(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.

How are gays being intolerant? By standing up to be treated equally? Not sure you understand what you are talking about.


there are gay couples everywhere. They live in rowan County.

You are just a typical, ignorant bigot who is clueless about life and think you are better than everyone else.

news flash - you are not.

(09-03-2015 04:50 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony 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.

And why is she refusing a court order?

And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood just so some degenerates can commit sin?

**** YOU *******. I AM NOT A DEGENERATE.

People like you, and Davis, are the scum of the earth. You and your type of no place in the United States. The USA is NOT a ******* Theocracy.

If you are so high and mighty about being a Christian, then ban divorce and a multitude of other things that Jesus actually preached about.

If not, STFU about calling AMERICANS and Humans degenerates.

1 - Jesus preached that divorce was ok if there was infidelity (ok but not preferred)

2 - Jesus said Marriage is a man and a woman

3 - Freedom of speech exists and people who say things that offend you do indeed have a place in america...

Other than that great post!

Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

(09-03-2015 04:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  How are gays being intolerant? By standing up to be treated equally? Not sure you understand what you are talking about.

If it began and ended there, with things like this clerk I could see your point. But we both known that if the bakery across the street refused to cater the wedding they would also feel the full force of government if the Gaytapo had their way.

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

(09-01-2015 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think you understand what nuanced means.

Oh I do, I just don't care. I just like showing the hypocrisy of you leftists. Y'all are all about "Link?" and "Proof?" but have to put all kinds of conditions when you are asked to provide them, or in your case refuse to provide them.


And I'm not going to say I am wrong if commietom posts one or two anecdotal examples of a post where he mildly criticizes a leftist. If he were truly bipartisan he would post examples of threads he created bashing the left like he does constantly for the right.

First, you just moved the goal posts. You first said comments and now you're demanding threads started.

Anyway, where did I say that I was a bipartisan? I only said that I was independent and not beholden to either party. It's no secret that most of my positions are liberal and lean towards the democrats.

This idiotic notion that us liberals have to apologize and show how many conservative principles we have and how many democrats we disagree with, but the cons don't have to apologize for anything or be neutral on positions themselves.

Thankfully not all of the cons here fall into that category.

Here's a few for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-720376-post-116...id11612402
http://csnbbs.com/thread-686260-post-106...id10669985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-579617-post-810...pid8104610
http://csnbbs.com/thread-650281-post-974...pid9742057
http://csnbbs.com/thread-685363-post-106...id10649546
http://csnbbs.com/thread-679949-post-105...id10501591

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

Doesn't matter, unless her pay checks are signed by God or Jesus.

Something to chew on... While I think she should comply or resign...

For the history of this nation wedding certificates have said "husband" and "Wife". Now we are going to change that for spouse and spouse... Why not just change the line with the clerks name to be "Clerks Office of X County"..

Then everyone wins.

(09-03-2015 05:14 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think you understand what nuanced means.

Oh I do, I just don't care. I just like showing the hypocrisy of you leftists. Y'all are all about "Link?" and "Proof?" but have to put all kinds of conditions when you are asked to provide them, or in your case refuse to provide them.


And I'm not going to say I am wrong if commietom posts one or two anecdotal examples of a post where he mildly criticizes a leftist. If he were truly bipartisan he would post examples of threads he created bashing the left like he does constantly for the right.

First, you just moved the goal posts. You first said comments and now you're demanding threads started.

Anyway, where did I say that I was a bipartisan? I only said that I was independent and not beholden to either party. It's no secret that most of my positions are liberal and lean towards the democrats.

This idiotic notion that us liberals have to apologize and show how many conservative principles we have and how many democrats we disagree with, but the cons don't have to apologize for anything or be neutral on positions themselves.

Thankfully not all of the cons here fall into that category.

Here's a few for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-720376-post-116...id11612402
http://csnbbs.com/thread-686260-post-106...id10669985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-579617-post-810...pid8104610
http://csnbbs.com/thread-650281-post-974...pid9742057
http://csnbbs.com/thread-685363-post-106...id10649546
http://csnbbs.com/thread-679949-post-105...id10501591

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

Doesn't matter, unless her pay checks are signed by God or Jesus.

