"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who hi

[NYcarbineer]

Finally logic is introduced by an openly gay man....

You Taliban wannabees can cite all the the "logic" you want but gay marriage is still legal and loony christian clerks won't be able to turn the country into a theocracy.

Refusing to commit sacrilege isn't an example of turning the country into a theocracy. The state is attempting to legislate religion, but Americans won't go for it. Bad law and corruption will be ignored and rooted out.

She is refusing to do her JOB. This country makes reasonable accommodations for religion when it conflicts with a job,

not ridiculously unreasonable accommodations.

 

[koshergrl]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights

By ignoring hers?

She doesn't have any in this case, at least not in the manner you think she does.

You got it right!

If all she did was refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays, there shouldn't have been a problem. She could have advised others in her office that her faith prevented her from issuing licenses to gays and then asked them to help her by filling in for her when she needed them. When a gay couple came in, she could have discreetly absented herself and allowed another person to issue the license.

Had she done this, she could have asserted her right to “reasonable accommodations” of her religious beliefs. Issuing licenses to gays would consume an insignificant amount of her work schedule. Her county has a population of around 23,000. Many of these are children and only about 5% of the adult population is gay. I don't know what the marriage rate is for gays but I do know that not all gays want to get married. I doubt that even 100 gay couples would apply for marriage licenses each year so having another person perform this task would not be an undue burden. Further, as the supervisor in her office she had the right to assign job duties to her employees. Although gay couples had the right to obtain a marriage license, they had no right to have a specific employee provide this service.

The problem is that she wouldn't allow anyone in her office to issue the license and this makes “reasonable accommodations” impossible. The judge did the only thing he could possibly do. His job was to enforce the law and the law said that the Clerk's Office would issue marriage licenses. The law also gives gays the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. The judge wisely refused to let her off with a fine. The judge knew the fine would not change her behavior because she would probably not pay the fine herself and would most likely profit by the affair.

For the record, I spent a good part of my life defending employees against disciplinary actions and enforcing their rights, including “reasonable accommodations” for various conditions including handicaps and religious beliefs. I know what “reasonable accommodations” are and they do not include forcing a government agency to cease performing a statutory duty. Anyone who thinks that forcing gay couples to drive to another county to get a marriage license is a “reasonable accommodation” does not know the law.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter. Not only are her actions illegal but if she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously illegal discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter which is a good thing. If she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

To all her supporters: I challenge every one of you to show his/her true faith. She elects do disobey the law to keep her faith. I would respect her a lot more if sheI kept the law and sacrificed her job to maintain true to her beliefs. If she resigns her position I will send her a check for $1,000. No joke. How about you?

I was under the impression that she, just like the multiple other Christians who have been targeted for destruction by the homo lobby, did try to be fairly discreet and accommodating. She has not said nor advocated a single hateful thing. She has stated zero agenda, other than she believes that her endorsement of homo union is a parody of the sacrament of marriage. Sacrilege. This is the push back the idiots get for their attempt to legislate matters of faith.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights

By ignoring hers?

She doesn't have any in this case, at least not in the manner you think she does.

You got it right!

If all she did was refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays, there shouldn't have been a problem. She could have advised others in her office that her faith prevented her from issuing licenses to gays and then asked them to help her by filling in for her when she needed them. When a gay couple came in, she could have discreetly absented herself and allowed another person to issue the license.

Had she done this, she could have asserted her right to “reasonable accommodations” of her religious beliefs. Issuing licenses to gays would consume an insignificant amount of her work schedule. Her county has a population of around 23,000. Many of these are children and only about 5% of the adult population is gay. I don't know what the marriage rate is for gays but I do know that not all gays want to get married. I doubt that even 100 gay couples would apply for marriage licenses each year so having another person perform this task would not be an undue burden. Further, as the supervisor in her office she had the right to assign job duties to her employees. Although gay couples had the right to obtain a marriage license, they had no right to have a specific employee provide this service.

The problem is that she wouldn't allow anyone in her office to issue the license and this makes “reasonable accommodations” impossible. The judge did the only thing he could possibly do. His job was to enforce the law and the law said that the Clerk's Office would issue marriage licenses. The law also gives gays the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. The judge wisely refused to let her off with a fine. The judge knew the fine would not change her behavior because she would probably not pay the fine herself and would most likely profit by the affair.

