TracerBullet
New member
Equality is a problem to you?
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Equality is a problem to you?
TracerBullet
New member
That is what I'm asking you.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i don't think black people are perverts just because of the color of their skin
i think black people who do perverted things (like engage in homosexual acts) are perverts
just like white perverts
but you keep trying to link black people (who have no control over the color of their skin) and perverts (who make the choice to act in perverted ways)
i believe that makes you a racist, sir
TracerBullet
New member
I believe this makes you an idiot, miss.
I'm continually pointing out that there is no difference between homophobic rhetoric and racist rhetoric. Case in point your complaint about activist judges "reinventing the definition of marriage" is equally applicable to the judges who overturned the anti miscegenation laws.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Last edited:
if you're changing words in other peoples' posts, you should beware. it may be funny, but only when harmless. you seem to be doing slanderous changes, not comical -
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i'm clarifying what he's doing
i don't believe it's a misrepresentation :idunno:
i changed it
genuineoriginal
New member
It would be impossible to make any slanderous changes to another person's post in an online forum.
You are very skilled at hitting below the belt.
It is unseemly and unnecessary.
Our disagreements may be based on the facts alone. The twisting of another poster's words doesn't add anything to the truth.
I would like it very much if you would refrain from it....
Jose Fly
New member
So we're clear then. Your position is that if the law says one of the duties of a county clerk is to "issue marriage licenses", that doesn't mean it's one of the primary duties of the position.
I'll let that speak for itself.
The first amendment is not a universal free pass to break the law.
Never said that. There are lots of Catholics who don't agree with the church's dictates on women's health.
So did George Wallace when he blocked the school door. Seems to me that's a more apt analogy to the Davis situation.
Again, you try and analogize between a person fighting against government discrimination, and a person fighting for government discrimination.
Thanks for your input.
Jose Fly
New member
Then why didn't she just do that herself immediately after the Obergefell decision?
Zeke
Well-known member
Look up what a surname really stands for, because you like most here (in ignorance) still use it which is forbidden for a Child of the living God John 18:36 to participate in, the God on the dollar bill is the one you follow seeing it is a artificial note of debt like you are while under that maritime jurisdiction which is the kingdom of debt you exist in.
If the law says that it's a duty of a doctor to keep medical records, does that make keeping medical records an essential part of being a doctor?
Yes or no?
The first amendment implies that the State can't compel someone to act against their conscience. Note the fact that someone can be exempted from military combat because of general religious obections against killing people.
Once again, you equivocate. I said "good Catholic." A "good" Catholic agrees with the Church in all of her doctrines. Someone who disagrees with the Church on even a single matter of doctrine is not a good Catholic. He is a heretic.
So, once more, you only are agreeing with me. What you are saying is exactly what I said earlier: "Either Catholics, protestants, Jews and Muslims must violate their faith and their moral principles, or else, they don't belong in these mainstream professions. They should be excluded. Either sacrifice to the god of social liberal secularism and be assimilated, or else, get lost!"
And, once more, for any who may be keeping a tally, note the further use of "women's health," i.e., another liberal cliche. At this point, my "liberal hive-mind sheep counter" is...is...IT'S OVER 9000! The degree to which my interlocutor is completely incapable of thinking for himself is positively astronomical. :nono:
| It's Over 9000! | |
Red herring.
I've already addressed this point. The fact that you insist on repeating it only betrays the fact that I'm right: you don't actually think "rules are rules."
So why insist on making the argument?
Also, don't think I didn't notice the complete omission, the complete dodge from my simple "yes" or "no" question. :idunno:
"So tell me. You say 'Rules are rules. The law is the law. Everybody should follow the laws.' Are you going to say that about Rosa Parks and the black trespassers?
Yes or no?
It's a very simple question which requires a very simple answer. There are three possible answers: 'Yes.' 'No.' 'I don't know.'
Pick one."
In all fairness to ok doser, that's pretty much what I'm hearing from the liberals. :idunno:
Because state law requires the clerks name on them even when a deputy clerk signs them, which is why many are questioning if the ones altered while she was in jail, are even legal now. :doh: read the thread and read the links already presented.
So what she did was stop issuing licenses period, not just to gays.
Jose Fly
New member
Since we have the facts of this case at hand, there's no need to analogize.
The state of Kentucky lists issuing marriage licenses as among the duties of county clerks. It's not listed in a footnote, or in some "Other duties" category. It's one of the first things listed.
If you're going to argue that means issuing marriage licenses isn't a primary duty of Kentucky county clerks, I'll let that speak for itself.
Yet we do all the time. Business owners and government officials who would rather act according to their conscience and discriminate against Jews are forbidden by law to do so.
As in this case, where it is illegal for government officials ti discriminate against same sex couples.
So then the issue isn't really about Catholics, is it? Your question is basically, "Should people who cannot perform abortions due to their religious beliefs be in positions where performing abortions is a common part of their job?"
