You're going in circles. Every bit of that was answered in my previous comment. And in other prior comments. Following the law is not an excuse for a government employee, or a cop, to violate rights. We start and stop with right and wrong.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Are Lerner, Clinton and Obama in jail? I need to catch up on the news...

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". Jefferson

Not your average Joe.

I don't understand how any of this justifies a County Clerk (elected to uphold the law without prejudice in the course of her duties) to selectively refuse to perform what is required by her office.

As an elected official, her refusal is the same as and just as wrong as a Muslim, or Jew, or 'take your pick' refusing to perform the requirements of the office based on their beliefs. This isn't a private business. If she doesn't want to do the job, she can resign or pay the price any government employee should pay for subjectively applying the law. Otherwise, what's the fuss over Lerner, Clinton, or Obama?

Yeah, right. Ok.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right...
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you!"

Ah, but as more and more jobs become government jobs, and as more and more people are owned by the government, in one way or another, that difference (between a private individual and a government employee or official) becomes smaller. If a police officer is ordered, as part of a SWAT team, to break into someone's house and arrest them for an offense that the officer does not consider justifiable, should he refuse? Or should he quit and let a thug take his job and break into the house? Should he drive the tank into the Waco compound and .... because those weirdo's are irrational? Should the Jews be deported because everyone knows that they're subhuman? Where to we start and where do we stop?

Who said that? No one with an ounce of self-preservation instinct.

It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. (Sadly, it's wrong most of the time any more.)

Wouldn't that put the liberals in a tizzy? If Kim Davis had been a muslim? Conservatives would be after her head and there would be dead silence from the liberals because they would be caught on both sides of the issue.

On this site? I'd have to guess that this is a subject that many have not thought through thoroughly. She's a christian and a lot of people are still trying to reconcile Objectivism with their faith. And it's just homosexuals wanting to get married. Their activism gets pretty outrageous which makes it easy to justify a little rights infringement in retribution. I never expected that many here though.

If I could chat with Rand right now, I'd like to ask her if she could see that even her own arguments for 'rights' is circular...

"Rights" are whatever enough people Agree Are "Rights" and if enough people Agree To Take some or all Rights Away, you may not get to exercise or enjoy those "Rights" any longer, even if you say you still "have" or "own" them.

But as for the list in the link supplied by conscious1978, I support anyone and everyone willing to support and defend my 'right' and everyone else's 'right' to enjoy those "Rights."

It's just that I don't agree that there is some Universal, Immutable, Foundational Source for those "Rights." They're privileges that, if granted to and supported by Everyone, DO lead to a maximization of "good" for the most individuals.

.... imnsho... :)

Now that's a good question. Who was it that said "if the law is immoral you not only have the right but a moral imperative to disobey it"? Or something like that. I agree wholeheartedly. This implies as well that we are capable of know what is moral. And there is a responsibility to know what is moral. You can't just make stuff up on a whim. And one must be prepared to defend their position and face the consequences. But a private individual, or even a private business, has the right to discriminate. To freely associate, or not. A government employee or a police officer, only when they are on the job and acting as a representative of the government, does not.

:)... check the graphs of union membership's erosion over the past decades... and the unions can't seem to understand their own part in the decline... Such is life...

We are in agreement as to the issue of the government requiring a license to marry in the first place. But this is where we are and no one is raising this issue.
But I do have a question for you - under what circumstances, if any, would you think that a person is justified in not following a law? Would the situation be different if a person were to be a private individual or a government employee, say, a police officer?

If the Sharia basis were to be invoked in Pakistan, that would have been just fine. The fundamental difference here is that this country was in fact founded on Judaeo-Christian basis and morals. The Constitution is explicit of not having one religion rule over others or theocracy, but it is difficult for me to imagine that the Founding Fathers meant to reject all Judaeo-Christian morals.

Mobs claiming arbitrary rights is why we get all these collective servitude "rights." Like a right to be given healthcare (Obamacare.) Using this logic, sex is a right. So what's next...Obamasex?

You have to wonder how many of those trying to defend Kim Davis, acting in the position of County Clerk, on the mistaken basis of the 1st Amendment, religious beliefs, or respect for her defiance...you have to wonder what their reaction would be if she was doing this based on Muslim beliefs.

Even though said defense would still be in error, would they be consistent in that defense? Obama and company are (justifiably) criticized for selectively following the rule of law around here all the time...what justifies a pass for Kim Davis?

Rights, as you defined them above, are indefensible and subject to any gang arbitrarily claiming their rights are better.

Understanding that our natural rights must be derived from the essential characteristics that make us human objectively establishes a man's right to his own life. All other rights follow.

Just keep in mind the Law of Identity also applies to Man. ;)

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ind...

Specifically, what law is she charged with breaking. She does not have a right to inflict her religion on others, I agree. But she does have a right to be clearly and formally with a specific violation. If the fine for not baking a cake is $130,000.00, Maybe the fine for not issuing a license should be a Million. who decides?? Written laws or popular frenzy???

Are you saying she can not be formally charged with breaking a particular law? You get that right for a speeding ticket or a parking violation. Somewhere she dis obeyed a written law that is charged with..or else we have started the descent into verbal government.

Add to that, the irony of the fact that there are very few corporations that have a monopoly on anything for long. If one invents a better widget, he faces tough competition soon. Unions defend their monopoly through threats, intimidation, walk outs and sometimes violence.

Many workers are seeing the light but the large cities and school systems are pawns forever. At one time in American history, unions provided a much needed service for the workers and enabled the spread of democracy because the government was crooked and bought by the corps....Now the situation has changed with the government being captive of the unions. When the referees are betting on the Super Bowl, there is no chance of seeing a good game.

Individual rights is absolutely the issue here. Civil unions via whatever the process is is not equal treatment under the law. What the progressives/socialists need or want here is irrelevant. The rights of two (at least) individuals were violated by a representative of the government. Just because she is bucking the state does not make her right. She is a shining example of why there is a separation of church and state. she bows down to a higher authority and wants to use the force of government to make those who disagree bow down with her before her flying spaghetti monster. This is no different than those who would try to enforce sharia law upon US citizens except that she is using the force of government do do it.

If you want to be outraged, be outraged at the fact that so called free American citizens have to ask permission to get married in the first place. That is infuriating. But what is more infuriating is that this permission is not the issue. That a Deluded individual like Kim Davis can stand in the way of anybody exercising their right to marry who they wish and there isn't a nationwide call to put an end to the government intrusion. That most people are OK with the government having the power to dictate who gets married and who doesn't. And that even here in the Gulch we can't get past people defending a religious nut like Kim Davis.

Also, again, the victims at Ruby Ridge and Waco were not government officials imposing their will upon others.

"Freedom of Conscience" does NOT equate to "Freedom from Consequences".

Regardless of one's take on Freedom of Religion, Ms Davis' stance is flawed.

My position is this: the founders of our republic used as a starting point that we were endowed by our Creator (out of deference to your sensibilities, let's just call it the governing dynamic of the universe and move along) with certain unalienable rights; among them (this phrase indicates that there are other rights as well) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My ears go up like a jack rabbit when I hear that some judge somewhere claims that his court can supersede this basic premise; in essence, he's clearly claiming that he will be the arbiter of what our rights are (and what is infinitely more important), what they are not.

Ah, that 'argument' didn't convince me at all.
Can you do better than that?

"Requirements inherent in being human" to me is about as nebulous as using a term like "natural rights"...

Please!