Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

just following orders, bro.

I'm glad snowden didn't follow your rules.

I guess if you work for the government, you're prohibited from practicing civil disobedience. /sarc In my mind, those who work for the gov't should be the PRIME practitioners of it as they are the ones more likely to successfully promote the needed changes. This is why I've always believed that liberty-minded people should infiltrate everything, and everywhere.
 
Quite simply by not complying with their court orders.

The rest of your post discusses the legality/righteousness of homosexual "marriage" so I'm going to ignore it. (I'm sure others will be along to engage in that debate, again.)


So would restricting free speech be 'making a stand against the fed'? I can dig what you're saying but I don't think there is any objective way to judge an action by it. I.E. it is useless information.
 
If the federal government mandated that we get a 'food license' to buy food at the grocery store I doubt many would be applauding a clerk refusing to grant said licenses to classes of people because of an objection the clerk holds.

That's true. But the federal government doesn't mandate that you get a marriage license to exercise any rights at all. Neither does any state government.

Ensures the couples will pay a higher tax to the federal government. Puts to question who the heir of the estate would be should one of them die, the government or the significant other?

I don't know it they will pay higher taxes. They may or may not. It could go either way. I also don't see why not giving them a marriage license would make the government their heir. With or without a marriage license they could choose to make their gay lover their heir or someone else.

It looks like you're trying to make it look like giving same-sex couples marriage licenses somehow helps the tax payer, which it doesn't. The biggest impact as far as government spending is concerned is probably that they would get Social Security spousal benefits. The only reason I could see anyone here supporting that would be if they just want to make the federal government default that much sooner (which admittedly does have some appeal to it).
 
Last edited:
Muslim Stewardess Refuses to Serve Alcohol, Then Plays the Victim

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...fuses-to-serve-alcohol-then-plays-the-victim/

A Muslim flight attendant, Charee Stanley, claims that she was suspended from her job with ExpressJet Airlines because she refused to serve alcohol. She has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – and now the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has jumped onto the case.

So now we have yet another Muslim workplace lawsuit from CAIR – once again designed to impose Islam on the workplace. This is what they do.

Why would a devout Muslim want to be a flight attendant in the first place, when half your job is serving alcohol?

Lena Masri of Hamas-tied CAIR declared: “We notified ExpressJet Airlines of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley’s religious beliefs. Instead, ExpressJet close to violate Ms. Stanely’s constitutional rights, placed her on administrative leave for 12 months after which her employment may be administratively terminated.”

What about the rights of the passengers on Stanley’s flight who just wanted to have a drink? Alcoholic beverages are still legal in the United States.

This is reminiscent of Samantha Elauf, the devout Muslima who sued soft porn retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wanted to wear the hijab. She won that case and got herself a healthy cash settlement – and Abercrombie and Fitch had to change the way they do business in order to accommodate her demands. That is no doubt part of the objective here as well.

There are many such cases. The EEOC is suing Star Transport for rightfully terminating two Muslims who refused to do their job. If these Muslim truck drivers don’t want to deliver alcohol, then they shouldn’t have taken a job in which part of their duties would be to deliver alcohol. It’s that simple.

But no, Islamic supremacists chip, chip, chip away at the establishment clause, and in doing so, impose Islam on the secular marketplace. Take, for example, the Hertz company. Hertz bent over backwards to accommodate its Muslim workers: they have prayer rooms, prayer times, etc. They just didn’t want the Muslim workers leaving work to pray outside of scheduled break times. Mind you, they could easily pray before or after work, but no. This imposes Islam on everyone else – just as Charee Stanley wanted to do when she refused to do her job and serve flight passengers alcohol. After the initial surrender on Hertz’s part, Muslim workers began suing Hertz, charging “Islamophobia.”

Islamic supremacists see that this legal intimidation works, so they keep on resorting to it. A Muslim woman sued Children’s Hospital Boston after being fired for refusing to get a flu shot. If you don’t want to take the necessary steps to work in a hospital and adhere to the rules to insure the health of the public at large, then don’t work in a children’s hospital.

And in New Mexico, a Muslima sued Planet Fitness over its headgear safety rules. Obviously, headgear is prohibited in this gym because it presents a safety hazard. But people’s safety be damned. This suit mirrored the melee that ensued at a New York Playland Park when park officials adhered to their safety rules in order to keep park attendees free from harm. Muslim visitors got angry that the park was enforcing its ban on headgear by prohibiting the women from wearing their traditional head coverings on some rides.

A Muslim woman who worked as a hostess at a Disneyland restaurant sued Disney. Like Abercrombie & Fitch’s Elauf, Imane Boudlal wore the hijab, but the garment violated Disney’s dress code. Disney offered up a compromise hat for her to wear, but Boudlal refused, of course. It wasn’t about hijab; otherwise the cute cowboy hat that Disneyland offered Boudlal would have been fine (everyone on the floor at Disney wears costumes). It was about imposing Islam on the secular marketplace.

You’ll notice that it is always big companies that are targeted. Hertz, Heinz, Target, Walmart, Disney, Abercrombie & Fitch, and now ExpressJet Airlines. Why? To set legal precedents they can use in yet more intimidation cases. Muslim lawsuits against Hertz, Walmart, Target, Disney and a host of other American businesses for special rights, special accommodation have been largely successful creating a special rights for a special class of people — which is an accordance with Islam (in which Muslims are superior to the kuffar).

But this goes against every American tenet of individual rights and separation of mosque and state. Someone ought to remind the EEOC that their name is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Equal,” as in no special rights for any particular class.

Read the chapter titled “Mosqueing the Workplace” in my book Stop the Islamization of America to better understand this de facto imposition of sharia in America. It works this way: every accommodation gives way to more demands. Everywhere American mores conflict with sharia, it is our mores that must give way. And it is going to keep on happening, until someone, somewhere, says, “No more accommodation. We’re going to stand up for our own principles.” But no one is saying that now.

Interesting post.

If you're a Muslim objecting to things against your religion then you are "Mosqueing the Workplace". The people on planes deserve their booze.

If you're a government clerk objecting to things against your religion, then you are justified because you should be allowed to follow your religion and, according to many here, because gays should have no rights.

This is what real freedom is:

- NO government allowed in marriage
- Davis has the right not to issue a license
- She doesn't have the right to refuse to let her clerks, who are willing, to do it.
- Muslims are allowed not to serve drinks.
- Private businesses are allowed to fire those that don't do the work- whether for religious reasons or not.
 
What you're advocating is a pure democracy where there is no limit on the ability of local government to harm its constituents, so long as the majority agrees. That's not something that I can agree with.

You're talking about the pro-gay-marriage side. Right?
 
That's true. But the federal government doesn't mandate that you get a marriage license to exercise any rights at all. Neither does any state government.

Not true- most people want marriage licenses because of the tax benefits that come with the license. Also- you cannot even be in the hospital with a sick or dying spouse if you can't prove you are married.
 
Not true- most people want marriage licenses because of the tax benefits that come with the license. Also- you cannot even be in the hospital with a sick or dying spouse if you can't prove you are married.

Not in Cali. Both my husband and I have been hospitalized in recent years and never were we required to show a license. We never leave each other's side in the hospital, either.
 
Not in Cali. Both my husband and I have been hospitalized in recent years and never were we required to show a license. We never leave each other's side in the hospital, either.

I've never had to show ID or anything to visit even friends in the hospital and this includes after hours...ICU is different though..

Could be different locations?
 
Interesting post.

If you're a Muslim objecting to things against your religion then you are "Mosqueing the Workplace". The people on planes deserve their booze.

If you're a government clerk objecting to things against your religion, then you are justified because you should be allowed to follow your religion...

Precisely why I posted that.

You have "conservatives" on the one hand praising this woman, and demonizing the other, when both of them have done the exact same thing.

Now, trust me, I have no problem with supporting this woman solely on the "stick a thumb in the fedcoat's eye" angle.

But I have a real problem with the hypocrisy, both in this example and the Romans 13 angle of AmeriKan Christianity's teachings.

How can it be sinful and un-biblical to oppose your "rulers" when it's police abusing and killing citizens, but not sinful and un-biblical to oppose your rulers in this case?
 
Last edited:
Would you rather the fed proscribe proper behavior for the nation?

I think that's their proper role, yes. Not to involve themselves in day to day manner, but as a level of oversight specifically aimed at the protection of rights and the management of interstate and international affairs.
 
Precisely why I posted that.

You have "conservatives" on the one hand praising this woman, and demonizing the other, when both of them have done the exact same thing.

Now, trust me, I have no problem with supporting this woman solely on the "stick a thumb in the fedcoat's eye" angle.

But I have real problem with the hypocrisy, both in this example and the Romans 13 angle of AmeriKan Christianity's teachings.

How can it be sinful and un-biblical to oppose your "rulers" when it's police abusing and killing citizens, but not sinful and un-biblical to oppose your rulers in this case?

EXACTLY my position- couldn't have stated it better!
 
Interesting post.

If you're a Muslim objecting to things against your religion then you are "Mosqueing the Workplace". The people on planes deserve their booze.

If you're a government clerk objecting to things against your religion, then you are justified because you should be allowed to follow your religion and, according to many here, because gays should have no rights.
Gays, shmays! Doesn't matter who they screw or where, if the voters in that county want different representation then there's a mechanism in place to remove this broad from office. I'm betting that she's representing the majority of her constituents. Unlike Habib on the airplane this broad is elected, now if we were to switch the discussion over to EEOC and the plethora of ridiculous laws and regulations surrounding that mess we could have a discussion about private businesses and their hiring and firing practices.
This is what real freedom is:

- NO government allowed in marriage
Agreed
- Davis has the right not to issue a license
Agreed
- She doesn't have the right to refuse to let her clerks, who are willing, to do it.
In this instance as I understand it, she most certainly does. The asst. clerks would be signing under her authority.
- Muslims are allowed not to serve drinks.
Okay.
- Private businesses are allowed to fire those that don't do the work- whether for religious reasons or not.
Absolutely!
 
I think that's their proper role, yes. Not to involve themselves in day to day manner, but as a level of oversight specifically aimed at the protection of rights and the management of interstate and international affairs.

We're going to have to disagree on this.

Your definition of "rights" and mine differ to the point there'd be war.
 
Precisely why I posted that.

You have "conservatives" on the one hand praising this woman, and demonizing the other, when both of them have done the exact same thing.

Now, trust me, I have no problem with supporting this woman solely on the "stick a thumb in the fedcoat's eye" angle.

But I have a real problem with the hypocrisy, both in this example and the Romans 13 angle of AmeriKan Christianity's teachings.

How can it be sinful and un-biblical to oppose your "rulers" when it's police abusing and killing citizens, but not sinful and un-biblical to oppose your rulers in this case?

I've been opposing the rulers throughout this thread, specifically the feds.

Thing is I'm good with a county's elected officials bucking the feds for any reason their constituency chooses.

If this county wants to send homos away to get married fine with me.

If another county wants to have their elected sheriff enforce no Muslims laws, or no Christians laws, or blacks, yellows, whites or reds then that's cool with me too...

People don't always play well with others and forcing them to under threat of federal edicts isn't going to end well....
 
I've been opposing the rulers throughout this thread, specifically the feds.

Thing is I'm good with a county's elected officials bucking the feds for any reason their constituency chooses.

If this county wants to send homos away to get married fine with me.

If another county wants to have their elected sheriff enforce no Muslims laws, or no Christians laws, or blacks, yellows, whites or reds then that's cool with me too...

People don't always play well with others and forcing them to under threat of federal edicts isn't going to end well....


Damn, that sounds like a harsh government.
 
Back
Top