The Smiley Smile Message Board

Wherever you stand on same sex marriage issues, sticking this women in jail was not necessary.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html?sr=fb090315kentuckyclerkcourt700aVodTopLink

I agree. 

I'm pro same sex marriage.  But this person should've been suspended or given some other form of discipline.  Sending her to jail is a bit extreme. 

It's hard to be sympathetic to their plight when sh*t like this happens; indeed, my sympathy for the gay community is at an all-time low. This is the hallmark of a communist state, not the "land of the free." This is persecution of Christians, not to mention persecution of the people actually following the letter of the law. The Kentucky constitution specifically prohibits gay marriage. Like it or not, she was doing her job. Where are the "tolerant" gays, feminists, and liberals? Where?

They're NOWHERE to be found. "Tolerance" is a euphemism for "acceptance or else." You either fall in line with the liberal gestapo or you will face the consequences.

And how come NO ONE is saying it's time to get government out of marriage? This should be proof of that, but no...liberals want MORE government, not less.

Marriage is tied to Government because of the almighty dollar. If Taxes and Entitlements were'nt tied to marriage, the government wouldn't give two shits about it.

Yup. It was a political move. Plain and simple.

Yep, you're not allowed to have an opinion in this country anymore. 

I just heard today that Curt Schilling's suspension from ESPN will continue through the end of the baseball season because of a meme he posted that compared Muslims to Nazis.  He's already been suspended for about three weeks. 

To be fair, he compared radical Muslims to Nazis. Apparently, radical Muslims are now a protected class in the U.S. of A. Color me not surprised.

There shouldn't be government incentives to marry, period.

The high court ruled on the issue, clerks don't make the law but follow it.

This lady is in something way above her pay grade.

Yeah, she dared have her own conscience. The liberal gestapo does not tolerate dissent.

She not only refused to do her job, but she broke the law. Period.

The Supreme Court supersedes state law.

Exactly, she is a clerk not a lawmaker or judge.

The law is not a barometer for morality.

When the right bitches about "tolerance" what they REALLY mean is "I wish we could still be openly bigoted toward minorities".

Your logical fallacy is the straw man.

I wish the republicans would stop getting tangled up in these social issues that alienate young voters. The high court ruled gay marriage was legal, deal with it and focus on real issues.

There's no problem with gay marriage being "legal." There really are bigger issues than letting the gays get married. I'm sure people can understand that.

Like when Mike Love does a "wheennn" at a donald trump rally. ;)

Bluebirds over the hairpiece? :lol

that too :lol

I respect her right to her religious beliefs but if it is directly interfering with her ability to do her job requirements, then she needs to step down and allow someone else to take over. However, sending her to jail for standing up for her religious views is just plain liberal fascism at it's most transparent.  

She should have been removed from her job and left to her own devices. She's being made an example of; that's all this is.

I agree. It should have been nothing more than a firing. Though if she is an elected official then jail is the only option. Seriously, you cannot have people who are there to enforce the law blatantly break it.

Hey, if we held our elected officials up to the same standard to which we're holding up a fucking clerk, we'd have no federal or (most) state governments. Fat chance on that happening, of course. Some people depend on that free sh*t. Can't have them sitting at home and doing nothing without getting paid for it. :)

You are correct about her job. She may have been elected, or appointed, but her job is not to impose or create her own policy, but to follow the "law of the land." She likely took an oath to follow the law of the jurisdiction and the U.S. Constitution.

If she found it morally repugnant, she could have delegated the duty to the assistant clerks to issue the licenses.  Clerks have plenty of other administrative duties to follow.  She can't substitute her personal judgment for the law.  

According to the press, she was an elected official, and she had the option to allow the deputies to do it without interfering, but refused to do it, which sounds like she's making a scene deliberately.  It was thought a fine wouldn't work in her case, and supporters are putting money together, hence jail.

It's a shame that this kind of crap is sensationalized and made into a leading story.

It's a shame that activists on both sides clearly are using this person as an example, one demonizing her and one making her their shining knight (and funding such stance).

