Kentucky clerk won't interfere with gay marriage licenses

[Debra K]

I hope a Muslim clerk does the same thing. It will be crickets from liberals.

Nope. Do what we pay you for, or get the hell out and vacuum the floors at your church.

Yeah right, a Muslim baker tells a queer couple to go down the street. Crickets from the left.

I don't remember that case. Do you have a link?

 

[Nosmo King]

I hope a Muslim clerk does the same thing. It will be crickets from liberals.

Nope. Do what we pay you for, or get the hell out and vacuum the floors at your church.

Yeah right, a Muslim baker tells a queer couple to go down the street. Crickets from the left.

What's the difference between a baker and a Clerk of Courts?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I hope a Muslim clerk does the same thing. It will be crickets from liberals.

Nope. Do what we pay you for, or get the hell out and vacuum the floors at your church.

Yeah right, a Muslim baker tells a queer couple to go down the street. Crickets from the left.

I don't remember that case. Do you have a link?

There's a guy who tried this, but he was a fake of course.
A Guy Walked Into a Muslim Bakery and Ordered a Gay Wedding Cake…

And the answer is the same in all cases, bake the stupid fucking cake.

 

[Debra K]

No to same-sex marriages:

"life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
- Life....nope. By denying a marriage license no one is denying life.
- Liberty....nope...still free.
- Property....nope. No one is taking property away from anyone.

And what law specifically makes marriage or same sex marriage a Constitutional right (aside from the very vague 'pursuit of happiness' part? If gays can claim that homosexuality, what's to stop pedophiles, necrophiliacs, brothers-n-sisters who want to marry, etc from arguing what they do is their pursuit of happiness?)

Just throwing out a question, not trying to make points of pull for sides....

The Constitution is not a catalog of individual rights. Upon forming the federal government, the people did not surrender the entire universe of individual rights only to have a few doled back to them in a Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment (a rule of construction) explicitly states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Accordingly, a right does not need to be enumerated in the Constitution in order to be secured by the Constitution against arbitrary government deprivations.

The liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment against STATE government deprivations (denials, disparagements, infringements, et al.) encompasses the entire universe of liberty interests, great and small. Even something you might find to be trivial, like choosing to wear your cap backwards or deciding for yourself what time to go to bed, are individual rights protected against arbitrary government deprivations.

The Supreme Court stated the following:

The problem for our determination is whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312; Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State to effect. Determination by the legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137.

Source: Meyer v. State of Nebraska | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The above is the starting point -- the understanding of which is essential -- as you explore the issue of marriage and who among the people the state may prohibit from entering a marriage without running afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Debra K]

I hope a Muslim clerk does the same thing. It will be crickets from liberals.

Nope. Do what we pay you for, or get the hell out and vacuum the floors at your church.

Yeah right, a Muslim baker tells a queer couple to go down the street. Crickets from the left.

I don't remember that case. Do you have a link?

There's a guy who tried this, but he was a fake of course.
A Guy Walked Into a Muslim Bakery and Ordered a Gay Wedding Cake…

And the answer is the same in all cases, bake the stupid fucking cake.

Thank you for the link. I agree with you, absolutely! bake the cake!

Under the Michigan public accommodations statute, however, the bakery did not violate the law. The state statute prohibits discrimination on the basis of "religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status". Source: Michigan Legislature - Section 37.2302

It does not appear that Michigan protects persons from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But a quick search discloses that civil rights groups and others are working on this issue, and its only a matter of time and businesses in the State of Michigan will face consequences for discrimination against this minority segment of the population that is denied equal protection under the law.

 

[Debra K]

"The governor, the attorney general and the county attorney have said the licenses are valid. Davis and her attorneys claim otherwise."

This is from the linked report.

The licenses are in fact valid.

Not according to God and His Word.

Neither of which are the law of the land. You're thinking of another country.

