And I'm glad she's being held accountable for that. Having said that, can we now start applying that same standard to all elected officials who willingly shirk their duties in other areas such as drug enforcement and illegal immigration? Can we lock up public officials in sanctuary cities responsible for releasing violently criminal illegal immigrants back into society who go on to murder innocent people?
You're talking omission vs. commission. All law enforcement officers make decisions about what to pursue and what not to pursue. They have to, because there aren't enough officers on the street or enough hours in the day to pull over every speeder, chase every shoplifter, nail every pothead. This is more akin to "I don't like guns, so I'm going to decline to issue you a permit even though you meet the requirements." Or "My dad worked for Ford, so I won't give you a registration sticker for your Toyota or your Chevy."
I didn't say that. I said it's hypocritical to support one company refusing customers based on their beliefs while condemning another for doing the same.
Are you under the impression I support her? Allow me to direct you to reply #2 in this thread. http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2761118/
Um.....no. When law enforcement locks up someone they have already ran a background check on that individual. If that person turns out to be an illegal immigrant then it is their job to turn that person over to ICE. A young lady was murdered recently in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had just recently been released from jail by local law enforcement. Had they done their jobs this lady would still be alive. Frankly I find this shirking of duty much more serious than a couple not being issued a marriage license.
How many Americans were murdered by other Americans on the same day? You don't know, because you don't care, because it doesn't fit your narrative. Besides, this guy had been deported numerous times. It was ICE that dropped the ball, not local law enforcement.
I was under the impression you thought there was hypocrisy involved. It actually looks very straight forward and clear cut and not even remotely hypocritical.
I actually can go along with this. There needs to be to be some punishment for sanctuary cities and non-compliant departments. That said nothing can really change without a court order or an act of Congress and neither seem inclined to do anything.
So is anyone willing to side with a clerk who says "I don't believe in guns, so I'm not going to issue the permits that the law tells me to"?
Except in those cases the governments in question aren't actually breaking federal laws. On immigration, federal law doesn't require that all people arrested be run through the ICE database. Only those who are arrested for a certain level of crimes have to be. Since it is not possible to codify every possible crime (considering every state is different) the law instead bases the requirement on sentence length. What 'sanctuary cities' have done is instruct their police to not run people through the database unless required to by federal law while at the same altered their legal codes so that crimes that would normally carry sentences say 'up to one year in jail' now go 'up to 364 days in jail' lowering the number of crimes that require running the names through the database. When it comes to pot what governments have done is make marijuana consumption the lowest possible enforcement priority. So only after the enforcement agency has stopped all other crimes can money be spent on pursuing low level marijuana crimes. However the laws are still on the books and if someone is cited or arrested for another crime AND they happen to have marijuana on them, then the infraction is added on. Violation of the spirit of the law? Yeah, sure. But it isn't a violation of the letter of the law, which when it comes to the law, is all that matters.
Mrs. David woke up with a note from god on her cell room door today. It read: Thank you Mrs. Davis for your help, but I am the Almighty. If I had wanted traditional religious values you would have woken up today with Vladamir Putin as your ruler and ISIS would be his police force. You would be a free woman with no job and married to your first husband because traditional religion does not allow women to work, get divorced, or tell men what to do. Now enjoy your breakfast and I will set you free when I need your help on the next 12th of never.
I'm sure you think about that a lot. Guys, if you want to donate to Kim Davis, the best way to do so is to fund her legal defense team at lc.org.
I hope you're praying for her to come to an understanding of John 13:34. Only Westboro (oh, and ISIS, of course) has the hubris to say "God hates fags." Have you joined Westboro, or are you just another unrepentant sinner?
If she's going to play the religion card, did she voluntarily give back to the state, 40 percent of her salary, because, Biblically speaking, she isn't supposed to earn more than that? Or, does she feel that's only for other women?
She's looking for either martyrdom, her 15 minutes, or a GoFundMe account. Preferably all three. Sucks for her that GoFundMe ain't playin'. But, hey, Mike Huckabee wants to be Husband #5. Though he'll have to compete with @Ron Paul in order to do so. I'm tempted to send her a C.A.R.E. package of shampoo and a hairbrush. Bitch, please. I've got fine hair too, but I can teach you some styling tricks.
No, she's been subsumed. She gets exquisite joy for her sacrifice. That and her hubby gets to have a drink and relax. I'm watching my step-son go through a similar passage with the local holy-rollers (faith-healing, speakin-in-tongues evangelical rock-n-rollin xians.) He has to leave the room when any movie on shows a bit o'tit. Youth is a terrible thing to waste. Seriously: we were watching The Big Lebowski and he had to leave the room several times. Queer as a clockwork orange don'tcha know.