Clerk won't give gay couple marriage license

[Angel4Truth]

Ah yes. The same Christ who voiced his hatred of all people not exactly like him. Oh wait....

Im sorry, could you please post where Kim Davis said she hates anyone? As far as Christ on homosexuality, see Matthew chapter 19 - where He says what marriage is, no need to name all the things it isnt.

Where He also says for those who cannot handle male-female marriage, for a myriad of reasons, to remain celibate.

 

[SamuelJ]

Im sorry, could you please post where Kim Davis said she hates anyone? As far as Christ on homosexuality, see Matthew chapter 19 - where He says what marriage is, no need to name all the things it isnt.

Where He also says for those who cannot handle male-female marriage, for a myriad of reasons, to remain celibate.

This is very very simple, Angel. She works for the govt willingly. She can leave if she objects to anything they ask her to do. She is their employee. She has no right to object to their requests if she won't resign. There is simply no argument here.


What is your opinion on someone not being allowed to wear a burka at their place of work? Are you disgusted by that lack of religious freedom?

 

[Angel4Truth]

This is very very simple, Angel. She works for the govt willingly. She can leave if she objects to anything they ask her to do. She is their employee. She has no right to object to their requests if she won't resign. There is simply no argument here.

Freedom of religion doesnt apply only to non government employees like atheists wish it did.

What is your opinion on someone not being allowed to wear a burka at their place of work? Are you disgusted by that lack of religious freedom?

No, if she were allowed to THEN told not to, there would be an issue.

Gay marriage was not a law when Kim Davis took her position, please read the thread before asking redundant questions that have already been asked and answered, thanks.

Also read the laws on reasonable accommodation from the EEOC

 

[SamuelJ]

Freedom of religion doesnt apply only to non government employees like atheists wish it did.




No, if she were allowed to THEN told not to, there would be an issue.

Gay marriage was not a law when Kim Davis took her position, please read the thread before asking redundant questions that have already been asked and answered, thanks.

Also read the laws on reasonable accommodation from the EEOC

Sorry again, but not everyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I know that's inconvenient.

Again, if she didn't like the new change, she could've resigned. She didn't, and as such is subject to the law. You're wrong.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Sorry again, but not everyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I know that's inconvenient.

I didnt say you were an atheist, learn how to read, no wonder you have trouble understanding what scripture says.

Again, if she didn't like the new change, she could've resigned. She didn't, and as such is subject to the law. You're wrong.

False, she has constitutional rights too. The laws are in conflict, no more responses till you read the thread, all this has been asked and answered.

 

[fool]

She is not in contempt for "not doing her job" either, she is in contempt of federal law & violating a court order.

That simply required her to do her job.

She is in contempt for asserting her first amendment rights

Wrong, she is PERFECTLY free to practice her religion.
If her job conflicts with her religion she can step down.

which is in opposition to the unconstitutional decision handed down by the supreme court.

So you don't like the Supreme Court saying what's Constitutional and what's not but you have NO Problem letting a County Clerk decide?

Please...before any of you come at me with the whole Supreme Court being noble, or the ultimate authority, or that their decision is somehow just, this woman is not the first to go against one of it's decisions, Lincoln did it also this is not a first,

Riiiight, freeing the slaves and not issuing marriage licenses are Totally the same thing.

and as far as being just this same biased group of men also gave us Dred Scott, denied due process to blacks as well as Japanese during WWII, upheld segregation, etc. so, just because this court hands down a majority decision it does not make it just, right, or constitutional.

But it will get you put in jail for contempt.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That simply required her to do her job.

Wrong, she is PERFECTLY free to practice her religion.
If her job conflicts with her religion she can step down.

So you don't like the Supreme Court saying what's Constitutional and what's not but you have NO Problem letting a County Clerk decide?

Riiiight, freeing the slaves and not issuing marriage licenses are Totally the same thing.

But it will get you put in jail for contempt.

Obama needs to be in jail for showing contempt for the laws on illegal immigration and stay there till he resigns or enforces the law, right?

 

[fool]

She can also be recalled, but i dont see that happening.

Maybe the people in her county are just as bigoted as she is.

 

[fool]

Obama needs to be in jail for showing contempt for the laws on illegal immigration and stay there till he resigns or enforces the law, right?

Bring the suit.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Bring the suit.

Right. I dont feel like being executed by king bammy.

 

[ok doser]

...she thought she could actually get away with her denial of her constituents' civil rights.

:think:

Meanwhile, Davis tried to spend Wednesday morning out of the limelight in her private office. She did emerge to deny a marriage license sought by Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz, a couple from Ohio. Their confrontation was caught on video broadcast by local and national outlets.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-same-sex-marriage-kentucky-20150902-story.html

 

[rocketman]

That simply required her to do her job.