Wrong - from the beginning - our founding fathers believed the Word of God to be the truth. There was never any provision for men to marry men or women to marry women. We have no history of such laws. What is happening now is wickedness is taking over the land. Our judges are unrighteous, unholy, blasphemers of God. They have perverted the laws of this land and twisted the meaning of what is holy. They are also under the judgment of God for their actions.

Again, God's word isn't the law of this nation.

Besides, why should I trust you? You turned your back on the one true faith when you decided to join the perverted church you attend now. The only church that can lead to your salvation is The Catholic Church. You should beg for forgiveness for turning your back on the true church. Satan has tricked you. I'll pray for your return.


See I can play the 'you're going to hell' game as well.

Hell is not a game to play. It is a place to avoid at all cost. Even if your entire family disown you for departing from Roman Catholicism. You must do it if you desire to follow Jesus Christ and enter heaven when you leave this earth.

Having fun playing the hilarious role of false prophet? what does the bible say about false prophets? do they go to hell too? just curious.

 

[Debra K]

DOMA established federal law regarding the definition of 'marriage'.

Obama refused to enforce the law, and it was finally repealed / eliminated...leaving NO FEDERAL LAW establishing the definition of 'marriage'.

State's can pass laws that can NOT be LESS restrictive that Federal Law and, I believe, that can be MORE restrictive than Federal Law...not sure ,but it doesn't matter...because when DOMA was struck down there was NO FEDERAL LAW defining 'marriage' At this point the states had the authority to pass their own laws...which they did.

At this point the Federal Govt stepped in to trample the hail out of State's Rights, deciding to make States' Rights 'Null and Void'. The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the Federal Govt to have THIS much / type of authority, to step in and impose edicts on the states. Obama and the Federal Govt has, IMO and the opinions of several lawyers who are challenging this, over-stepped their bounds.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their 14th Amendment rights.

Easyt65: The United States Supreme Court "declared that gay couples married in states where it is legal must receive the same federal health, tax, Social Security and other benefits that heterosexual couples receive." See Supreme Court strikes down key part of Defense of Marriage Act

You have misconstrued the rule. A state may construe its own constitution or enact laws that are MORE protective of individual rights than the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution is the floor.

Thus, C_Clayton_Jones is correct. The concept of "state's rights" is not permission for state violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The founding fathers were all dead when the Civil War was fought; they were all dead when the post-Civil War amendments were adopted; and states no longer have the right to enact or enforce oppressive laws. I think most of our founding fathers, if they are watching us from heaven, would be pleased that black people are no longer property and that more people alive today may enjoy the blessings of liberty.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Most of the founding fathers were deists and rejected the concept of a personal god and the bible

. More bullshit lies by the atheists. It was a couple at most. The rest were Christians. We are a Judeo/Christian Country. Atheist unwelcome, but tolerated. Although I don't know why.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most were nominal Christians, several strong deists.

Actually the far right Christian social cons are wearing out their welcome.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Jerry, I have a simple question for you.

Suppose you went in to renew your DL and the clerk said "I seen you coming out of church Sunday, I'm not issuing a DL to a Christian, it violates my beliefs"

Would you say "oh well I can't violate his religious beliefs" and walk out without your DL?

You're equating Christians with sexual perverts? Homosexuality with Christianity? Do you know how stupid that is? It would be wrong to deny a Christian a deliver's.license.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, if it is an honest religious opinion.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Jerry, I have a simple question for you.

Suppose you went in to renew your DL and the clerk said "I seen you coming out of church Sunday, I'm not issuing a DL to a Christian, it violates my beliefs"

Would you say "oh well I can't violate his religious beliefs" and walk out without your DL?

You're equating Christians with sexual perverts? Homosexuality with Christianity? Do you know how stupid that is?

I'm equating rights with rights. It's no wonder she was too scared to answer my question.

You have a RIGHT to a state ID
You have a riGHT to a marriage license.

same same, the clerk can't pick and choose who to give one too

 

[AvgGuyIA]

If you make a statement here and expect others to take it as a fact you should provide a link and a source (when it is requested). :"I heard it on TV" is not a link or a source. If I didn't say welcome to USMB earlier - welcome to USMB. I notice you joined recently.

I did not make the original comment about this. You asked SOMEONE if they had a link to this issue. Like a guy walking down the street who sees a car accident and chimes in regarding what he saw, I chimed in to say I had seen the news reports on TV but had seen no articles. I have no 'dog' in this fight, and not trying to prove one 'side' or the other, and I don't care. I just made a random comment.

Sounds like you may have a problem with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox who reported thi son the news but who either doesn't have a written article on it or does somewhere but many people have not seen it. Take it up with them.

Thanks for the welcome....see ya 'round the pages.

I am a Christian, but let me ask a hypothetical question. If a DMV employee is Muslim and refuses to issue licenses to females due to her religion, should she be fired or reassigned? It seems to be a question that is pertinent to religious conscious. What do you think?

No, because Islam and Sharia law are not the law of the land. You are thinking Saudi Arabia.

Our constitution upholds Kim Davis's right not to issue a same sex marriage license. If our founding fathers were here they would agree with her. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The Supreme Court had no right to change the definition of marriage in order to appease the Sodomites of this land.

It certainly would be an issue, because Davis used her 'freedom of religion' under the 1st Amendment as the reason for her denying same sex marriage licenses. However, as stated in the Establishment Clause , there is no State sanctioned religion & as an agent for the government, working on behalf of the government- she cannot use her religious beliefs to dictate whom she will or will not serve. Can you please recite & link exactly where in the Constitution it says that a marriage is only between a man & a woman? How about between a Negro & Negro...Caucasian & Caucasian.?... I'll be waiting.

. You don't have to put normalcy in the Constitution. That's why it doesn't have to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It's perverts who started the notions that homos could marry.

This issue will be with is as long as we've been fighting Roe vs Wade. Get the right mix of judges and legislature and Roe v Wade and homo marriage are gone and every homo marriage nullified!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Not according to God and His Word.

Neither of which are the law of the land. You're thinking of another country.

Wrong - from the beginning - our founding fathers believed the Word of God to be the truth. There was never any provision for men to marry men or women to marry women. We have no history of such laws. What is happening now is wickedness is taking over the land. Our judges are unrighteous, unholy, blasphemers of God. They have perverted the laws of this land and twisted the meaning of what is holy. They are also under the judgment of God for their actions.

Again, God's word isn't the law of this nation.

Besides, why should I trust you? You turned your back on the one true faith when you decided to join the perverted church you attend now. The only church that can lead to your salvation is The Catholic Church. You should beg for forgiveness for turning your back on the true church. Satan has tricked you. I'll pray for your return.


See I can play the 'you're going to hell' game as well.

Roman Catholicism is a false religion. There is no salvation in Roman Catholicism. It is Satan's Masterpiece - a counterfeit church taking millions to hell. I pray you depart from it, mdk.

Those are the words of Satan masquerading as the words of the pious. The Bible warns us about people like you. Come back to the one true church and leave behind the lies Satan's whispers in your ears. In his name I cast you're false faith down.

I think you people need to stop praying to statues.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If you make a statement here and expect others to take it as a fact you should provide a link and a source (when it is requested). :"I heard it on TV" is not a link or a source. If I didn't say welcome to USMB earlier - welcome to USMB. I notice you joined recently.

I did not make the original comment about this. You asked SOMEONE if they had a link to this issue. Like a guy walking down the street who sees a car accident and chimes in regarding what he saw, I chimed in to say I had seen the news reports on TV but had seen no articles. I have no 'dog' in this fight, and not trying to prove one 'side' or the other, and I don't care. I just made a random comment.

Sounds like you may have a problem with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox who reported thi son the news but who either doesn't have a written article on it or does somewhere but many people have not seen it. Take it up with them.

Thanks for the welcome....see ya 'round the pages.

I am a Christian, but let me ask a hypothetical question. If a DMV employee is Muslim and refuses to issue licenses to females due to her religion, should she be fired or reassigned? It seems to be a question that is pertinent to religious conscious. What do you think?

No, because Islam and Sharia law are not the law of the land. You are thinking Saudi Arabia.

Our constitution upholds Kim Davis's right not to issue a same sex marriage license. If our founding fathers were here they would agree with her. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The Supreme Court had no right to change the definition of marriage in order to appease the Sodomites of this land.

It certainly would be an issue, because Davis used her 'freedom of religion' under the 1st Amendment as the reason for her denying same sex marriage licenses. However, as stated in the Establishment Clause , there is no State sanctioned religion & as an agent for the government, working on behalf of the government- she cannot use her religious beliefs to dictate whom she will or will not serve. Can you please recite & link exactly where in the Constitution it says that a marriage is only between a man & a woman? How about between a Negro & Negro...Caucasian & Caucasian.?... I'll be waiting.

. You don't have to put normalcy in the Constitution. That's why it doesn't have to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It's perverts who started the notions that homos could marry.

This issue will be with is as long as we've been fighting Roe vs Wade. Get the right mix of judges and legislature and Roe v Wade and homo marriage are gone and every homo marriage nullified!

Good luck with that, until then "homo marriage" is the law of the land and as a government employee you must facilitate it.

Or find a new job.

Duh

 

[jillian]

"... she said she decided not to interfere with deputy clerks who will continue to hand out the marriage licenses in Rowan County, but Davis declared they would not be authorized by her and she questioned their validity."

Is a marriage legal if you never had a valid license?

who says it isn't valid? there are deputy clerks

and if she's making them invalid, then she should go back to jail.

 

[jillian]

Not according to God and His Word.

Neither of which are the law of the land. You're thinking of another country.

Wrong - from the beginning - our founding fathers believed the Word of God to be the truth. There was never any provision for men to marry men or women to marry women. We have no history of such laws. What is happening now is wickedness is taking over the land. Our judges are unrighteous, unholy, blasphemers of God. They have perverted the laws of this land and twisted the meaning of what is holy. They are also under the judgment of God for their actions.

Again, God's word isn't the law of this nation.

Besides, why should I trust you? You turned your back on the one true faith when you decided to join the perverted church you attend now. The only church that can lead to your salvation is The Catholic Church. You should beg for forgiveness for turning your back on the true church. Satan has tricked you. I'll pray for your return.


See I can play the 'you're going to hell' game as well.

Roman Catholicism is a false religion. There is no salvation in Roman Catholicism. It is Satan's Masterpiece - a counterfeit church taking millions to hell. I pray you depart from it, mdk.

Those are the words of Satan masquerading as the words of the pious. The Bible warns us about people like you. Come back to the one true church and leave behind the lies Satan's whispers in your ears. In his name I cast you're false faith down.

have you considered anti-psychotic medication?

 

[jillian]

If you make a statement here and expect others to take it as a fact you should provide a link and a source (when it is requested). :"I heard it on TV" is not a link or a source. If I didn't say welcome to USMB earlier - welcome to USMB. I notice you joined recently.

I did not make the original comment about this. You asked SOMEONE if they had a link to this issue. Like a guy walking down the street who sees a car accident and chimes in regarding what he saw, I chimed in to say I had seen the news reports on TV but had seen no articles. I have no 'dog' in this fight, and not trying to prove one 'side' or the other, and I don't care. I just made a random comment.

Sounds like you may have a problem with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox who reported thi son the news but who either doesn't have a written article on it or does somewhere but many people have not seen it. Take it up with them.

Thanks for the welcome....see ya 'round the pages.

I am a Christian, but let me ask a hypothetical question. If a DMV employee is Muslim and refuses to issue licenses to females due to her religion, should she be fired or reassigned? It seems to be a question that is pertinent to religious conscious. What do you think?

No, because Islam and Sharia law are not the law of the land. You are thinking Saudi Arabia.

Our constitution upholds Kim Davis's right not to issue a same sex marriage license. If our founding fathers were here they would agree with her. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The Supreme Court had no right to change the definition of marriage in order to appease the Sodomites of this land.

It certainly would be an issue, because Davis used her 'freedom of religion' under the 1st Amendment as the reason for her denying same sex marriage licenses. However, as stated in the Establishment Clause , there is no State sanctioned religion & as an agent for the government, working on behalf of the government- she cannot use her religious beliefs to dictate whom she will or will not serve. Can you please recite & link exactly where in the Constitution it says that a marriage is only between a man & a woman? How about between a Negro & Negro...Caucasian & Caucasian.?... I'll be waiting.

. You don't have to put normalcy in the Constitution. That's why it doesn't have to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It's perverts who started the notions that homos could marry.

This issue will be with is as long as we've been fighting Roe vs Wade. Get the right mix of judges and legislature and Roe v Wade and homo marriage are gone and every homo marriage nullified!

your bigotry is not anyone else's problem

but thanks for reminding me that loons like you are dangerous and should never be allowed to pick who wears robes

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Neither of which are the law of the land. You're thinking of another country.

Wrong - from the beginning - our founding fathers believed the Word of God to be the truth. There was never any provision for men to marry men or women to marry women. We have no history of such laws. What is happening now is wickedness is taking over the land. Our judges are unrighteous, unholy, blasphemers of God. They have perverted the laws of this land and twisted the meaning of what is holy. They are also under the judgment of God for their actions.

Again, God's word isn't the law of this nation.

Besides, why should I trust you? You turned your back on the one true faith when you decided to join the perverted church you attend now. The only church that can lead to your salvation is The Catholic Church. You should beg for forgiveness for turning your back on the true church. Satan has tricked you. I'll pray for your return.


See I can play the 'you're going to hell' game as well.

Roman Catholicism is a false religion. There is no salvation in Roman Catholicism. It is Satan's Masterpiece - a counterfeit church taking millions to hell. I pray you depart from it, mdk.

Those are the words of Satan masquerading as the words of the pious. The Bible warns us about people like you. Come back to the one true church and leave behind the lies Satan's whispers in your ears. In his name I cast you're false faith down.

have you considered anti-psychotic medication?

He's fucking with jerry LOL

 

[mdk]

Neither of which are the law of the land. You're thinking of another country.

Wrong - from the beginning - our founding fathers believed the Word of God to be the truth. There was never any provision for men to marry men or women to marry women. We have no history of such laws. What is happening now is wickedness is taking over the land. Our judges are unrighteous, unholy, blasphemers of God. They have perverted the laws of this land and twisted the meaning of what is holy. They are also under the judgment of God for their actions.

Again, God's word isn't the law of this nation.

Besides, why should I trust you? You turned your back on the one true faith when you decided to join the perverted church you attend now. The only church that can lead to your salvation is The Catholic Church. You should beg for forgiveness for turning your back on the true church. Satan has tricked you. I'll pray for your return.


See I can play the 'you're going to hell' game as well.

Roman Catholicism is a false religion. There is no salvation in Roman Catholicism. It is Satan's Masterpiece - a counterfeit church taking millions to hell. I pray you depart from it, mdk.

Those are the words of Satan masquerading as the words of the pious. The Bible warns us about people like you. Come back to the one true church and leave behind the lies Satan's whispers in your ears. In his name I cast you're false faith down.

have you considered anti-psychotic medication?

Have you considered what I was doing was satire? Jeremiah shits all over Catholics all the time and it was time for her have a taste of her own medicine.