.....
I really don't know what you have been reading, but it looks like too much "holiness" has affected you. I will skip on most of the products of that "holiness", such as the continuation of the funny one about gay/black rights, but a few comments on a couple of paragraphs:
So for example, in Kenya, if you were working at the Lands office and somebody showed up with all the 'right' papers purporting to own Langata Primary School playgrounds, asking for a title deed, and your conscience tells you something is wrong, you cannot refuse to serve them (in this case, serving them means processing the title), you should go to jail. That's the resident false prophet for you.
This is an odd example for the point you are trying to argue, but it presents an opportunity for you to learn a few things. Please pay careful attention.
When Kim Davis filed papers claiming that her name and signature would indicate her approval, the judge pointed to her that:
(a) There is nothing like her "approval" involved in such matters.
(b) All that the law requires of her office iss a check of the accuracy of information given on the form filled to apply for the marriage certificate and that the people were eligible to be married in the state. If that is confirmed, then the law requires that the certificate be issued; otherwise not.
(c) Nothing in that check for accuracy involves anyone's conscience or religious beliefs.
In your absurd example, you have taken the same path as Kim Davis and injected "conscience" where none need be involved: If the person responsible for issuing titled deeds considers that there is something improper with the papers given, then he or she may refuse to issue the title deed. In fact the law requires it, and he or she could get sued for issuing a title deed on the basis of faulty papers. The matter would then dealt with in a court of law, with forensic tests and whatever else is applicable, and the basis would be the accuracy of the papers submitted. But no court will accept "my conscience says these papers are not right" as an argument; so people not better go around using their "conscience" to evaluate the accuracy of legal documents.
Back to the Kim Davis story. A small line has escaped the attention of some on this thread. The judge has attempted to use jail (as opposed to the option of fine, which was perfectly applicable in such circumstances) in an attempt to break Mrs Davis down. In other words, he wants her to accept to issue marriage certificates to gay couples against her conscience or be jailed. Somehow it escapes MoonKi's mind that the judge in an attempt to punish Mrs Davis for allegedly abusing public office has abused the privilege of public judicial office. Some things only happen in America and in Nipate.
* What the judge wants is that her office issue the papers.
* As long as that office---not her personally---is issuing the papers, nobody has any problems with her. In fact, the judges orders are that she stay away from those issuing the papers.
* Although now free and not required to issues the papers, she seemingly insists that her "conscience" extend to other people, and she wants to stop them!
* Those who think that the judge "public office has abused the privilege of public judicial office" are free to take up the matter with the relevant higher courts. That's going to be a mission-impossible, given the stances taken by relevant Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that support his position, but your are equally free to argue that it has escaped the minds of all those judges too.
As I have pointed out elsewhere on this thread, if you want to argue such things as the
blue (and things about "rights"), then the proper way to do it is to go through his decision and point out where the judge erred. Arguments based on your "conscience" will not do.
