Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The funniest part in all this is that KIM DAVIS IS A DEMOCRAT.Kim Davis is the Rosa Parks of ignorant, dumb chicks.
But very Conservative.The funniest part in all this is that KIM DAVIS IS A DEMOCRAT.Kim Davis is the Rosa Parks of ignorant, dumb chicks.
But very Conservative.The funniest part in all this is that KIM DAVIS IS A DEMOCRAT.Kim Davis is the Rosa Parks of ignorant, dumb chicks.
the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.
The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.
Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.
the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.
The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.
Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.
Let her get a new job.the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.
The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.
Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.
She isn't a bigot. She's a religious person who believes her religion does not allow her to marry two men, which is true. This isn't what she signed up for. Call it something other than marriage and let her out of jail.
she's a bigot. she's decided that some people in her county are not worthy of county services.the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.
The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.
Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.
She isn't a bigot. She's a religious person who believes her religion does not allow her to marry two men, which is true. This isn't what she signed up for. Call it something other than marriage and let her out of jail.
she's a bigot. she's decided that some people in her county are not worthy of county services.the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.
The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.
Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.
She isn't a bigot. She's a religious person who believes her religion does not allow her to marry two men, which is true. This isn't what she signed up for. Call it something other than marriage and let her out of jail.
and it is what she signed up for. she took an oath to uphold the law and the constitution. nobody is asking her to do anything but honor her oath.
At least you and most other conservatives are consistent in your ignorance of the law.The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.
The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.
Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.
she's welcome to think that, but just because she's blaming her bigotry on god doesn't excuse it.she's a bigot. she's decided that some people in her county are not worthy of county services.the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.
The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.
Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.
She isn't a bigot. She's a religious person who believes her religion does not allow her to marry two men, which is true. This isn't what she signed up for. Call it something other than marriage and let her out of jail.
and it is what she signed up for. she took an oath to uphold the law and the constitution. nobody is asking her to do anything but honor her oath.
Hey look, personally people who are religious turn me off as well. But we have somebody who thinks the One above is a higher authority than man's law.
Democrat son...don't try and split hairs now because I got you dead to rights.Both stood up to Tyranny,both were attacked by democrats/liberals/progressives/.This is some of the dumbest shit I've seen.
Standing up against peoples rights or facing jail isn't the same as standing your ground or get the hose put to you, then the dogs, then the clubs, then jail put to you b/c you want equal rights.
you're a fucking asshole
Name a liberal who was against Rosa Parks by name.
Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.
Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.
Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.
anybody with a functioning cerebral cortex would want to left of this : There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, theocrats and traditionalists.[8]democrat/liberal/progressive is same damn thing. They have just changed who they hate now.Democrat son...don't try and split hairs now because I got you dead to rights.
Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.
That's factually incorrect. Strom Thurmond was a conservative and a Democrat. The Democrats were in control in the South during the civil war but it's Republicans who keep that vial dream alive.
Now, pull the stick out and name a prominent liberal who persecuted Rosa Parks.
Oh, good God.
The Democrats have always been to the political left of the Republicans in this country. Always. They are the exact same people and party, ideologically speaking, that they always have been, although their need to constantly push the envelope and blur boundary lines has taken them to previously unimagined extremes lately.
No amount of playing with and redefining terms is ever going to change the fact that you own every nasty thing the Democrat Party has ever done, and always will. It's yours. Suck it up, and if you're really that ashamed of the past,maybe you should reflect on what that means about being associated with that party now.
anybody with a functioning cerebral cortex would want to left of this : There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, theocrats and traditionalists.[8]democrat/liberal/progressive is same damn thing. They have just changed who they hate now.Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.
That's factually incorrect. Strom Thurmond was a conservative and a Democrat. The Democrats were in control in the South during the civil war but it's Republicans who keep that vial dream alive.
Now, pull the stick out and name a prominent liberal who persecuted Rosa Parks.
Oh, good God.
The Democrats have always been to the political left of the Republicans in this country. Always. They are the exact same people and party, ideologically speaking, that they always have been, although their need to constantly push the envelope and blur boundary lines has taken them to previously unimagined extremes lately.
No amount of playing with and redefining terms is ever going to change the fact that you own every nasty thing the Democrat Party has ever done, and always will. It's yours. Suck it up, and if you're really that ashamed of the past,maybe you should reflect on what that means about being associated with that party now.
Like you would know about functioning cerebral cortexes. I flush more intelligent matter than you carry between your ears.
Democrat son...don't try and split hairs now because I got you dead to rights.Both stood up to Tyranny,both were attacked by democrats/liberals/progressives/.
Name a liberal who was against Rosa Parks by name.
Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.
Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.
Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.
What? Huh?
Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?
anybody with a functioning cerebral cortex would want to left of this : There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, theocrats and traditionalists.[8]democrat/liberal/progressive is same damn thing. They have just changed who they hate now.
That's factually incorrect. Strom Thurmond was a conservative and a Democrat. The Democrats were in control in the South during the civil war but it's Republicans who keep that vial dream alive.
Now, pull the stick out and name a prominent liberal who persecuted Rosa Parks.
Oh, good God.
The Democrats have always been to the political left of the Republicans in this country. Always. They are the exact same people and party, ideologically speaking, that they always have been, although their need to constantly push the envelope and blur boundary lines has taken them to previously unimagined extremes lately.
No amount of playing with and redefining terms is ever going to change the fact that you own every nasty thing the Democrat Party has ever done, and always will. It's yours. Suck it up, and if you're really that ashamed of the past,maybe you should reflect on what that means about being associated with that party now.
Like you would know about functioning cerebral cortexes. I flush more intelligent matter than you carry between your ears.
Maybe you flushed a little too much.
I disagree with the SCOTUS decision only to the extent that I think they did it via deception.
There is nothing in the 14th Amendment or the reason it was proposed or ratified that makes it applicable to the topic of gay marriage.
On the other hand, frankly, as bad as it is conceptually and legally, I happen to (shhh) like the result. I wish America would do what SCOTUS did -- but do it legitimately via a proper Amendment. MAKE it an explicit Constitutionally recognized right. As a matter of Constitutional law, I am biased against judicial legislation and I certainly am no fan of SCOTUS becoming the author of de facto Constitutional amendments. Here we have an outcome I kind of like but a method of getting us there that transgresses all kinds of proper bounds. It is a dangerous way for this land to conduct the business of the nation's laws.
Nevertheless, that was a SCOTUS ruling and I am not remotely convinced by any argument that says a county clerk can take official actions (and in-actions) contrary to what is now the law.
Clerk Davis does not HAVE to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She is free to quit her job.
Democrat son...don't try and split hairs now because I got you dead to rights.Name a liberal who was against Rosa Parks by name.
Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.
Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.
Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.
What? Huh?
Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?
I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.
