San Fran Sanctuary City

Liberal Logic:

When the liberal cities ignore the Feds and provide aid and comfort to people illegally in the country who are in some cases demonstrably committing numerous crimes, that's courageous.

If a city clerk in a conservative area refused to give a license for two gay people to get married because of a genuine religious conviction that has been standing in her religion for thousands of years, that's treason!!

that's treason!! Originally Posted by DSK

Bitch ... Moan ... Repeat ...

That's all JLIdiot, errr DSKIdiot is good for!

Bitch ... Moan ... Repeat ...

Question: Is it treasonous for a disbarred Jewish Lawyer to pretend to be DSK the Idiot "Baker" in order to get around the (previously agreed upon) terms and conditions of a legitimate wager?

If it is not treasonous, it ought to be!

A city clerk is hired to do a job. One of those job responsibilities is to issue marriage licenses. We simply do not get to pick and choose which responsibilities we will fulfill and which ones we will not fullfil. I am not going to call it treason but it is grounds for dismissal. Or if the job responsibilities are against your convictions, religious or otherwise, you have the right to quit.

IBHomo continues his idiot Jihad against the LGBT community.

You know what that means...

SF = Exactly what is in our future if progressive Democrats get their way....

Downtown San Francisco feels like a large public toilet without enough janitors. More than once this year, I’ve seen men drop their pants in public places — including at Fifth and Market — in order to leave a smelly mess on the sidewalk. You can walk for blocks and never escape the stench of stale urine. At lunchtime, I see street people passed out on high-traffic sidewalks, and I am afraid to walk around them.

The homeless have been a problem in San Francisco for as far back as anyone remembers, but to me it seems this year is the worst. There’s a sense among people who work downtown that City Hall doesn’t care about cleaning up San Francisco’s Summer of Muck.

If this year is worse, two culprits are the drought and the city’s booming economy. The drought means “there’s no rain washing down the streets,” San Francisco Public Works spokeswoman Rachel Gordon told me. The city’s housing and office building boom has filled in alleyways and once-neglected pockets where the homeless used to be able to hide.


Jim Lazarus of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce told me businesses have more complaints about the homeless. “We are a live-and-let-live town genetically,” quoth Lazarus, “but we’re also letting people live on the streets who shouldn’t be living on the streets.”

What can be done? Increase the number of uniformed officers on the street. The chamber supports Mayor Ed Lee’s 18-month plan to add 300 police officers and bring SFPD to its authorized maximum of 1,971, as well as Supervisor Scott Wiener’s proposal to hire an additional 200 cops. “Not that that means you want police out arresting homeless people,” said Lazarus, but their presence alone should “encourage more civil behavior.”

Lazarus also suggested more public toilets in places like city parking garages. BART is looking at reopening bathrooms in its underground stations — and erecting canopies to prevent homeless people from using escalators as toilets. It says something about how dysfunctional Bay Area politics are that these common-sense solutions did not happen years ago.

Mayor Lee implemented a Pit Stop program that set up staffed public bathrooms in neighborhoods, starting with the Tenderloin. “It’s not going to fix the stink in the city,” said Gordon, but requests for sidewalk steam cleanings are down near the seven Pit Stops. First, I caution, the city has to send the message that it’s not OK to eliminate in public.

S.F. homeless czar Bevan Dufty is big on the city’s new Navigation Center on 16th Street. Some homeless adults are reluctant to go to a shelter because it means giving up their possessions or splitting with a partner or pet. With services and space to accommodate shopping carts and dogs, the center is designed to transition street people off the street for good.

I love the idea, but I want to see — or not smell — something for it. The city’s 2014 homeless services budget was $167 million — to serve 6,355 homeless people. The new homeless census will be out shortly. Dufty told me, “The number is going up, but not significantly up.” So you’ve got about the same number of homeless people passed out, peeing and pooping in the crowded city.

San Francisco is such a beautiful city. Why do we let people poop all over it?

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunde...ck-6361637.php

Snick.

While I disagree with the idea of sanctuary cities, the right is getting what it asked for. The right always makes the case for more local and state government control and less Federal involvement. This is exactly what is going on in this case. The right cannot say that they want local and statement government involvement only when it is on issues that they think important and only if the decisions made by those local or state governments match their will.