For the record, I spent a good part of my life defending employees against disciplinary actions and enforcing their rights, including “reasonable accommodations” for various conditions including handicaps and religious beliefs. I know what “reasonable accommodations” are and they do not include forcing a government agency to cease performing a statutory duty. Anyone who thinks that forcing gay couples to drive to another county to get a marriage license is a “reasonable accommodation” does not know the law.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter. Not only are her actions illegal but if she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously illegal discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter which is a good thing. If she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

To all her supporters: I challenge every one of you to show his/her true faith. She elects do disobey the law to keep her faith. I would respect her a lot more if sheI kept the law and sacrificed her job to maintain true to her beliefs. If she resigns her position I will send her a check for $1,000. No joke. How about you?

I was under the impression that she, just like the multiple other Christians who have been targeted for destruction by the homo lobby, did try to be fairly discreet and accommodating. She has not said nor advocated a single hateful thing. She has stated zero agenda, other than she believes that her endorsement of homo union is a parody of the sacrament of marriage. Sacrilege. This is the push back the idiots get for their attempt to legislate matters of faith.

You thought she was trying to be accomadating? Name one way that she was being accomadating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights

By ignoring hers?

She doesn't have any in this case, at least not in the manner you think she does.

You got it right!

If all she did was refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays, there shouldn't have been a problem. She could have advised others in her office that her faith prevented her from issuing licenses to gays and then asked them to help her by filling in for her when she needed them. When a gay couple came in, she could have discreetly absented herself and allowed another person to issue the license.

Had she done this, she could have asserted her right to “reasonable accommodations” of her religious beliefs. Issuing licenses to gays would consume an insignificant amount of her work schedule. Her county has a population of around 23,000. Many of these are children and only about 5% of the adult population is gay. I don't know what the marriage rate is for gays but I do know that not all gays want to get married. I doubt that even 100 gay couples would apply for marriage licenses each year so having another person perform this task would not be an undue burden. Further, as the supervisor in her office she had the right to assign job duties to her employees. Although gay couples had the right to obtain a marriage license, they had no right to have a specific employee provide this service.

The problem is that she wouldn't allow anyone in her office to issue the license and this makes “reasonable accommodations” impossible. The judge did the only thing he could possibly do. His job was to enforce the law and the law said that the Clerk's Office would issue marriage licenses. The law also gives gays the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. The judge wisely refused to let her off with a fine. The judge knew the fine would not change her behavior because she would probably not pay the fine herself and would most likely profit by the affair.

For the record, I spent a good part of my life defending employees against disciplinary actions and enforcing their rights, including “reasonable accommodations” for various conditions including handicaps and religious beliefs. I know what “reasonable accommodations” are and they do not include forcing a government agency to cease performing a statutory duty. Anyone who thinks that forcing gay couples to drive to another county to get a marriage license is a “reasonable accommodation” does not know the law.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter. Not only are her actions illegal but if she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously illegal discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter which is a good thing. If she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

To all her supporters: I challenge every one of you to show his/her true faith. She elects do disobey the law to keep her faith. I would respect her a lot more if sheI kept the law and sacrificed her job to maintain true to her beliefs. If she resigns her position I will send her a check for $1,000. No joke. How about you?

I was under the impression that she, just like the multiple other Christians who have been targeted for destruction by the homo lobby, did try to be fairly discreet and accommodating. She has not said nor advocated a single hateful thing. She has stated zero agenda, other than she believes that her endorsement of homo union is a parody of the sacrament of marriage. Sacrilege. This is the push back the idiots get for their attempt to legislate matters of faith.

She denied gay couples their constitutional right to get a marriage license. That is really not that hard to understand, for sane people anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights

By ignoring hers?

She doesn't have any in this case, at least not in the manner you think she does.

You got it right!

If all she did was refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays, there shouldn't have been a problem. She could have advised others in her office that her faith prevented her from issuing licenses to gays and then asked them to help her by filling in for her when she needed them. When a gay couple came in, she could have discreetly absented herself and allowed another person to issue the license.