It's a shame that this person could have stayed out of jail by simply authorizing her deputy clerks who had agreed to give out the licenses to do so, which would have also meant she herself wasn't being required to give out the licenses. (It was thus her choice to go to jail.)

It's a shame that the federal, or any other level of, government gets involved in personal relationships (beyond preventing abuse of minors).

Individual freedom to practice religion is protected, as it should be, but when the expression of such religion negatively impacts others while simultaneously breaking the law, there has to be some kind of concession somewhere. Refusal to compromise is nothing to be proud of. If we were all absolutists, there would be no society to speak of, just millions of Hatfields and McCoys.

People are a fucking embarrassment.

While I don't think this person should've been imprisoned, I would have one question I'd love to ask her, and anybody else who opposes same sex marriage:

Exactly how does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

Has Paris Hilton publicly commented on this yet?

I think it was the fact of her name still being on the license even if she didn't personally issue them herself that she had a problem with.

She is an elected official.

So, yeah. "Liberal fascism".  ::)

You're sympathy for gay people is at an all-time low? Why? It's not like the government officials that made these laws and then enforced them were a group of homosexual people with a blood lust for oh so innocent Christians. This lady knew what she was doing. She was making an example of herself. You know what happens when you consistently disobey the law? You got to jail. Surprise! "Land of the free" doesn't equate "there's no laws, go have fun by preventing American citizens from getting married". "Land of the free" means "hey, you're gay? No problem. You can get married". "Land of the free" means "oh, you can't fulfill your job obligations? Go get a new one." This isn't a persecution of Christians. The other guy in the article, Bunning, himself is a religious man with the same job, but recognizes that he oath he took when he entered the position rises above his own feelings on the subject. This isn't a persecution of law followers, this lady isn't following the law. The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land, and whether you like it or not, she wasn't doing her job.

Why are you crying out for tolerant people? Why do you only ask for tolerant people when someone does something like this? You want me to accept this woman who denies other American citizens their right to marriage? That's bullshit. If this woman decided that she would step down because her religious views are impacting her job, I would be sympathetic. But that's not what happened - she deliberately stayed on to prevent people from being married. I can't even believe that allowing equal treatment to the people of the United States is even a political topic. What kind of f***ed up society makes a political issue out of allowing one section of its people to be treated the same as another section of its people? Your condemnation of groups you aren't affiliated with is predictable, but still sad.

Well, to be fair, the correct phrase for it is "oppressed freedom." But if you are going to start judging me on whether or not I use terms correctly rather than by the definitions that I arbitrarily and conveniently make up to help bolster my argument then that's just a striking example of oppressed freedom.

She said 'girl on girl action is hot but a guy doing another dude is eeewww icky".

Government officials break the law every day and don't get into any trouble over it. Yes, this woman is absolutely being made an example of because the issue of gay marriage is a hot political topic. I get the fact that she wasn't doing her job and she will most likely be impeached. The Constitution (in theory) is the supreme law of the land, not the Supreme Court. Tolerant people understand that government has no place in marriage. It's not about "Biblical" marriage; it's about state control over something that should be between the people involved. Government does not give people the right to associate with others; it can only take it away. Government should not be in the marriage business. If people are allowed to vote (as in forcing their will on others) to determine what "rights" people have, then they are not rights; they are privileges.

You want social matters to stop being issues? Stop expecting big daddy government to get involved in them. That's "the land of the free" for you.

It's bizarre that as an elected official they can't just suspend her but they can haul her ass to jail at the drop of a hat.

Is this just federal or state government? I don't think either one necessarily belongs, but one stepped in to straighten out the other. If Kentucky didn't put the "gays can't get married" clause into their state constitution, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Well, the states have that authority under the Constitution to decide those matters because the Constitution does not define marriage. Granted, the states also shouldn't have that leeway, but horses for courses. I'm not a Constitutionalist. :)

I fail to see how issuing a marriage license to two strangers would infringe on this woman's personal religious beliefs.  If she believes in freedom of religion, shouldn't she be considerate to those who practice outside of her own religion?  Putting aside that the couple was lesbian, as a government worker it is her job to serve all Americans, not just people who align with her religious beliefs.  Whether you're for or against gay marriage, it doesn't matter.  These women weren't asking for anything illegal and Davis's behavior was plain wrong.  There's no other way to look at it.

