You wrote the comments about Nazi atrocities yourself, likening them to "New Amerikan [sic] judges". They were your own statements in your own words. When confronted with the absurdity of that you backed off to "setting a path in that direction", then returned to "Nazi excuses". The hyperbole of your logical fallacies are ridiculous. Holding people accountable to the law in a civilized society is not "Nazi" and not a "path to Nazis" or any other variation.

No one is stripping Davis of her rights and this has nothing to do with "Nuremburg" or anything like it. She is in jail for defying a court order to stop willfully continuing to violate other peoples' civil rights. She is not on trial and not claiming she was "under orders": She is appealing to her own religious dogma as an alleged basis to do whatever she wants as a government official simply because she is "religious". That is nonsense. There is no "right" for a bureaucrat to do that. There are no such rights to "strip" her of. Vague appeals to "conscience" are not an argument for a bureaucrat to arbitrarily assume power she does not and should not have as a public official.

This has nothing to do with anyone's idea's of the rationality of homosexuality or "Obama terrorizing America". A government bureaucrat has no right to make her own laws and demand that everyone else accommodate her. Her claimed "convictions" of her religious faith are irrelevant, not a basis for a privileged position as a bureaucrat imposing her own theocracy. She has no right to do that and does not acquire such a "right" to violate other peoples' civil rights with a mob of local voters behind her, which is another conservative collectivist fallacy based on the same notion as conservative notorious "states rights" statism.

One doesn't need Ayn Rand quotes to understand that neither Davis nor you have any right to control homosexuals you regard as "irrational". No, her faith is not "rational". This is fundamental. Faith is the opposite of reason, not a get out of jail free card for whatever she wants to do. But the claims of irrationality are irrelevant to other people's personal freedom. As Ayn Rand put it, "All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults. Laws against corrupting the morals of minors are proper, but adults should be completely free." (Ford Hall Forum, 1968)

No argument there...
One of my favorite quotes...

http://www.plusaf.com/_troll-pix/trol...

You could, but they're all 'rights' by societal agreement.
Nice rights, desirable ones for sensible folks, but there ain't no power but 'agreement' that enables their existence long term...

Actually 'rights' which, when defended, probably allow faster and higher development of societies and cultures... but still... only when the culture agrees to support and allow them.

You guys said just about the same thing in different ways. I think EW is just a little wound up (rightfully so), on this topic with all the, shall we say, non-Objectivist comments showing up.

This judge is just another Obama left wing liberal terrorist. He should be kicked off bench and given 30 days hard labor.

I can see what you're getting at with the Nuremberg thing (admittedly not knowledgable on the subject) but you are reversing the roles. Davis is the government official forcing her will, via the force of her government position, on peaceful, law abiding citizens. The judge who put her in jail was serving justice.

Her faith is absolutely irrational and she has every right to be irrational but she has no right to use her position to enforce her irrational views on others. We could argue all night about whether or not homosexuality is rational or not but it is not relevant because it was not being forced on anyone via the force of government.

I, too, believe Davis should resign. Why? Because her values conflict with the job she is now required to do. But she was elected to the position, and her states laws are still aligned better with her values. And the people who elected her as well. so maybe she should stand her ground. Push it to the limits. States rights and all that, right? But states don't have rights. Society doesn't have rights. Government doesn't have rights. Only individuals have rights. And those rights are not subject to vote. They exist regardless of the law. We had better do our damn best to understand those rights properly because if this shit keeps hitting the fan, we may have to choose sides.

Also, Rosa Parks was not a government official imposing her will.

and 'this country was NOT 'founded as a Christian country' either!'

The cultural bases do include Judeo-Christian tenets, but that's where it ended.

... and control what goes on in those bedrooms, too!

With all these debts and liabilities politicians have accumulated in the name of statism, I really feel sorry for the children, and the yet to be born.

"lose", not "loose."

Nope... All "Rights" are defined by people getting together and agreeing that "this is a right and that is not a right."

I just can not understand why humans can't seem to see that... :)

It seems to mean that they could, even though she is in charge of the department, but who knows what it means she would personally do herself. She is not the clearest thinker, is she? Perhaps it isn't supposed to make sense, and is only a maneuver cooked up with her lawyer to advance the agenda in some small way while saving face. As Ellsworth Toohey put it in The Fountainhead, "Don't bother to exam a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes".

and your examples have obvious downsides, too, including the virtual impossibility of firing a teacher who can be shown to be ineffective or non-productive in meeting the specifications of their Job Description, But They Have Tenure...

Automating the "marriage license system" to simply provide a form which, when signed is scanned into a database and from that scan, becomes public record and all rights and privileges associated with that form/contract are then in force... well, why do we need her in that position at all?!

In the long run, a form-printing machine and a form-scanning machine connected to a government database would be cheaper, too!

No expensive salaries or pensions or sick pay ... or court proceedings... :)

(Had to look for a good one)

Always in motion is the future.
(Yoda)

I just did -- so that some with a genuine interest in Ayn Rand can better understand, but knowing that the religious militants will not.

Thanks, OUC... I like that, especially http://tvpnc.org/the-prime-law/

AND there's no mention of God or religion in it!
THAT has promise!

It wasn't clear what your position was. The Constitution presupposes a proper conception of natural law, but the written Constitution is the explicit standard for the court. The judge seems to understand that standard, at least in this case (but who knows -- they often have no conception of principles of natural rights at all, or the requirement to directly follow the meaning of the Constitution). Here he is rejecting the religionists' inversion of the role of what they call "natural law", regarded as "God's law" and open to being whatever the religionists' revelations say it is as superseding the actual law. This is one of the aspects of this controversy that is much deeper than politics alone and which the traditional conservatives have thoroughly mangled in their emphasis on religion.

well, we might start with life, liberty and pursuing happiness,
and expand into freedom of speech, ownership of yourself and
property, and the like. . sound familiar? . crossing mama nature
can result in difficulties!!! -- j
.

she can resign and run for a different office...

"but the children! the children!..." ?

and the 'natural law' that shall not be infringed upon is....? Remind me, ok?
Thanks!

and her "solution" appears to me to be irrelevant to potential future actions on her behalf... it says nothing about whether she'd allow anyone she disapproves of to get a 'marriage license' in her office or by any of her subordinates!

There are no good assurances or guarantees in her weasel-worded 'solution.' Come up with a few "well, what if's..." and it should be clear. :)

... tell that to the Conservative Right...

Are you suggesting that one cannot know what is right and what is wrong?

No one is "dogging your trail". When you publicly post a comment it is open for response from anyone who happens to see it where you post it. In this case you suddenly switched from a simple discussion about marriage fees to "sinning before God". You are openly promoting religion on a forum where you know it is inappropriate and not a basis for discussion. This has nothing to do with your imagined rejection of "freedom of thought" and demands for "lock step behind Ayn Rand". Promoting religion is not discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas, and neither are the snotty "make me" and "march lock step" comments and the rest of the snide sarcasm, which are not civilized discussion at all. If you decide you want to discuss the philosophy that made Atlas Shrugged possible and which you were attracted to, there many of us here who would gladly do so.

Viva Las Vegas!