Kentucky could have 2 marriage licenses

[Disgruntled_American]

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

And I already said that there needs to be someone there at all times the office is open to sign them. Yes, she has a religious freedom argument, but if say she and the rest of the staff all felt the same then most of them would need to go.

Why is it when someone disagrees with ONE part of something you guys always label people right and left? Here's a hint, people can disagree with what you say and not be right or left on the issue.

and who is that person if all of the staffers are pretend religious bigots?

I just said what should happen. If there isn't one person at least that can sign it, then most or even all have to go unless there is someone there. While I respect someone's religious freedom, I also respect the freedom of those to get married when it is legal to do so.

 

[jillian]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

I think throwing around the word "traitor" is silly though. In no way is she a traitor for her beliefs. I personally think she is a whackjob but definitely not a traitor.

she's not a traitor. she's just a common criminal.

She took an oath to uphold the Constitution. She didn't do that. She could have resigned and kept her dignity and integrity. Instead, she trashed that and shit on the Constitution AND her oath. Traitor.

I think traitor is a strong word. she's just a dumbass bigot and two presidential candidates stood there next to her and aggrandized her.

I find it worse that presidential candidates acted to denigrate the constitution and the court.

 

[jillian]

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

And I already said that there needs to be someone there at all times the office is open to sign them. Yes, she has a religious freedom argument, but if say she and the rest of the staff all felt the same then most of them would need to go.

Why is it when someone disagrees with ONE part of something you guys always label people right and left? Here's a hint, people can disagree with what you say and not be right or left on the issue.

and who is that person if all of the staffers are pretend religious bigots?

I just said what should happen. If there isn't one person at least that can sign it, then most or even all have to go unless there is someone there. While I respect someone's religious freedom, I also respect the freedom of those to get married when it is legal to do so.

the law is what it is. there is no religion that requires anyone to be a bigot and she was in no way prohibited from following her religion.

her remedy was to quit.

 

[TNHarley]

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

I wish EVERYONE that violated the COTUS in the Judicial, legislative and Executive branch went to jail. Sadly, they dont. Looked like political theater IMO.

that isn't the penalty for doing something *you* (or *I*) believe is unconstitutional. the court makes those decisions.

And the courts are political advocates who have NEVER been called out.
Besides, how many times has Obama been struck down? How many times were those carry-ons from the Bush era? There is two people right there.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

And I already said that there needs to be someone there at all times the office is open to sign them. Yes, she has a religious freedom argument, but if say she and the rest of the staff all felt the same then most of them would need to go.

Why is it when someone disagrees with ONE part of something you guys always label people right and left? Here's a hint, people can disagree with what you say and not be right or left on the issue.

and who is that person if all of the staffers are pretend religious bigots?

I just said what should happen. If there isn't one person at least that can sign it, then most or even all have to go unless there is someone there. While I respect someone's religious freedom, I also respect the freedom of those to get married when it is legal to do so.

the law is what it is. there is no religion that requires anyone to be a bigot and she was in no way prohibited from following her religion.

her remedy was to quit.

And that is your opinion. As I said before, there were ways to satisfy the requirements AND keep her religious freedom. To me, she overstepped her bounds of religious freedom when she ordered her staff to not sign it. That's all.

 

[jillian]

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

I wish EVERYONE that violated the COTUS in the Judicial, legislative and Executive branch went to jail. Sadly, they dont. Looked like political theater IMO.

that isn't the penalty for doing something *you* (or *I*) believe is unconstitutional. the court makes those decisions.

And the courts are political advocates who have NEVER been called out.
Besides, how many times has Obama been struck down? How many times were those carry-ons from the Bush era? There is two people right there.

i'm not sure what your complaint is. that you can't decide what's constitutional based on *your* political leanings?
you have a better way to choose judges? please let me know. me? I think the bigger problem is that judges like scalia and Thomas hear cases that in any other court they'd have to recuse themselves from but because there is no eithics committee that oversees the court they do what they feel like. (like Thomas ruling on citizens united when his wife worked for a group just like it or scalia ruling on bush v gore when his hunting buddy cheney was directly affected by the decision).

 

[jillian]

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

And I already said that there needs to be someone there at all times the office is open to sign them. Yes, she has a religious freedom argument, but if say she and the rest of the staff all felt the same then most of them would need to go.

