Pointing out the double standard

a reply to: kellyjay

the basis of the opinion is that both situations are the same in that both made decisions that broke the laws

You keep saying that, yet no one was arrested for breaking that law which you claims exists.

she tried to set a gofundme account up and gofundme refused it, he on the other hand has articles written calling him a hero

There are no articles about what a hero Kim is? Are you sure? There were no articles villifying Newscome? Are you sure?

originally posted by: kellyjay
ok hold on...is it the law that gay marraige is legal...or is it a mere opinion passed down by scotus?

The SCOTUS verifies laws not opinion.

a reply to: EternalSolace

What double standard? We're talking about civil disobedience, in both cases. In both cases a judge stepped to order the civil disobedience to stop. In the case of the San Francisco mayor, he adjusted his behavior to comply with judge's order, the county clerk did not.

Opinions on what is right or who is right in these kinds of situations don't refelct a double standard, they reflect......opinions.

originally posted by: kellyjay
ok hold on...is it the law that gay marraige is legal...or is it a mere opinion passed down by scotus?

Actually, the SCOTUS made no law. They said that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

a reply to: kellyjay

The decision handed down by SCOTUS makes gay marriage as legal and valid as hetero marriage and it mandates that no state (due to the 14th amendment equal protection clause) can deny a gay couple the right to legally marry. So yes gay marriage is now legal by the law.

Regarding the double standard... he didn't break any law by ordering marriage licenses be issued to gay couples.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: kellyjay
ok hold on...is it the law that gay marraige is legal...or is it a mere opinion passed down by scotus?

Actually, the SCOTUS made no law. They said that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

They can't make law. That's the legislative/executive branches. They can only confirm or deny laws. Right?

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

because she was breaking the law by not issuing the liscences

Then why was she not arrested and charged for it?

ask the judge....maybe he didnt want to catch heat from all the christians for charging her for not dismissing her morality based on her religion....

What? What are you talking about?
You think that he isn't catching heat from Christians?

a reply to: intrepid
The SCOTUS does not make law. They interpret laws and, in this case, how they apply to the Constitution.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

because she was breaking the law by not issuing the liscences

Then why was she not arrested and charged for it?

ask the judge....maybe he didnt want to catch heat from all the christians for charging her for not dismissing her morality based on her religion....

What? What are you talking about?
You think that he isn't catching heat from Christians?

he would have causght more heat i think if he had arrested her specifically for not issuing the liscences rather than just contempt

a reply to: windword
Let's define civil disobedience:

refusal to obey laws as a way of forcing the government to do or change something

Merriam-Webster

Refusal to obey the law typically means you're breaking the law.

San Francisco Mayer: Issued marriage certificates to gay couples when said certificates were not permissible by law.

Kim Davis: Did not issue marriage certificates to gay couples when said certificates were permissible by law.


Both actions were in civil disobedience. And by that definition, did break the law. In that civil disobedience, the courts had to get involved. Why did the courts have to get involved? Because they were both breaking the law.


So, where is the double standard? I'll point it out for everyone in as simple a way I can.

San Francisco Mayer: Praised for disobeying the law according to his beliefs.

Kim Davis: Villainized for disobeying the law according to her beliefs.

a reply to: Kali74

but he was breaking the law by forcing officials to issue marraige liscences, when marraige liscences were not to be issued, hence why the job ordered him to stop

a reply to: EternalSolace

San Francisco Mayer: Issued marriage certificates to gay couples when said certificates were not permissible by law.

Can you cite that portion of Proposition 8 which specifies that the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples was illegal?

Kim Davis: Did not issue marriage certificates to gay couples when said certificates were permissible by law.

Did not issue marriage certificates to anyone. Can you cite the law which makes that illegal?

a reply to: kellyjay

OK, for the sake of your argument, and I don not concede the point, say they did both do the same thing. When ordered to desist one did and one didn't. So what's the point other than one was attempting inclusion and one was denying rights? If that is your argument what it shows is that woman wouldn't adhere even with a judges order. He did. So what's that saying for the anti-gay crowd?

a reply to: Phage

Can you cite that portion of Proposition 8 which specifies that the issuance of marriage licenses was illegal?

It wasn't proposition 8 that made it illegal. It was proposition 22 enacted in 2000. Since the mayor was issuing the certificates in 2004, proposition 22 made them illegal.

Did not issue marriage certificates to anyone. Can you cite the law which makes that illegal?

If it was not illegal, why the ultimatum from the judge to issue them?

a reply to: EternalSolace

San Francisco Mayer: Praised for disobeying the law according to his beliefs.

Praised by some, vilified by others.

Kim Davis: Villainized for disobeying the law according to her beliefs.

Vilified by some, praised by others.

No double standard.

a reply to: EternalSolace

It wasn't proposition 8 that made it illegal. It was proposition 22 enacted in 2000. Since the mayor was issuing the certificates in 2004, proposition 22 made them illegal.

Ok, show me the part of prop 22 which made it illegal to issue same sex marriage licenses.

If it was not illegal, why the ultimatum from the judge to issue them?

If she had been doing something illegal why was she not arrested for it?

a reply to: windword

We both know that majority public opinion wins the day.

a reply to: kellyjay

it's not about feelings or majorities, it's about rights. was just decide that all people have the same basic rights, regardless of their religion, regardless of their feelings, regardless of majorities or minorities. and well, we try to fairly see to it that all get to enjoy their rights and no one gets to trample over them.
we will probably never reach perfecting in this quest, but well we can always find ways of improvements.

as far as the double standard, I'd have to reread the op again, then probably look up some of the facts that are being presented because well.....it seems like the truth seems to have been set aside all to often, and get back to you on that.

interesting artical here that makes some valid points and pertains to the thread

‘Not about marriage’

In the end, it’s not about marriage, he said.

“Of course, they feel they’re entitled to get any person they want who is a Christian in a position to give them a license. They want that person to do it. So they really are not interested in getting married. They’re interested in making a political statement and exercising the new-found power they now have because the courts are backing them up,” Titus said. “To them, it’s a raw power play.”

Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute also noted the tidal wave of change in attitude that has come across those leftists who are ridiculing Davis.

“Suddenly, the progressives are organizing lectures to remind the world that our system of government is predicated on our laws being enforced equitably, regardless of the preferences of the individuals,” he wrote on the FPI website. “Even Hillary Clinton got into the act this week tweeting that, ‘Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law – end of story.’”

He listed the following historical ironies with regard to the movement toward same-sex “marriage”:

Once President Obama finished his evolution on marriage, the U.S. Department of Justice, whose job it is to defend the laws of the United States in court, refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder then declared that state attorneys general are not required to defend constitutional amendments in their states if they believe them to be “discriminatory.”
It is the job of an attorney general to defend state laws in court. However, the attorneys general in Oregon, Nevada, California, Illinois, Virginia and Pennsylvania all refused to defend constitutional amendments in their states defining marriage as a man/woman relationship.
In 2013, D. Bruce Haines, an official in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, started issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses when the law did not permit it.
In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco and Mayor John West of New Paltz, New York, both directed marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples long before marriage had been redefined in their states.
“Apparently the concern with strict adherence to marriage laws is a new passion of progressives,” Backholm concluded.

“We’ve progressed,” they insist. “The law has changed to be good so we care about the rule of law now.”


Read more at www.wnd.com...

a reply to: kellyjay
Do you have any thoughts about it?
It seems to be a duplication of the one in your OP.