Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

Yea, because we all know that anytime anyone just follows orders, they are putting Jews in concentration camps. These are essentially her bosses telling her to do something for them, not something to other people and you want to play the Nazi card. Nobody is asking her to do something she has never done before, they are just asking her to do her job, a job she has done for countless number of people in her county.

She has a moral objection. you disagree. you either support the right for somebody to have a moral disagreement with their job/duty and do what they feel is right or you don't. it is as simple as that.

the voters in her county will be free to vote her out soon enough.
 
7YbpwK5.png


She has a moral objection. you disagree. you either support the right for somebody to have a moral disagreement with their job/duty and do what they feel is right or you don't. it is as simple as that.

the voters in her county will be free to vote her out soon enough.


She does not have a moral objection. He has a bigoted objection which she is trying to back-justify.
 
She does not have a moral objection. He has a bigoted objection which she is trying to back-justify.

I'm so glad you can see what goes on in the heart of others. unfortunately I do not have that ability.
I also do not think that a meme accurately sums up one's life.
Also, it seems to me that you are proposing that people be forced to prove or justify their moral objections.
 
They aren't. The people of her county are her boss. You know, the ones whose licenses she's failing to issue.

Yes they are, you know the ones who elected her, the ones who will elect her again if the feds don't imprison her.

Something tells me that there's a severe shortage of homos and even homo sympathisers in rural Ky...

Hell the locals might even build her a statute....

This is a dry county except for one town, an Evangelical meca...

Inbreeding comes closer to acceptance than homosexuality but the feds and their supporters are going to try and make this a big deal....
 
Yes they are, you know the ones who elected her, the ones who will elect her again if the feds don't imprison her.

Something tells me that there's a severe shortage of homos and even homo sympathisers in rural Ky...

Hell the locals might even build her a statute....

This is a dry county except for one town, an Evangelical meca...

Inbreeding comes closer to acceptance than homosexuality but the feds and their supporters are going to try and make this a big deal....

Wonder what would happen if she refused to marry cops or DA's.
 
I've read up on her "moral" character w/ regards to her objections. What a cunt.

Yeah but this cunt has got the guts to tell the feds to fuck off.........

This needs to happen more often and for other reasons....

I hope she inspires others to stand up to the feds......
 
A marriage certificate isn't a right to marry. It's a privilege to get an expensive divorce.
 
I've read up on her "moral" character w/ regards to her objections. What a cunt.

I understand but I still think what she's doing is good even if she's personally a hypocrite.

Wonder what would happen if she refused to marry cops or DA's.

Meh, many cops and DAs deserve to have the book thrown at them, but even a cop (or any other criminal) has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.
 
This entire thing stinks to high heaven. It takes at least a year to get a case before the Supreme's, and they heard this complaint againt the Clerk in a matter of days or weeks?
 
I understand but I still think what she's doing is good even if she's personally a hypocrite.

Nothing done by government regarding licensure is ever good.

Meh, many cops and DAs deserve to have the book thrown at them, but even a cop (or any other criminal) has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

And by the "right" to marry do you mean the "privilege" that the government bestows? :rolleyes:
 
Nothing done by government regarding licensure is ever good.

I'm for government recording marriages but not licensing them (because I believe the covenant family and not the individual is the basic unit of society.) Our current government is exceedingly wicked though, so if you don't want to "record" your marriage to them (which means asking permission, which is wrong) that's fine.

But... regardless, gay "couples" should NOT be allowed to redefine marriage, they are not families, and they should not be recognized as families by govt. And the bad policy of having licenses in the first place does not justify sanction of abominable homosexual marriage.
And by the "right" to marry do you mean the "privilege" that the government bestows? :rolleyes:

No, I just mean that a marriage between a mafia boss and a person of the opposite gender is actually a marriage. Ted Bundy deserved to be executed, but he could still enter into a marriage relationship with a person of the opposite gender. So my point is, cops and DAs are generally bad people but being a good or bad person really has little to do with whether its legitimate to enter into a marriage. Marriage between two people of the same gender is NEVER possible or marriage period, so by government "licensing" it they are actually basically saying that down can be up too...
 
No she should not be celebrated. I don't care if you disagree with a SC decision which advanced the civil rights of gays.

It's the law. Her actions are not that of some heroic freedom fighter. Give them their licenses or quit. That's the bottom line. Her argument about her religion is nonsense. The law can't be twisted by an individual based off religious beliefs.

Well, that's the whole problem with this country isn't it?

"You don't care that I disagree" because, as you say, "it's the law".

But in Kentucky the law is NO gay marriage. But on June 26, 2015, five judges in Washington D.C. decided to rewrite the law based on basic violations of common sense BUT! according to "tradition" I suppose we're suppose to just consider what those five people say as "the law", even though it's quite obvious from the substance of the decision that those five people give two shits about "tradition" or "the law".

So as enlightened as your response is, I'm going to have have to disagree and say you are pretty clueless about what the bottom line is in this issue.
 
Back
Top