I'm amazed by how some Christians think they are acting according to their beliefs by hating other people.

Maybe they threw her in jail for being a bad Christian?

Loaf, you're so wrong it's icky. The hate is coming from militant leftists pushing an agenda that most - not even close - most Americans do not want. That's the hate.  Men and women are different (in case you're clueless) and when they get together and get married it's a unique thing.

Marriage is an institution that has existed for centuries, outside of govt as TRBB points out, and 5 powdered wigs say, no. Then the haters go and seek out people who they know don't want to play their games and have the govt FORCE them to bake them a same sex wedding cake. That's hate.  That's intolerance. Wake the fck up.

Stop accusing good people of the sht your left wing slobs do. Nobody fcking hates gays. Marriage is a special institution for a man and a woman. It's not about hating gays or whatever perverse fantasy the left wing media wants you to believe. It's about a small militant minoirty of hateful activists who don't want anyone to have anything special and unique.

Fcking haters. Cheer 'em on if you like, but but don't blame the victims of oppression for being hateful.

If mom says we have to let you play at our magic ceremony, then dammit, nobody can play. We'll take our game and go home.

Centuries of marriage, my ass. It has evolved constantly over its history, whether allowing for polygamy, various rules about divorce, existing as a largely property or political arrangement, etc. It has barely ever been what most people think of it as being now, which is an equal partnership of love and respect between two people (even if man and woman). That argument is full of sh*t.

Seems to me that hateful little scared people see hate everywhere. It's actually almost funny, except that the dumber people can't resist the fun of confrontational nonsense with big televised graphics. Whatever. The world moves on and luckily generations pass away. Their whining fades, and the scary fire and brimstone of how the world is going to hell never actually happens. (Luckily there's always a new aging generation to behave equally stupid. Oh joy.) Blah blah capital letters bold type Barack HUSSEIN Obama funny picture quote leftist assholeslobsnobeverybody'sbadbutmyteambreitbartzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

It's too bad none of the political discussions here ever amount to jack sh*t because of that nonsense (and its mirror image). A few people don't seem stupid or alarmist. A few do. And the threads devolve in to the Sandbox equivalent of Mike versus Brian. It's so disappointing to have topics that are interesting, but knowing that it's just a waste of everyone's time to say anything, ever, because of what is sure to follow.

Our local County Clerk, who is a Vegan, was jailed last week for refusing to issue fishing and hunting licenses.  :lol

In the meantime, I have been spending hours and hours reading the New Testament and trying to find any passages where Christ calls being gay a sin........  >:D Must be contained in some hidden code only Christians can understand.

Is it tolerant and loving to not allow people to marry?

Yeah, look at all the love and tolerance you have.

How in any way is Kim Davis a victim?  What horrible things would have happened in her life if she just let two people she otherwise had nothing to do with get married?  Nobody asked her to bake a cake for them, she just needed to sign some legal papers which again, did not have any personal relevance to her.  And now she's getting tons of press, is considered a hero by conservative politicians, and has become the poster child of Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign.  Yeah, that poor woman.

And there you go folks. Absolute proof that this "Bean Bag" character is absolutely, fully, totally full of sh*t.

Bean Bag also believes there is no racism besides of course THE NEW BLACK PANTHERS who are comin' to getcha!


Now, guys and gals, we know it's just so hard to be a straight, white, Republican, Protestant male in the United States. The chips are just sooooooo stacked against you. Such a rough life. :lol

Mr. Bag,

I have a quick simple question for you.

How exactly does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

That seems to be a question that nobody who is against same sex marriage can answer. 

+1

The question that should still be asked is why government is in the marriage business in the first place.

Government issues marriage licenses.  The Supreme Court ruling simply says that marriage licenses can be issued to same sex couples.