Why is it when someone disagrees with ONE part of something you guys always label people right and left? Here's a hint, people can disagree with what you say and not be right or left on the issue.

and who is that person if all of the staffers are pretend religious bigots?

I just said what should happen. If there isn't one person at least that can sign it, then most or even all have to go unless there is someone there. While I respect someone's religious freedom, I also respect the freedom of those to get married when it is legal to do so.

the law is what it is. there is no religion that requires anyone to be a bigot and she was in no way prohibited from following her religion.

her remedy was to quit.

And that is your opinion. As I said before, there were ways to satisfy the requirements AND keep her religious freedom. To me, she overstepped her bounds of religious freedom when she ordered her staff to not sign it. That's all.

it's not my "opinion". it's the order of the supreme court.

 

[mdk]

I think traitor is a strong word. she's just a dumbass bigot and two presidential candidates stood there next to her and aggrandized her.

I find it worse that presidential candidates acted to denigrate the constitution and the court.

To be fair, only one actually stood with her. Ted Cruz got boxed out:



How can Cruz handle ISIS if he can't handle a Huckabee aid?

 

[rightwinger]

I thought you were for small government and letting people live their lives the way they feel like.

That shouldnt include risky behavior that could affect large segments of the public.

Or do you approve of TB patients running around among society with no restrictions as well?

Do you not think heterosexuals engage in risky behavior of some sorts? It isn't about approving, it is about what is legal. Smoking is risky behavior, obesity is risky behavior, drinking is risky behavior and ALL those are legal.

Risky behavior that primarily affects only the person imbibing in them is not for the government to limit, IMO.

But risky behavior that can impact nearly everyone, like carrying a fatal virus, is unacceptable risky behavior that the government is DUTY BOUND to limit as much as possible. Were it not for the political power of the Ghey Mafia, we would have had this disease quarantined and under control decades ago.

Doesn't gay marriage encourage monogamous relationships that would reduce the spread of a fatal virus?

Why don't you support it?

 

[Disgruntled_American]

And I already said that there needs to be someone there at all times the office is open to sign them. Yes, she has a religious freedom argument, but if say she and the rest of the staff all felt the same then most of them would need to go.

Why is it when someone disagrees with ONE part of something you guys always label people right and left? Here's a hint, people can disagree with what you say and not be right or left on the issue.

and who is that person if all of the staffers are pretend religious bigots?

I just said what should happen. If there isn't one person at least that can sign it, then most or even all have to go unless there is someone there. While I respect someone's religious freedom, I also respect the freedom of those to get married when it is legal to do so.

the law is what it is. there is no religion that requires anyone to be a bigot and she was in no way prohibited from following her religion.

her remedy was to quit.

And that is your opinion. As I said before, there were ways to satisfy the requirements AND keep her religious freedom. To me, she overstepped her bounds of religious freedom when she ordered her staff to not sign it. That's all.

it's not my "opinion". it's the order of the supreme court.

And I already said that there needs to be someone there at all times the office is open to sign them. Yes, she has a religious freedom argument, but if say she and the rest of the staff all felt the same then most of them would need to go.

Why is it when someone disagrees with ONE part of something you guys always label people right and left? Here's a hint, people can disagree with what you say and not be right or left on the issue.

and who is that person if all of the staffers are pretend religious bigots?

I just said what should happen. If there isn't one person at least that can sign it, then most or even all have to go unless there is someone there. While I respect someone's religious freedom, I also respect the freedom of those to get married when it is legal to do so.

the law is what it is. there is no religion that requires anyone to be a bigot and she was in no way prohibited from following her religion.

her remedy was to quit.

And that is your opinion. As I said before, there were ways to satisfy the requirements AND keep her religious freedom. To me, she overstepped her bounds of religious freedom when she ordered her staff to not sign it. That's all.

it's not my "opinion". it's the order of the supreme court.

And at one time the SCOTUS held up slavery as being legal. A SCOTUS ruling doesn't make it gospel or 100% correct. I do believe we need to maintain religious freedom, but not at the expense of the tax payer. As I said before this whole thing could have been compromised to where both sides get what they want. Instead we had both sides only concerned about hurting the other side.