Under Title VII, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religion unless doing so would create an “undue hardship.”

What's being argued here, and I don't know that I agree with the clerk, is that the certificates could be reworded w/out her name and that is not an "undue hardship" on the county.

(09-03-2015 05:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 05:14 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think you understand what nuanced means.

Oh I do, I just don't care. I just like showing the hypocrisy of you leftists. Y'all are all about "Link?" and "Proof?" but have to put all kinds of conditions when you are asked to provide them, or in your case refuse to provide them.


And I'm not going to say I am wrong if commietom posts one or two anecdotal examples of a post where he mildly criticizes a leftist. If he were truly bipartisan he would post examples of threads he created bashing the left like he does constantly for the right.

First, you just moved the goal posts. You first said comments and now you're demanding threads started.

Anyway, where did I say that I was a bipartisan? I only said that I was independent and not beholden to either party. It's no secret that most of my positions are liberal and lean towards the democrats.

This idiotic notion that us liberals have to apologize and show how many conservative principles we have and how many democrats we disagree with, but the cons don't have to apologize for anything or be neutral on positions themselves.

Thankfully not all of the cons here fall into that category.

Here's a few for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-720376-post-116...id11612402
http://csnbbs.com/thread-686260-post-106...id10669985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-579617-post-810...pid8104610
http://csnbbs.com/thread-650281-post-974...pid9742057
http://csnbbs.com/thread-685363-post-106...id10649546
http://csnbbs.com/thread-679949-post-105...id10501591

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

Doesn't matter, unless her pay checks are signed by God or Jesus.

Under Title VII, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religion unless doing so would create an “undue hardship.”

What's being argued here, and I don't know that I agree with the clerk, is that the certificates could be reworded w/out her name and that is not an "undue hardship" on the county.

KY law dictates how the marriage licenses have to look like and how approved. The county cannot change it.

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Except she's not being arrested for being a christian, do you really not grasp this painfully simple concept?

Then why is she being arrested?

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.

And why is she refusing a court order?

Why doesn't matter...she violated a court order...that's all it takes to go to jail.

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Then why is she being arrested?

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.

And why is she refusing a court order?

And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood

Because she took an oath...

(09-03-2015 06:07 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 05:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 05:14 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Oh I do, I just don't care. I just like showing the hypocrisy of you leftists. Y'all are all about "Link?" and "Proof?" but have to put all kinds of conditions when you are asked to provide them, or in your case refuse to provide them.


And I'm not going to say I am wrong if commietom posts one or two anecdotal examples of a post where he mildly criticizes a leftist. If he were truly bipartisan he would post examples of threads he created bashing the left like he does constantly for the right.

First, you just moved the goal posts. You first said comments and now you're demanding threads started.

Anyway, where did I say that I was a bipartisan? I only said that I was independent and not beholden to either party. It's no secret that most of my positions are liberal and lean towards the democrats.

This idiotic notion that us liberals have to apologize and show how many conservative principles we have and how many democrats we disagree with, but the cons don't have to apologize for anything or be neutral on positions themselves.

Thankfully not all of the cons here fall into that category.

Here's a few for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-720376-post-116...id11612402
http://csnbbs.com/thread-686260-post-106...id10669985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-579617-post-810...pid8104610
http://csnbbs.com/thread-650281-post-974...pid9742057
http://csnbbs.com/thread-685363-post-106...id10649546
http://csnbbs.com/thread-679949-post-105...id10501591

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

Doesn't matter, unless her pay checks are signed by God or Jesus.

Under Title VII, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religion unless doing so would create an “undue hardship.”

What's being argued here, and I don't know that I agree with the clerk, is that the certificates could be reworded w/out her name and that is not an "undue hardship" on the county.

KY law dictates how the marriage licenses have to look like and how approved. The county cannot change it.

This is a situation where certain posters would scream "source" or "link".