Churches still have the right to not marry same sex couples if they so chose. 

Interesting that Bean Bag seems to disappear whenever his bullshit gets torn to shreds.

Yeah, he is over on the PP thread talking his version of freedom and liberty. In other words, women have no say over their bodies and LGB&T are not free to choose who they marry.

You'll get it when you get it.

It doesn't.

No, it's not... you're right.  But no one was being denied marriage.  Only when the Supreme Court decided it had the phantom ability to redefine marriage does this now occur.  The states, legislature, and citizens that make up a society and it's laws didn't decide this.  Very similar to abortion.  The society did not decide this... there was no meeting.  No vote.

You're being ruled by judicial fiat. This should concern a free society.

Hey, hey, let's leave your ass out of it.  :-D Yes, marriage has evolved throughout history.  So why was that evolution stunted, aborted and not allowed to continue its natural course.

What for?

Actually, there are quite a few states, including my own, that legalized same-sex marriage through the legislative process or a popular vote.

So marriage was already redefined to include same-sex couples by the general public. The Supreme Court's job, as it usually is, was to reconcile the fact that there were two rules of law in the country -- one that excluded, and one that included. It went with the more inclusive option.

The fact that a majority of Americans support the decision -- and, indeed, disagreed with Kim Davis's actions -- strongly suggests that the court's decision was indeed the will of the people.

Exactly. 

Anybody else get the feeling that the ol' Bagger here was just fine when the "five lawyers in robes" ruled by "judicial fiat" to make George W. Bush President in 2000? Juuuuuust a feeling. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Bagger was "concerned" by that as well.

Also interesting that little ol' Bags also woulda been just fine if the Supreme Court "ruled by fiat" that the President's health care law was unconstitutional? Seems like he gets all concerned about his "freedom" when things don't go his way. Otherwise, meh, who cares!

The legislative process was allowed to operate in those states.  Kentucky was a "no."


Wrong.

No, not exactly. It's not about me. What if i said it does affect me?

Hey Bags, why don't ya have the guts to reply to my statements about how you're just fine with judicial tyranny as long as they rule your way?

It shouldn't and it doesn't.  So why are we talking about this?

We're talking about it because someone was put in jail.  Exactly as predicted.  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22227.msg526609.html#msg526609

RRAAAAWWWWRRRHHHGGHHH!!! GIVE HER THE CHAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :lol :lol :lol :lol

But seriously, I think she should have just resigned and moved on with her life.

She was in jail because *she broke the law*. Period. End of story.

That easy for you?  That's fine... it's your opinion -- but it's likely not how you or anyone truly feels -- for better or worse.  But what do I know.

If I may... Abortion is "legal."  But killing someone isn't.  Slavery was "legal."  But wrong.  If illegal immigrants aren't "legal" then why is the Powerful pretending it's ok?  Should we throw Obama in jail for not enforcing the border?  Supposed to.  Period, end of story, right?

Sanctuary cities legal?  I don't know.  But are they right?  Is it legal to overturn the state legislature?  Is it right to?  Depends.  Is it legal for the Supreme Court to write law from the bench?

Life is often bigger than procedure -- it's about what's right, 37!ws.  It's easier, and a lot less fuzzy if one does what they feel is right and fight for that.  I don't know the other way too well.  It sounds a lot like "do what others tell me to do."

It's okay for the Supreme Court to decide elections from the bench though right? As long as they give it to the Republican candidate, right?

Oh wait, Beanie Baby won't answer that cuz it doesn't fit his preconceived agenda.

Don't forget the Electoral college.

And, I like the idea of a completely voter based election.  Too much chicanery can happen otherwise.   ;)

Sweetdude -- how much do you really need me to delve into the 2000 election?  I'm being serious, now.  Remember energy is an expensive commodity... a commodity liberals cannot be trusted with  ;)  Har, har... But seriously... before you answer...

I'm sensing a typhoon is upon us.  You feel it?  All of us.  The entire political paradigm is shifting in ways that will require a lot of, I don't know "meditation?"  What do you think?

