To add to this, I'm going to say that I saw this story play out before - in the media, on the radio and IRL.

Some of the most prideful people I've ever met in my life were highly religious evangelicals who are the type that goes to Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wed night services. AND they also try to live their lives with the congregation as the center of their lives. All the pot lucks, day trips to amusement parks where they all dress up in some T-shirts with snappy logos broadcasting who they are and why they are there. The same people who PRAY every morning for some great controversy to brew up so that they can "shine for Jesus"! These are the people who try to "out humble" their fellow believers to show they are the best.

I would bet my bottom dollar that she's getting off on this. The more she defies the court, the bigger the ego strokes she gets because she being "persecuted for the LORD"!

I've met a lot of good Christian people too. The real deal. Not seeking spotlights to test themselves. They quietly do their work for God and are happiest knowing that someone who may have been hurt, hungry or homeless has found some help to get them going. Not the holy roller who breaks open the word in front of you and railing against immorality while fvcking his neighbor's wife (or 2 or 3).

I've seen enough people like this to know one when I see one.

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard but not surprising from you.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

The only thing unsurprising here is that you have not read the thread at all, or you'd understand that she cannot just be removed. She's an elected official, who must be impeached through the state congress. The state congress is not in session, so instead of calling an emergency session and costing taxpayers money doing so or waiting the months until they come back to session, the judge gave her the option to resign, issue the licenses, or go to jail.

That's probably about the 6th time I've stated that exact thing in this thread.

One thing is for sure, the LGBT people are extremely intolerant... Why the hell are gays coming from miles away to get married in a little rural 96% white county with a population of 23K?

They must be coming in from Ohio, not to raise their girly voices and point their limp wrists at Kim Davis, but to visit the Carrington Rock or the Folk Art Center while they're in town to get hitched...

How freaking ironic. On top of that, they make sure there are blood thirsty media gays surrounding them while they do all this.

Dude, that's why people say gays have a chemical imbalance or mental illness, because a normal couple would have gone one town over if getting out to a wide open country county was that important. Quite typical of the attitude you get when you tell a gay no.

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

The judge can't have her removed. He has few other choices if he wants to be taken seriously. He could fine her or put her in jail or community service type BS. Personally I think he made the right decision, not because I think she deserves jail but because it's the best way to end the ordeal. If she'd been fined there almost certainly would have been financial support pouring in to cover it and she'd keep refusing. I'm putting the over/under on her being in jail before she caves and steps down at a week and the deputies start issuing licenses tommorow

(09-03-2015 03:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard but not surprising from you.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

The only thing unsurprising here is that you have not read the thread at all, or you'd understand that she cannot just be removed. She's an elected official, who must be impeached through the state congress. The state congress is not in session, so instead of calling an emergency session and costing taxpayers money doing so or waiting the months until they come back to session, the judge gave her the option to resign, issue the licenses, or go to jail.

That's probably about the 6th time I've stated that exact thing in this thread.

Yes genius, we are all aware that legally its not possible right now.

That doesn't mean I can't be of the opinion that she SHOULD be removed.

THAT would be the correct move, not throwing her in jail.

Get some fresh air drama queen

(09-03-2015 01:45 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 01:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 01:32 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 01:09 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm against jailing because she will play the martyr and get that kickstarter webpage up for donations.

Why do you care how other people spend their money?

I think it's natural for people to prefer donated money to go to objectively worthwhile causes other than her, but we should wait to judge her on this until she actually does this. She very well could open up a donation site for a christian charity which does good work.

Well, before suggesting how other people spend their own money, the individual should first look in the mirror and determine if they're spending money how they "should."

I don't care what other people do. Sure, I prefer people to refrain from waste and stupidity, but ultimately I don't care. I have no say over it, nor should I.

Plus it's not like she has someone like George Soros paying her. Thanks white Christian privilege.

(09-03-2015 03:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

The judge can't have her removed. He has few other choices if he wants to be taken seriously. He could fine her or put her in jail or community service type BS. Personally I think he made the right decision, not because I think she deserves jail but because it's the best way to end the ordeal. If she'd been fined there almost certainly would have been financial support pouring in to cover it and she'd keep refusing. I'm putting the over/under on her being in jail before she caves and steps down at a week and the deputies start issuing licenses tommorow

This is important. Jailing her, and if required, jailing those under her, is the only way this judge can guarantee that these licenses start being filled out ASAP. It's important that if he takes his time, the state opens itself up to litigation by those being refused their marriage licenses.

Weird though, how few fiscal conservatives are here commenting about this woman wasting tax dollars.

(09-03-2015 03:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

The judge can't have her removed. He has few other choices if he wants to be taken seriously. He could fine her or put her in jail or community service type BS. Personally I think he made the right decision, not because I think she deserves jail but because it's the best way to end the ordeal. If she'd been fined there almost certainly would have been financial support pouring in to cover it and she'd keep refusing. I'm putting the over/under on her being in jail before she caves and steps down at a week and the deputies start issuing licenses tommorow

This is important. Jailing her, and if required, jailing those under her, is the only way this judge can guarantee that these licenses start being filled out ASAP. It's important that if he takes his time, the state opens itself up to litigation by those being refused their marriage licenses.

Weird though, how few fiscal conservatives are here commenting about this woman wasting tax dollars.

No more than typically tax and spend leftists being worried about wasting tax money.

(09-03-2015 03:31 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard but not surprising from you.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

The only thing unsurprising here is that you have not read the thread at all, or you'd understand that she cannot just be removed. She's an elected official, who must be impeached through the state congress. The state congress is not in session, so instead of calling an emergency session and costing taxpayers money doing so or waiting the months until they come back to session, the judge gave her the option to resign, issue the licenses, or go to jail.

That's probably about the 6th time I've stated that exact thing in this thread.

Yes genius, we are all aware that legally its not possible.

That doesn't mean I can't be of the opinion that she SHOULD be removed.

THAT would be the correct move, not throwing her in jail.

Get some fresh air drama queen

But he cannot do that, so commenting that he should do that is asinine. Get some fresh air, I think you're oxygen deprived if that last post of yours made sense whatsoever to you.

(09-03-2015 03:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

The judge can't have her removed. He has few other choices if he wants to be taken seriously. He could fine her or put her in jail or community service type BS. Personally I think he made the right decision, not because I think she deserves jail but because it's the best way to end the ordeal. If she'd been fined there almost certainly would have been financial support pouring in to cover it and she'd keep refusing. I'm putting the over/under on her being in jail before she caves and steps down at a week and the deputies start issuing licenses tommorow

This is important. Jailing her, and if required, jailing those under her, is the only way this judge can guarantee that these licenses start being filled out ASAP. It's important that if he takes his time, the state opens itself up to litigation by those being refused their marriage licenses.

Weird though, how few fiscal conservatives are here commenting about this woman wasting tax dollars.

No more than typically tax and spend leftists being worried about wasting tax money.

Sure, because someone else is wrong makes it ok for you to be wrong, too?

I'm just glad you finally understand the simplistic concept behind why she's not being jailed for her religious beliefs. I was worried it'd never fully click with you.

(09-03-2015 01:59 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I just wonder what she would've done had a judge used religious grounds to not granted her a divorce, or a clerk had told her she couldn't file for the divorce because it was against that clerk's religious conviction.

First of all, she wasn't a regular church attendee IIRC.

Second, do we know exactly why she was divorced to begin with?

I've been divorced once because my wife committed adultery, and that's grounds for divorce according to the Bible.

(09-03-2015 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the LGBT people are extremely intolerant... Why the hell are gays coming from miles away to get married in a little rural 96% white county with a population of 23K?

They must be coming in from Ohio, not to raise their girly voices and point their limp wrists at Kim Davis, but to visit the Carrington Rock or the Folk Art Center while they're in town to get hitched...

How freaking ironic. On top of that, they make sure there are blood thirsty media gays surrounding them while they do all this.

Dude, that's why people say gays have a chemical imbalance or mental illness, because a normal couple would have gone one town over if getting out to a wide open country county was that important. Quite typical of the attitude you get when you tell a gay no.

The original couple were residence of the county. I don't know about others. I think there were 4 couples in the lawsuit, 2 gay & 2 straight.

Regardless I don't think anybody is saying they're sole purpose is to get married (not that I doubt they do) because like you said they could go to a different county. They're obviously fighting for what they think is right & just, you and many more obviously don't see it that way but they do. I mean what kind of person goes to jail instead of stamping a piece of paper? Is the clerk chemically unbalanced?

the bigger question is what if she was wrapped in black sheets and refusing licenses due to her sharia law?

(09-03-2015 02:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Jail her and she will think that she's the Rosa Parks of our generation. Fine her and a kickstarter/go fund me campaign will give her 10x what the fine is.

I say jail.

You sound like the gays that were in there screaming at her and telling her she should be carried out in handcuffs... All because she wouldn't issue them a license to get married, LULZ! How melodramatic can one drama queen couple be? And they came all the way down from Ohio to scream at her. Hypersensitive damn girly boys.

Blow the whistle, the gays are coming!!

(09-03-2015 03:43 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  the bigger question is what if she was wrapped in black sheets and refusing licenses due to her sharia law?

The exact same reaction (general condemnation and media hoopla), complete with a faction that would defend her every action.

(09-03-2015 03:44 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Jail her and she will think that she's the Rosa Parks of our generation. Fine her and a kickstarter/go fund me campaign will give her 10x what the fine is.

I say jail.

You sound like the gays that were in there screaming at her and telling her she should be carried out in handcuffs... All because she wouldn't issue them a license to get married, LULZ! How melodramatic can one drama queen couple be? And they came all the way down from Ohio to scream at her. Hypersensitive damn girly boys.

Blow the whistle, the gays are coming!!

Yes, how dare those people being denied their rights at all stand up for themselves. Dramaqueens, right? I'm sure if you were denied the right to get married that you would just go elsewhere, right?

(09-03-2015 03:44 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:43 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  the bigger question is what if she was wrapped in black sheets and refusing licenses due to her sharia law?

The exact same reaction (general condemnation and media hoopla), complete with a faction that would defend her every action.

Absolutely, 100% false. No one would be defending her action, and it's absurd you'd even say that.

(09-03-2015 03:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But he cannot do that, so commenting that he should do that is asinine.

You are making an ass of yourself.

Plenty of people out there are of the opinion that we should be able to remove people in this situation, even if we can't yet. But it would be the better solution here in the future imo.

I'm sorry that opinion is pissing you off so much. Perhaps you are a lot more emotionally caught up in this story that you realize.

(09-03-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

The judge can't have her removed. He has few other choices if he wants to be taken seriously. He could fine her or put her in jail or community service type BS. Personally I think he made the right decision, not because I think she deserves jail but because it's the best way to end the ordeal. If she'd been fined there almost certainly would have been financial support pouring in to cover it and she'd keep refusing. I'm putting the over/under on her being in jail before she caves and steps down at a week and the deputies start issuing licenses tommorow

This is important. Jailing her, and if required, jailing those under her, is the only way this judge can guarantee that these licenses start being filled out ASAP. It's important that if he takes his time, the state opens itself up to litigation by those being refused their marriage licenses.

Weird though, how few fiscal conservatives are here commenting about this woman wasting tax dollars.

No more than typically tax and spend leftists being worried about wasting tax money.

Sure, because someone else is wrong makes it ok for you to be wrong, too?

I'm just glad you finally understand the simplistic concept behind why she's not being jailed for her religious beliefs. I was worried it'd never fully click with you.

Yes, it is a simplistic concept that she is not being jailed for her religious beliefs. It's very simple and very wrong.


Can you explain why she didn't issue the marriage licenses?

(09-03-2015 03:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  The judge can't have her removed. He has few other choices if he wants to be taken seriously. He could fine her or put her in jail or community service type BS. Personally I think he made the right decision, not because I think she deserves jail but because it's the best way to end the ordeal. If she'd been fined there almost certainly would have been financial support pouring in to cover it and she'd keep refusing. I'm putting the over/under on her being in jail before she caves and steps down at a week and the deputies start issuing licenses tommorow

This is important. Jailing her, and if required, jailing those under her, is the only way this judge can guarantee that these licenses start being filled out ASAP. It's important that if he takes his time, the state opens itself up to litigation by those being refused their marriage licenses.

Weird though, how few fiscal conservatives are here commenting about this woman wasting tax dollars.

No more than typically tax and spend leftists being worried about wasting tax money.

Sure, because someone else is wrong makes it ok for you to be wrong, too?

I'm just glad you finally understand the simplistic concept behind why she's not being jailed for her religious beliefs. I was worried it'd never fully click with you.

Yes, it is a simplistic concept that she is not being jailed for her religious beliefs. It's very simple and very wrong.


Can you explain why she didn't issue the marriage licenses?

Again, because she wants the attention. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself. Even for you, this is getting embarrassing.