Correct, and that is how I see it (see my subsequent reply @dacree above). I don’t know why I wrote it that way.
1 Like
Dude, you’re arguing it’s OK to be a bigot because she’s making a stand.
Least that’s how it’s looking and that kind of argument isn’t winning people over here.
The way we’re seeing it is this, and forgive me if I’m mistaken here.
This woman sees that everyone regardless of orientation being allowed these certificates are a bad thing and that it’s only reserved for people she deems are correct to give them to.
You are using arguments land comparisons to people who argued for inclusion and integration rather than segregation and putting one above the other.
that is why we are not getting on the train you’re riding. We do not agree with this logic. I am sorry that we disagree, but it is what it is at this point. I wish I had a better way to explain why I think you are wrong.
1 Like
Never argued that at all. Of course it’s not OK to be a bigot. Society should shun and shame you for it - not the courts. I’m saying that locking someone away who poses no immediate threat for refusing to go against their own personal religious beliefs without a trial or guilty verdict is wrong. No matter who it is I’ll say that it is wrong to jail a contentious objector who poses no threat. IMO the judge should have set an immediate date for trial and disposed of this case without delay. There is no reason to lock her up until she changes her mind. That is punishment for belief and not action. If you want to punish her actions, go to trial and get and sentence.
If a judge orders a KKK member to burn their cloak or sit in jail for contempt, I’d say it was wrong.
If a judge orders the Dali Lama to renounce Buddha or go to jail without a trial or a verdict, I’ll be the first to shout foul.
Until she has a trial and is found guilty, I think it is wrong to lock someone away for conscientious objection.
It doesn’t matter what the law is. Laws change over time. Not too long ago the law said you go to jail for being homosexual. So, the arguments that “It’s the law” fall flat for me. That something is a law does not make it right. I also realize that just because I agree with the current laws on marriage being available to people of any orientation does not give me the right to force another person to accept my views or act in opposition to their personal faith.
As for anyone on this forum agreeing with me, why the hell would I care about that? The posts here expressing gleeful joy over seeing this woman punished expressed by so many posters saddens me but it’s a good reminder that often those who think and claim they are liberal or progressive can just as easily turn out to simply be despots without the power to enact their will.
You have just demonstrated that you are arguing outside the realm of reality.
That is likely why you fail to get traction so reliably.
1 Like
Ted Cruz, is that you?
So you don’t think we jailed people for being homosexual? Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia
Gay people are still being arrested for having consensual sex in some red states, like Louisiana.
Perhaps it is you who is living in the fantasy world. I really do like how you conveniently sidestepped my actual position by focusing on why I think “It’s the law” is a poor argument.
Nope, I’m a progressive liberal who thinks punishing people for what the believe without a trial is wrong.
By your reply, I can only assume you think it’s ok to do so. Dick Cheney, is that you?
man but you people get nasty when someone points out your hypocrisy and mean spiritedness.
Well, we’ve finally reached Peak Dacree.
Several people have explained to you why you’re wrong, and we’re tired of your cognitive dissonance/driving trollies. Shine on, you crazy diamond.
she is not being punished for what she believes. She is being punished for using her position to force that belief on others as a civil servent.
Or would you rather we allow her to push her agenda?
4 Likes
She’s not being punished for that either.
She’s being punished for defying a court order. And she can stop the punishment any time she wants to.
I’d prefer it if someone would just impeach her and end this though.
6 Likes
I suspect you’re aware that I wasn’t saying anything like that.
If you’re not aware of it, that explains a thing or two.
1 Like
No one has explained how I am wrong. All they have done is present the same tired nitpicking of single points without addressing the central idea like they usually do. As usual, if someone finds a single point to which they have a clever reply, they feel justified in declaring the entire position invalid. Any child can see how that’s simply a ploy.
But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me why it is OK to lock someone away, who is not posing a threat, without a trial, for their beliefs until they agree to act in direct opposition for those beliefs. Forget about this case and defend the action itself.
Failing that, tell me why I’m wrong for believing we should have a trial and due process before we remove the liberties of another person who poses no threat. Again, that’s the position. Without regard to this case or any other, that is my position. Tell me why it is wrong.
Or, another option would be to explain why this case is special and my belief that it is wrong to lock up someone like this does not apply to this particular case.
I invite you to use the arguments that explained how I was wrong to do so if you would like, or use your own. Either way is fine.
No, the trial would set a punishment for using her position to force her belief on others. That trial is not at question. Right now she is being punished for not following a court order to issue licences and this is happening without due process. Do you see the difference?
That’s not the only other option. As I stated, the judge could set a date for immediate trial and have this case disposed of. Instead, he is punishing her pre-trial for the same (in)action she is being accused of.
