.

Look Up · Sep 5, 2015

HonestTruth said:
see the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause

A point worth making, but in the absence of the actual oath, only part of the answer. Also note that the State of Kentucky apparently did act in accord with the 14th Amendment and other considerations may apply.

Belk · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
"Might makes right" was disproved very effectively by Plato in Gorgias, so if your point is that the law should be our ethical guide in all circumstances, that is clearly false.

That was not his point. His point was that there is no such thing as a "grandfather clause" when it comes to enforcing the law. Laws that are made after a civil servant is elected are just as binding.

lasthero · Sep 5, 2015

bhsmte said:
Let me explain grandfather clauses.

In a town I used to live in, they voted to make the town a "dry town" and no establishment could sell liquor. At that time, there was one establishment, that did sell liquor and they wrote in the law, that any existing establishments, could continue to sell liquor.

When the supreme court ruled on same sex marriage, they did not include, any grandfather language such as; any state, which did not legalize same sex marriage upon this ruling, would not have to comply with the ruling.

So, all states have to comply with the ruling, it is really quite simple.

It's amazing how fast some people forget how the law works when it becomes convenient for them.

bhsmte · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
"Might makes right" was disproved very effectively by Plato in Gorgias, so if your point is that the law should be our ethical guide in all circumstances, that is clearly false.

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and believe that.

Pammalamma · Sep 5, 2015

bhsmte said:
Let me explain grandfather clauses.

In a town I used to live in, they voted to make the town a "dry town" and no establishment could sell liquor. At that time, there was one establishment, that did sell liquor and they wrote in the law, that any existing establishments, could continue to sell liquor.

When the supreme court ruled on same sex marriage, they did not include, any grandfather language such as; any state, which did not legalize same sex marriage upon this ruling, would not have to comply with the ruling.

So, all states have to comply with the ruling, it is really quite simple.

Right, so what I'm saying is that if we were a tolerant nation, we would have included a grandfather clause. The fact that we didn't shows that we are intolerant of Evangelicals. Again, if we base our ethics on what the law says *today* that would mean that goodness and justice and right and wrong also change every day. So, the way the decision came down does not imply that it is good or just. Why perfectly reasonable, intelligent people are trying to get me to believe that "might makes right" and the authority of the state should never be questioned, I have no idea, but I won't believe that. It's been disproven by Plato in "Gorgias."

Pammalamma · Sep 5, 2015

lasthero said:
It's amazing how fast some people forget how the law works when it becomes convenient for them.

Right, have you heard any news about Hillary Clinton recently?

Marius27 · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
Oh, so now you change your tune!

You need to think about this more deeply. What I'm seeing is that you do not know or understand when it is right to break a law, and you also don't seem to know how to identify an unjust law.

Contempt of court isn't an unjust law.

lasthero · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
Right, have you heard any news about Hillary Clinton recently?

No.

What does that have to do with anything?

Marius27 · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
Right, have you heard any news about Hillary Clinton recently?

Red Herring. Unrelated to the topic at hand.

durangodawood · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
You have not defined, "extreme case," "case," "extreme," "agenda," or "individual agenda," so those words can basically be used any way you want. You have not established any way of dividing right conduct from wrong.

You are a sensible person, right?
You can grasp the general principles I'm getting across without me writing a whole treatise, right?
Do you agree with these general principles, as stated:
People should resist injustice, even if it means breaking the law in extreme cases.
But that does NOT mean we should have a policy of law officers setting their own individual agendas.
?

zephyrWiccan · Sep 5, 2015

pat34lee said:
Again, why did the judge interfere in her department if she wasn't discriminating against anyone?

Because she wasn't doing her job as require by law, and the court ordered her to, and she refused. Thus jail for contempt of court.

Marius27 · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
Right, so what I'm saying is that if we were a tolerant nation, we would have included a grandfather clause. The fact that we didn't shows that we are intolerant of Evangelicals. Again, if we base our ethics on what the law says *today* that would mean that goodness and justice and right and wrong also change every day. So, the way the decision came down does not imply that it is good or just. Why perfectly reasonable, intelligent people are trying to get me to believe that "might makes right" and the authority of the state should never be questioned, I have no idea, but I won't believe that. It's been disproven by Plato in "Gorgias."

What's wrong with opposing people who use their misguided religious beliefs to harm other people and break the law?

bhsmte · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
Right, so what I'm saying is that if we were a tolerant nation, we would have included a grandfather clause. The fact that we didn't shows that we are intolerant of Evangelicals. Again, if we base our ethics on what the law says *today* that would mean that goodness and justice and right and wrong also change every day. So, the way the decision came down does not imply that it is good or just. Why perfectly reasonable, intelligent people are trying to get me to believe that "might makes right" and the authority of the state should never be questioned, I have no idea, but I won't believe that. It's been disproven by Plato in "Gorgias."

Not much weight in assuring equal rights for all, if you include grandfather clauses.

Lets see, slavery will be illegal, but if you live in a state where you have slaves, you can keep them.

Let's see, interracial marriage is legal, but if you live in a state where it isn't, you can deny interracial marriages.

Let's see, religious freedoms are the law, but if you live in a state that wants Christianity to be the only religion, you are good to continue.

Let's see, allowing women to vote will be the law, but if you live in a state where they don't want women to vote, then you don't have to.

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Not Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

Mom and minister's wife in Pflugerville Texas

Mom and minister's wife in Pflugerville Texas

There's a FISH in the percolator

Dis Member

Dis Member

Mom and minister's wife in Pflugerville Texas

Newbie

"What is unseen is eternal"

Senior Member

Newbie

Newbie

Mom and minister's wife in Pflugerville Texas

Mom and minister's wife in Pflugerville Texas

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Dis Member

Active Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads