So, did he hire her?
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
So, did he hire her?
Let me know if you come up with an actual response to what I wrote:
She was obstructing a Court order....He actually showed a lot more restraint than I've seen out of many of them, attempted to give her a way out of the mess short of resigning and she chose a different path.
If your so capable of finding this, you can find what you request simply by looking it up. Of course then you would have to be HONEST.
BTW, there were quite a few in Kentucky...the last being 1962. None in 1885 however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state#Kentucky
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Where are you getting the notion that Quetzal is affirming that you have no rights at all over a difference of opinion?
:AMR:
Look, I guess what I am trying to suggest is that a judge should not come into play here unless and until it involves an elected official. Employees are just that and should be dealt with by their employers. Granted, Uncle Sugar could be said to be her employer in that this is who issues her a check but if you're going to make federal judges responsible for every firing decision that is going to be one clogged court system.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Eh, why didn't you go the whole hog and say man/child as well? Only the most paranoid conspiracy nut would think that the floodgates have opened for those unable to consent to be "lawfully wed" simply because homosexual consenting adults are allowed to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Kindly produce a copy of Kentucky's anti-miscegenation law of 1885 so that we can compare the similarities.
Your fellow LGBTQ activist TracerBullet brought up the subject. I did half the leg work for him...
Except that skin color and sex (in this case sexual perversion) have absolutely nothing in common.
Surely you've had the "birds and the bees talk" by now haven't you Stan?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Kindly produce a copy of Kentucky's anti-miscegenation law of 1885 so that we can compare the similarities.
Your fellow LGBTQ activist TracerBullet brought up the subject. I did half the leg work for him...
Except that skin color and sex (in this case sexual perversion) have absolutely nothing in common.
Surely you've had the "birds and the bees talk" by now haven't you Stan?
Ignore me ... I didn't realize this was an elected official.
You do what suits you and nothing more. The only activist here is you and your anti gay activities. Like most homophobes you can't tell the truth.
The only perversion I see is you perverting the truth about Christianity and what it upholds. Apparently you had a traumatic event in your childhood that caused you to be a homophobic paranoid bigot. Jesus could deliver you from this, IF you were actually willing to be delivered.
I asked you yesterday if you are a 'gay' christian Stan and don't believe I received an answer.
*Not to be confused with an incestuous or adulterous christian.
If you have to ask, then you are incapable of hearing the truth. You ask to be inflammatory aCW and I answered you once way back on your thread that apparently gets no action anymore so you come on this one.
Which are you, gay, adulterous or incestuous? Or do you only like trolls?
Your lack of an answer makes me believe that you're ashamed of associating with a certain behavior Stan. Why is that?
Not that I don't grasp every word that you say, but tell me again.
Regarding my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!" threads:
75,000 views since Part 3 closed just over a month ago is hardly "no action" Stan. 5,500 in Part 4 in 3 weeks time isn't bad either (and I haven't even started the good stuff yet).
Be nice Stan or I'll have to start telling Wile Coyote jokes again.
Except when the obligations of her office are to do what's wrong. Like promoting capital criminal behavior.
Well, it wouldn't have been wrong for her to resign. But she's a hero for taking a stand against capital criminal behavior. She's not a hero for citing the law for the basis of her stand, but doing God's work for the wrong reason is better than doing what's wrong for whatever reason.
The law is ONLY to propose a moral opinion. All laws are based on a moral foundation and promote that morality or immorality as the case may be.
How ironic. You are promoting the right to impose the contrary belief on me; has the flavor of hypocrisy.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ion
ion
Do right and suffer the consequences?
I believe this is covered in an optional course in first year law that students can audit if they choose
most choose not to
:thumb:
ion
Do right and suffer the consequences?
I believe this is covered in an optional course in first year law that students can audit if they choose
most choose not to
:thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:think:
seems to me these guys made the same argument
how'd that work out for them?
No, Yor. Again, that's a personal and moral distinction that should have her resigning rather than participating, but she isn't empowered to decide what the law is or isn't, should be or shouldn't be.
The rest is you essentially propounding what you believe the law should be and how it should function. I can't see any real point in arguing that with you as you're entitled to your opinion on it, but it's not controlling here, in considering the actual law, it's function and her role.
It isn't though.
No one can impose a belief on you.
Only if you don't understand me.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
...anybody who claims to be a Christian should agree with
:duh:
tell that to Kim Davis, sitting in jail
moparguy
New member
Obergefell is unconstitutional. It... IS NOT THE LAW.
Irrational grounds cannot provide justification for calling anything "law."
All grounds given for the justification of the majority decision in obergefell are irrational.
Anyone handing out marriage licenses in alignment with obergefell are breaking the law.
She is perfectly justified in deciding what is law and what's not. We all are, we do it every day routinely. In fact, the founders gave the power to judge what is and what is not law to NOOONE, not even the supreme court.
She and we are, however, on the hook for having to make a correct assessment of what is and what is not law.
We are under no moral or legal obligation to follow non-laws. We will also be punished by people pushing such things as laws, and must react to that tyrannical action in morally correct ways.