I would rather we have justice than a vindictive system that punishes people without due process.
How could you possibly suspect that given your reply? Am I supposed to be a mind reader? You quoted me saying that the law used to say that you go to jail for being a homosexual so the arguments presented here that “It’s the law” have no merit and you then responded to that quote, which you chose, by saying I’m arguing outside the realm of reality? Explain to me how I should have taken that… What is the proper way to decode your words? Do I need a ring?
I think that the argument goes that the contempt occurs in the face of the judge, and so summary judgement is applicable. There is no question that she is not denying the court order, so she’s subject to the judgement. Not sure what a jury trial would achieve.
The imposed party is said to “hold the keys” to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required.
FWIW, I don’t think that locking her up is a good thing. But I’m not sure what the alternative is, beyond removing her from her position so that she isn’t being coerced into anything. Ideally, she’d just be removed/suspended from her position, pending an appeal. She seems to have declared herself unwilling to carry out the duties of her office, isn’t that a de facto resignation?
This is an interesting article on imprisonment for civil contempt:
4 Likes
I think that’s the argument for why it is legal. Not for why it is right.
As I’ve previously stated, contempt of court is a holdover from the ecclesiastical courts of England. The idea was that judges authority was derived from god and therefore contempt of court was a crime. This concept was created when heresy was a crime. To be a member of the wrong faith or to question the church and by extension the courts was a punishable offence.
This nation was, in part, created to escape religious rule and to provide freedom from and of religion. As such, I strongly believe that contempt of court has no place in a free and secular society - especially one whose most celebrated protection is that of free speech and religion.
Or to put it bluntly, that a thing is legal does not make it right - just like the laws saying you could imprison a person for loving another person if they were of the same sex were abhorrent, so too are these contempt of court rulings.
I’d say yes or perhaps at least an abandonment of position. I see no reason the state cannot appoint an interim office manager and move on until the actual trial.
2 Likes
Perhaps a hypothetical dialogue would help illuminate things:
Judge: Ms Davis, it’s reported that you are refusing to issue wedding licenses to same-sex couples, correct?
Davis: That is correct, your honor.
Judge: On what grounds?
Davis: Religious grounds, sir.
Judge: On what legal grounds?
Davis: My constitutional right to religious freedom as specified in the First Amendment.
Judge: But you are an elected public servant, sworn to uphold certain statues, including those of federal law. You are aware that same-sex couples have a federal right to marry, correct?
Davis: Yes, your honor.
Judge: And yet despite a court order, you refuse to issue marriage licenses to such couples.
Davis: It’s my religious freedom to—
Judge: Ms Davis, this court finds no quarrel with your religious views, they are yours to hold and practice. But so long as you are county clerk, you are legally bound to fulfill the duties of that office. And by refusing a court order to do so, you are in contempt of court which is punishable by fine or jail time.
Davis: So you’re saying I’m legally obligated to violate my religious views? Or go to jail for those views?
Judge: Ms Davis, you are holding the keys to your own cell here. It seems that you see a irrevocable conflict between your duty as county clerk and your religious views, which leaves you with three choices. One, you refuse to resign but agree to comply with this court order and resume fulfilling your duties— all of your duties —as county clerk, albeit with a plagued conscience. Two, you resign from your position as county clerk. Three, you refuse to resign and refuse to comply with this court order— a refusal punishable by jail time until you choose either the first or second option. This is a decision that you must make. And I can’t make it for you.
13 Likes
On the matter of the validity of ‘contempt of court’ itself:
A trial spectator starts yelling profanity and threats at the plaintiff during proceedings. A defendant shows up wearing a shirt that says ‘Fuck The Police’ in big, bold lettering. A key witness, after taking the stand, refuses to remove her niqab and says she will only swear an oath to Allah. A juror is seen silently playing on their smartphone during trial. A county prosecutor with a known history of alcohol and drug abuse stops showing up to work.
You’re the judge in power. What would you do? What legal recourse would you want to have in each of these scenarios?
3 Likes
You are imagining a real court room, with real people and events that could actually happen. This is not the courtroom in @dacree’s mind.
In his way, he keeps telling us that. Perhaps it’s time to take the hint.
1 Like
Well, for starters, I’d give Kim Davis, her supporters, and @dacree this flowchart:
12 Likes
Thankfully, your opinion is wholly irrelevant. And opinions can certainly be unglued and without merit.
And this decision is about neither.
2 Likes
She holds the keys to her own freedom, but she’s not unlocking the cell because she’d rather abuse her elected position than obey the law. It’s as simple as that. And she’s milking the opportunity for all it’s worth.
8 Likes