My answer is "No, they shouldn't".
Nope, never said anything like that.
Oh, I see. So when you try and compare Kim Davis, a government official who is fighting to be able to discriminate, with Rosa Parks, a citizen who was fighting against government discrimination, that's just fine and dandy.
But when I compare Kim Davis, a government official who is fighting to be able to discriminate, with George Wallace, a government official who fought to be able to discriminate, it's a red herring?
Fundamentalist Christians sure are entertaining.
Jose Fly:
1. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian.
2. This debate is going nowhere. I would simply like to note that your liberal debate tactics speak volumes about the actual merits of your case.
At this point, I simply advise you, and any other readers, simply to review our exchange.
To my mind, this entire exchange is a compelling indictment, not only of social liberalism (which, I think I have shown, is utterly empty), but also of democratic political systems in general. There simply is no way that anyone can justify saying that Jose Fly should be able to vote or be entitled, in any way, to take part in politics. My reader may object: "But Jose Fly is not representative of all liberals." At which point I will refer my reader to any other liberal he chooses on this site, or any popular liberal pages on facebook, etc.
Social liberals like Jose Fly are a dime a dozen. I have had basically the same argument, both on here and facebook, with two people and had to face basically the same misdirections, red herrings, refusals to engage with my points precisely as I had presented them, the same tired liberal cliches and buzzwords, the exact same, I say, exhausting circular arguments, repetitions and blanket assertions, etc. And, in all likelihood, they don't even know each other!
Why? Because most people do not and cannot think for themselves. They like to latch on to popular buzzwords and memes and let them do their thinking for them. Because they have neither the willingness nor the capacity nor the education to think through the issues for themselves.
Most people are not able to have a debate. In the end, you are just pitting one meme against another meme. I have a buzzword/meme "pro-life"? Then you have a countermeme: "anti-choice" or "pro-choice," depending on the context. And no real discussion occurs. No real thought gets put into it. There is no real engagement. It's all one massive point and click, one giant copy/paste. That is the level of democratic political discourse, and even moreso among social liberals (because, at its core, social liberalism is sheer democratic voluntarism; it's utterly groundless and nihilistic).
But most people should have a vote?
Social liberalism? Democracy? You disgust me.
1. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian.
2. This debate is going nowhere. I would simply like to note that your liberal debate tactics speak volumes about the actual merits of your case.
At this point, I simply advise you, and any other readers, simply to review our exchange.
To my mind, this entire exchange is a compelling indictment, not only of social liberalism (which, I think I have shown, is utterly empty), but also of democratic political systems in general. There simply is no way that anyone can justify saying that Jose Fly should be able to vote or be entitled, in any way, to take part in politics. My reader may object: "But Jose Fly is not representative of all liberals." At which point I will refer my reader to any other liberal he chooses on this site, or any popular liberal pages on facebook, etc.
Social liberals like Jose Fly are a dime a dozen. I have had basically the same argument, both on here and facebook, with two people and had to face basically the same misdirections, red herrings, refusals to engage with my points precisely as I had presented them, the same tired liberal cliches and buzzwords, the exact same, I say, exhausting circular arguments, repetitions and blanket assertions, etc. And, in all likelihood, they don't even know each other!
Why? Because most people do not and cannot think for themselves. They like to latch on to popular buzzwords and memes and let them do their thinking for them. Because they have neither the willingness nor the capacity nor the education to think through the issues for themselves.
Most people are not able to have a debate. In the end, you are just pitting one meme against another meme. I have a buzzword/meme "pro-life"? Then you have a countermeme: "anti-choice" or "pro-choice," depending on the context. And no real discussion occurs. No real thought gets put into it. There is no real engagement. It's all one massive point and click, one giant copy/paste. That is the level of democratic political discourse, and even moreso among social liberals (because, at its core, social liberalism is sheer democratic voluntarism; it's utterly groundless and nihilistic).
But most people should have a vote?
Social liberalism? Democracy? You disgust me.
Jose Fly
New member
Not according to the County Attorney and the Governor's Office.
So again, when the Obergefell decision was issued, all she had to do was call up the County Attorney's office, ask "Can we issue marriage licenses without my name", and when they told her "Yes", do exactly that. And if she still was hesitant, she could have checked with the Governor's Office and gotten the same answer.
That way she would have had all the legal coverage needed.
One more time, her name is printed on them, even if she doesnt sign them, and NO - she didnt have the authority to change the state law on it, read the links, or not. The judge is who said they could alter them after the governor refused a session to change the law so they could be altered, and the judge even admits its possible they are not legal now.
Read the links given.
Jose Fly
New member
You sure do argue like one, with all your rants against liberals.
Case in point.
So what sort of government would you like us to have?
Wow. You're a bit of a nut, aren't you? :kookoo:
Thanks for making that clear.