No, to put aside what she believes for what many believe is an unjust law. Proves this issue is far from being over.

Wrong, she is PERFECTLY free to practice her religion.
If her job conflicts with her religion she can step down.

The 1st not only protects speech but religious freedom and the exercise of said religion. She could step down but, she has chosen to defy tyranny instead...I am sure you do not agree.

So you don't like the Supreme Court saying what's Constitutional and what's not but you have NO Problem letting a County Clerk decide?

I have no problem with this clerk or any American going against the law when it is unjust. I know we don't agree so spare me...

Riiiight, freeing the slaves and not issuing marriage licenses are Totally the same thing.

But it will get you put in jail for contempt.

No, they are completely different issues from a court that has not always followed the constitution or rendered decisions upon the political whims of the time. The point is, just because they rendered a decision doesn't make the decision just, and that unjust decisions have been rendered from this court in the past as well. Given the position she holds puts this woman in the line of fire she should step down...she is going to lose this battle. It does seem a bit picky that they jail this woman for contempt for not following the law yet we have a president & entire justice department that does not follow the law and is praised for it...double standards anyone?

 

[fool]

:think:



http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-same-sex-marriage-kentucky-20150902-story.html

There's still two other Clerks in KY that won't issue but suit hasn't been brought against them yet.

 

[ok doser]

That simply required her to do her job

the job she was hired for - did it include issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals?

 

[fool]

No, to put aside what she believes for what many believe is an unjust law. Proves this issue is far from being over.

For the umteenth time she doesn't have to put away what she believes, she can step down.

The 1st not only protects speech but religious freedom and the exercise of said religion. She could step down but, she has chosen to defy tyranny instead...I am sure you do not agree.

"Defy Tyranny"? She is the Tyrant!
Gay marriage neither picks her pocket or breaks her leg. Gays getting married has no impact on her but her not issuing license does have an impact on them.
Defy Tyranny? Give me a break.

I have no problem with this clerk or any American going against the law when it is unjust. I know we don't agree so spare me...

If the court said she had to get gay married I'd agree.

No, they are completely different issues from a court that has not always followed the constitution or rendered decisions upon the political whims of the time. The point is, just because they rendered a decision doesn't make the decision just, and that unjust decisions have been rendered from this court in the past as well. Given the position she holds puts this woman in the line of fire she should step down...she is going to lose this battle. It does seem a bit picky that they jail this woman for contempt for not following the law yet we have a president & entire justice department that does not follow the law and is praised for it...double standards anyone?

Bring suit.

 

[Angel4Truth]

"Defy Tyranny"? She is the Tyrant!
Gay marriage neither picks her pocket or breaks her leg. Gays getting married has no impact on her

yes, it does, and ive already posted the verse that says such, her name is on the license implying consent. She has a right to her religious beliefs under the law, this is a conflict in the law, and the cowardly supreme court, should have heard her appeal since they created a conflict without resolution.

 

[ok doser]

...her not issuing license does have an impact on them.

are their pockets being picked?

are their legs being broken?

 

[Town Heretic]

No, to put aside what she believes for what many believe is an unjust law. Proves this issue is far from being over.

Well, no. It's effectively over. The Court has settled the issue. It can't now say, "Well, unless it really, really bothers you. Then you can ignore our ruling."

And here's the thing: this woman isn't fighting against discriminatory practice. She's fighting for discriminatory practice. She wants more of it. So she can't complain that she's the victim of a thing she's in favor of, can she? She simply doesn't like the ruling. Okay, fair enough. No one says she has to like it.

But she does have to do her job or find one that she can do without the internal conflict she's having.

The 1st not only protects speech but religious freedom and the exercise of said religion.

This isn't a speech or exercise infringement. No one is telling her what to say or believe.

She could step down but, she has chosen to defy tyranny instead...I am sure you do not agree.

No, she's arguing for the perpetuation of tyranny. Hers. Her ability to, by exercising her beliefs, deny people who don't share them an equal standing before the law.

That simply isn't her call.

 

[fool]

the job she was hired for - did it include issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals?

It required issuing them to whoever is qualified.
Welcome back.

 

[fool]

yes, it does, and ive already posted the verse that says such, her name is on the license implying consent. She has a right to her religious beliefs under the law, this is a conflict in the law, and the cowardly supreme court, should have heard her appeal since they created a conflict without resolution.

Her name on the license means she filed the paperwork, nothing more.
And the SCOTUS did give a resolution, they said no.