Not doubting you but anything can be changed. I currently live in KY and my license says bride/groom (or husband/wife, can't recall) so obviously some changes are being made and the legislature isn't even in session, as stated ad nauseum during this thread.

(09-03-2015 06:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony 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.

And why is she refusing a court order?

And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood

Because she took an oath...

Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

(09-03-2015 06:27 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:07 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 05:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 05:14 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  First, you just moved the goal posts. You first said comments and now you're demanding threads started.

Anyway, where did I say that I was a bipartisan? I only said that I was independent and not beholden to either party. It's no secret that most of my positions are liberal and lean towards the democrats.

This idiotic notion that us liberals have to apologize and show how many conservative principles we have and how many democrats we disagree with, but the cons don't have to apologize for anything or be neutral on positions themselves.

Thankfully not all of the cons here fall into that category.

Here's a few for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-720376-post-116...id11612402
http://csnbbs.com/thread-686260-post-106...id10669985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-579617-post-810...pid8104610
http://csnbbs.com/thread-650281-post-974...pid9742057
http://csnbbs.com/thread-685363-post-106...id10649546
http://csnbbs.com/thread-679949-post-105...id10501591

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Explain...

Doesn't matter, unless her pay checks are signed by God or Jesus.

Under Title VII, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religion unless doing so would create an “undue hardship.”

What's being argued here, and I don't know that I agree with the clerk, is that the certificates could be reworded w/out her name and that is not an "undue hardship" on the county.

KY law dictates how the marriage licenses have to look like and how approved. The county cannot change it.

This is a situation where certain posters would scream "source" or "link".

Not doubting you but anything can be changed. I currently live in KY and my license says bride/groom (or husband/wife, can't recall) so obviously some changes are being made and the legislature isn't even in session, as stated ad nauseum during this thread.

Just read it in various articles that it was a state controlled process. This was discussed a lot on Daily KOS an don there people do link to the source so the reader can decide if they think it is trustworthy But think read it in the WP also.

It is being done in 118 of 120 counties so there is a workaround in place. There is also a question raised today if the ones her deputy clerks complete will be valid under KY law if she does not authorize it or something. However being it is a federal court order I am guessing they will be accepted.

The Judge was appointed by Bush in 2001 or 2002. He was the son of on of the KY senators at the time.

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  And why is she refusing a court order?

And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood

Because she took an oath...

Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

(09-03-2015 06:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony 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.

And why is she refusing a court order?

And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood

Because she took an oath...

So did Lord Zero and that hasn't stopped him from ignoring the law

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood

Because she took an oath...

Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

If you can't understand that, you're beyond hope.

If you can't (or won't) do your job, find another job.

(09-03-2015 07:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Why should she have to give up her livelihood

Because she took an oath...

Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

If you can't understand that, you're beyond hope.

I guess that means you do not understand why it matters either.

(09-03-2015 12:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:12 AM)Paul M Wrote:  We are once more at loggerheads. I'm repeating myself, you're repeating yourself. I've not attempted to address your questions. I reject your premise. I say the job changed... simply for the obvious fact it did... you say it hasn't.

I'm not going in circles as I've addressed your issues, thoroughly. They're baseless, poorly constructed, and indicative of someone who is simply struggling to find any possible reason to believe what they wish to believe. By your own standards, she has just cause to refuse handing out marriage licenses if there is any change in any aspect of the process itself. That argument is simply untenable, unrealistic, and wholly without merit. What if she disagreed with a font change on the licenses themselves, should she then be able to deny every person marriage licenses? Of course not.

At any point, did her position ever allow her the ability to make moral or religious judgments and withhold government licenses because of it? Of course not. So in fact she is the one attempting to change her own job description, not the government nor any judge. Her job was to issue marriage licenses pursuant to the legally defined requirements, she is trying to change that.

Just admit it, you have absolutely no argument here. You'd actually garner a little respect from me for doing so.

Some reason this was edited out of my above post and just keeps on and keeps on being ignored?

AND OBAMAS JOB DESCRIPTION, THE JOB HE ASKED FOR AND TOOK, HAS NOT CHANGED AND HE REFUSES TO DO SOME OF IT.