We feel it, Bean Bag... we feel it

(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj563/paintedteeth/Typhoon_Nina_25_nov_1987_0702Z_zpslhwsumdd.jpg)

Wow. A non-answer answer. What a surprise.

I guess that tells me what I needed to know. That being...

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS JUUUUUST FINE FOR BEANIE BABY AS LONG AS IT FAVORS HIS "TEAM"!

So, are we to believe you need it bad?  :-D

 :)   Trump's not the storm. He's certainly tapping into it.  No doubt.  Nobody's come along and really picked up the momentum and energy that's been boiling over in the Country, ever since radical-Obama and the radical-Left began their slash n' burn, pillaging of the land.  The Republicans won TWO historical landslides to shut the Turd down -- and did nothing.  And then Romney folded and many stayed home -- giving us four more glorious years of a HORRENDOUS President.

Found an Obama-cane pic!

(http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/38/aae10522fe9efa2425de53de7063c21e60181f52.png)

I gotta say, Bean...you've become a farce to read as of late. I'd even go as far as to say you're trolling. Whatever good points you have are being ignored in favor of the skirted non-answers and ad hominems you insist on responding with. Just another reminder that conservatives are just as loony as liberals. I mean hey, I agree with next to nothing offered by sweetdudejim and Bubbly Waves and Rocky Raccoon and such...and yet they can offer some kind of discussion as opposed to meandering dribble.

Food for thought, perhaps?

Yep. As a wise man--ok, a man--recently said of the character posting:

What's really the farce though?  Me or politics?  And don't give me an ego.

Political banter between two poles is the ultimate "food fight" after a certain point.  Consider it "sped up" considerably.

Yes. Very badly. Guess I'm not gonna get it though, which likely just means you can't find a way to spin the 2000 Supreme Court decision into something patriotic, non-political and not activist while talking sh*t about the "five (sometimes six) total loser lawyers in robes engaging in 'judicial activism' and ruling by fiat."


It's you, Bags. You're the farce.

Whereas people like Jason (The Real Beach Boy) and others are able to actually engage in discussion and call people out on sometimes troubled logic, you just decide to plug your ears and yell "la-la-la-la BENGHAZI la-la-la-la."

Well, fine.  Actually, no -- not fine -- I disagree.  I'm not the farce.  Let's put it to the board.

Who's got more substance -- Bean Bag or SweetdudeJim?  I'm votin' for yours truly.

let's hug it out, guys

 :-D  It's all good... it's come to this.

That's the thread title -- "So it's come to this..." So we're on topic.  A woman goes to jail, for stubbornly defending the State Constitution, the wishes of the People and the Legislative Process of her state -- and the oath of her religion.  And she goes to jail.  Yeah... America, it's come to this.

And here... Sweetdudejim challenges me to put my money where my mouth is -- and what, predict the election?  Sounds like it's come to this.  He asks me Obama's religion.  Oh yeah, we're there.  He asks me about 15 year old SCoTUS rulings that have nothing to do with what we're talking about... well, we have arrived.  So it's time to wrap all this up and give him his answer.

Jason and The Captain voted.  I voted.  He hasn't.  2-1, he's in the lead.  But I think he's getting nervous...  :smokin

I didn't vote for anything. I said you seem like you're doing an act, like a caricature. But I'm not putting anyone against anyone, picking people over others, or any of that nonsense. I'd just like to see some honest, respectful, informed discussion instead of petty attacks, cable news talking points, and silly pictures.

Thanks for the advice, really.  I appreciate it.  I don't want to get too far off topic, but since you brought me up, I'll reluctantly respond.  First, the world of politics seldom has more meat in its debates than what you've been getting here.  By that I mean, you should be able to extropolate these exchanges out to the larger whole.