While I disagree with the idea of sanctuary cities, the right is getting what it asked for. The right always makes the case for more local and state government control and less Federal involvement. This is exactly what is going on in this case. The right cannot say that they want local and statement government involvement only when it is on issues that they think important and only if the decisions made by those local or state governments match their will. Originally Posted by dirty dog

This is an example of the federal government not doing one of the few jobs it was originally created to do, protect its citizens and its borders.

While I disagree with the idea of sanctuary cities, the right is getting what it asked for. The right always makes the case for more local and state government control and less Federal involvement. This is exactly what is going on in this case. The right cannot say that they want local and statement government involvement only when it is on issues that they think important and only if the decisions made by those local or state governments match their will. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I would like to ask the MODS why is Dirty Dog still allowed to post? I thought I sent a request to have him banned - Dirty Dog wished death upon me and that should call for an automatic suspension. I don't feel safe with him in these forums - I don't know if he genuinely wants to kill or do harm to me - MODS please ban him before he carries out his death threat.

So he has an agenda WE ?

I think you're only hope WE is to go home yourself and that is in keeping with the ideas of modern liberalism of blaming the "victim". I'm sure that many normal people feel fear about the increasing number of illegal aliens, homeless, community activists, and the like moving around them everyday. YOU have no right to dictate what they should be able to say or do. This also goes for participants on this site. Now if you have some video tape of a mysterious car outside your house then we can get you an order of protection and make sure that you don't own the means of self protection (a gun). Let the government protect you after you shut up and go about your own business.


I was in San Fransisco in the 1980s. I personally saw a couple drug deals go down in broad daylight, saw homeless (we still called them bums) men pissing openly on the street and at the same time saw how pretty Fisherman's Wharf was in the early morning. The people of San Fransisco are allowing their city to go to hell in their political correctness and then like the White House just did....blame the right for their problems. Just like any other totalitarian society.

A city clerk is hired to do a job. One of those job responsibilities is to issue marriage licenses. We simply do not get to pick and choose which responsibilities we will fulfill and which ones we will not fullfil. I am not going to call it treason but it is grounds for dismissal. Or if the job responsibilities are against your convictions, religious or otherwise, you have the right to quit. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Absolutely.

Jim

A city clerk is hired to do a job. One of those job responsibilities is to issue marriage licenses. We simply do not get to pick and choose which responsibilities we will fulfill and which ones we will not fullfil. I am not going to call it treason but it is grounds for dismissal. Or if the job responsibilities are against your convictions, religious or otherwise, you have the right to quit. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You kind of made the argument for modern secession just now. If a state (think city employee) disagrees with a federal policy or law then they should just quit (secession) and walk away. As you said, they have that RIGHT.

Have to point out the reality of what if the city clerk had the job BEFORE the law went into effect. Are they still required to do a service that they disagree with and was not law when they assumed the position?

You kind of made the argument for modern secession just now. If a state (think city employee) disagrees with a federal policy or law then they should just quit (secession) and walk away. As you said, they have that RIGHT.

Have to point out the reality of what if the city clerk had the job BEFORE the law went into effect. Are they still required to do a service that they disagree with and was not law when they assumed the position? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Good point. However, my job responsibilities can change at a moment's notice based on the whims of my manager. If I say I didn't sign up for that I would have to escalate up the chain of command to somehow to be relieved of that duty. Unlikely to win that battle.

The city clerk's job responsibility has not changed. Still in charge of issuing marriage licenses. If it's really that strong an issue with the city clerk, ask for a transfer to another job. IMHO, not issuing a marriage license is not an option.


Regarding secession by a state. I assume your statements are correct (the thought is so absurd to me) and if a state thinks
it would be better off as an independent entity, then go for it.

..... Dirty Dog wished death upon me

I don't know if he genuinely wants to kill or do harm to me - MODS please ban him before he carries out his death threat. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Why don't you ask the "MODS" to ban God?

When you popped out of the womb, God wished death upon you, and you had a "contract" with God that when God decides it's your time to go, God will administer the appropriate dosage of the "poison" to fulfill the "contract."