Second, the trolling thing.  I never understand why I get that occasionally, but that's fine.  Just understand that in politics, it's seldom a discussion, and there are different methods, and people have different needs.  Some folks like a debate and can engage, but most -- and I do mean most -- just have opinions.  And that's 100% perfectly fine.  Preferable actually.  Let's hear 'em.  God Almighty, let's hear those opinions!   :-D

Between you and me -- people have been silent for far too long.  Everybody has an opinion on these issues, I know they do, but they're silenced by bullies.

So... a political thread, 99% of the time (up slightly from a regular thread), appears to erode.  Bullies don't want other opinions heard OR people have the strangest expectations about a political exchange.  Right or wrong, usually never comes up.  The debates that carry (drag) on -- seemingly on substance -- actually become a fool's battle of who's got the most fact (or fiction) -- not who's right or wrong.  Or they devolve into who's gonna buckle, stumble or just get "over it" and walk away.

I honestly don't know what these televised "Presidential Debates" are, by the way.  Yelling from 100 feet away?  Drive-by exchanges at 50 mph?  The format better change before someone gets good at it.

Anyway... it's best to accept and manage these strange, but real "realities" and bring as many along as you can.  For me, it's key to remain civil and passionate -- even if those objectives appear to be at odds.  They say respect has to be earned, correct?  Everyone has an opinion -- but no one has to respect the actual opinion.  And if we're dishing out opinions, it should be spicy.

Let's close with an example.  Loaf and I had a healthy exchange on abortion.  Passion, opinions and emotion were exchanged.  He acted like he had respect for me from the outset.  But if respect has to be earned, it's likely he was only being courteous.  And it was therefore, likely a tactic, method or practice.  A respectable one and he did a good job with it -- that is, he didn't "break character."  At least not in that exchange.

“A man ... thinks that by mouthing hard words, he proves that he understands hard things." - H. Melville

Did I use hard words?  :-D

I take it that's a vote for the other candidate...

Where's Sweetdeude?  You know, they say a non-vote is a vote for the winner.   :p  Which in this case is still him, not me... but you get my point.

Compare the story in this link and the OP I started.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/geller-muslim-stewardess-refuses-to-serve-alcohol-then-plays-the-victim/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/geller-muslim-stewardess-refuses-to-serve-alcohol-then-plays-the-victim/)

If it were 1930 and the woman (who refused to serve alcohol in the article, based on a religious thing) became a flight attendant, where refusing to serve alcohol wouldn't have been an issue, since it was illegal in 1930 -- only to have a radical, mentally-challenged Supreme Court grant itself the authority to wield a magic wand and legislate from the bench (oh be nice!) then the woman should be granted some sympathy, right?  In my scenario, the poor woman would have had her job redefined by a bunch loons, prancing around in robes, thinking themselves magical wizards from a far away land.

But, in this case, the ding-dong took the job knowing what the job was -- a flying bartender.  So she's a nut.  And in a sane society this nut should be laughed at.  But these days... who knows.  The inmates run the asylum.  And if her case were to ever get to the "geniuses" at SCOTUS -- anything can happen.  They may even make her Speaker Of The House.   :lol

This issue defied logic for me.  Serving alcohol seems to be an "essential function" of the job.  And the woman was looking for a "reasonable accommodation" from this. 

Most airlines don't even serve food any longer, so "beverage service" and safety, seem to be the essential functions. 

A psychedelic video for a piece of mine called "So It's Come To This" from last year, best with headphones:

https://youtu.be/HItDv7OHL6o (https://youtu.be/HItDv7OHL6o)

So it's come to that!!! :lol

Apparently, she was working for the airline before she converted to Islam (two years ago), at which time she came to an agreement with the airline about the alcohol thing, an agreement that seems to be undone since another attendant complained.

Interesting.  That dispute might have arisen if there was a collective bargaining agreement, and representing a "change in working conditions" that had not been negotiated.  Someone in the industry might know better. Often a worker can make a side deal with a boss, that is satisfactory to both of "those parties" but which undermines the rights of the group involved as a whole. 

The flip side is that management might encourage this because it "sticks it to the union" because it is acting "outside of the negotiated" contract.  A better way might be to involve the union with the management, then everyone is on the same page.