Had she done this, she could have asserted her right to “reasonable accommodations” of her religious beliefs. Issuing licenses to gays would consume an insignificant amount of her work schedule. Her county has a population of around 23,000. Many of these are children and only about 5% of the adult population is gay. I don't know what the marriage rate is for gays but I do know that not all gays want to get married. I doubt that even 100 gay couples would apply for marriage licenses each year so having another person perform this task would not be an undue burden. Further, as the supervisor in her office she had the right to assign job duties to her employees. Although gay couples had the right to obtain a marriage license, they had no right to have a specific employee provide this service.

The problem is that she wouldn't allow anyone in her office to issue the license and this makes “reasonable accommodations” impossible. The judge did the only thing he could possibly do. His job was to enforce the law and the law said that the Clerk's Office would issue marriage licenses. The law also gives gays the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. The judge wisely refused to let her off with a fine. The judge knew the fine would not change her behavior because she would probably not pay the fine herself and would most likely profit by the affair.

For the record, I spent a good part of my life defending employees against disciplinary actions and enforcing their rights, including “reasonable accommodations” for various conditions including handicaps and religious beliefs. I know what “reasonable accommodations” are and they do not include forcing a government agency to cease performing a statutory duty. Anyone who thinks that forcing gay couples to drive to another county to get a marriage license is a “reasonable accommodation” does not know the law.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter. Not only are her actions illegal but if she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously illegal discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter which is a good thing. If she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

To all her supporters: I challenge every one of you to show his/her true faith. She elects do disobey the law to keep her faith. I would respect her a lot more if sheI kept the law and sacrificed her job to maintain true to her beliefs. If she resigns her position I will send her a check for $1,000. No joke. How about you?

I was under the impression that she, just like the multiple other Christians who have been targeted for destruction by the homo lobby, did try to be fairly discreet and accommodating. She has not said nor advocated a single hateful thing. She has stated zero agenda, other than she believes that her endorsement of homo union is a parody of the sacrament of marriage. Sacrilege. This is the push back the idiots get for their attempt to legislate matters of faith.

You thought she was trying to be accomadating? Name one way that she was being accomadating.

I think she made the comically insane offer to issue the licenses if they took her name off them.

I guess she thinks that if God doesn't see her name on the licenses he won't know she's agreed to issue them.

 

[koshergrl]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights

By ignoring hers?

...by removing hers, taking her money, and then throwing her in jail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights

By ignoring hers?

She doesn't have any in this case, at least not in the manner you think she does.

You got it right!

If all she did was refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays, there shouldn't have been a problem. She could have advised others in her office that her faith prevented her from issuing licenses to gays and then asked them to help her by filling in for her when she needed them. When a gay couple came in, she could have discreetly absented herself and allowed another person to issue the license.

Had she done this, she could have asserted her right to “reasonable accommodations” of her religious beliefs. Issuing licenses to gays would consume an insignificant amount of her work schedule. Her county has a population of around 23,000. Many of these are children and only about 5% of the adult population is gay. I don't know what the marriage rate is for gays but I do know that not all gays want to get married. I doubt that even 100 gay couples would apply for marriage licenses each year so having another person perform this task would not be an undue burden. Further, as the supervisor in her office she had the right to assign job duties to her employees. Although gay couples had the right to obtain a marriage license, they had no right to have a specific employee provide this service.

The problem is that she wouldn't allow anyone in her office to issue the license and this makes “reasonable accommodations” impossible. The judge did the only thing he could possibly do. His job was to enforce the law and the law said that the Clerk's Office would issue marriage licenses. The law also gives gays the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. The judge wisely refused to let her off with a fine. The judge knew the fine would not change her behavior because she would probably not pay the fine herself and would most likely profit by the affair.

For the record, I spent a good part of my life defending employees against disciplinary actions and enforcing their rights, including “reasonable accommodations” for various conditions including handicaps and religious beliefs. I know what “reasonable accommodations” are and they do not include forcing a government agency to cease performing a statutory duty. Anyone who thinks that forcing gay couples to drive to another county to get a marriage license is a “reasonable accommodation” does not know the law.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter. Not only are her actions illegal but if she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously illegal discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

There is no way in hell she is going to prevail in this matter which is a good thing. If she were allowed allowed to continue her obviously discriminatory practice she could literally bankrupt her county. There will be inevitable lawsuits for which there is no imaginable defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay lobby targeted the county for the purpose of filing such lawsuits.

To all her supporters: I challenge every one of you to show his/her true faith. She elects do disobey the law to keep her faith. I would respect her a lot more if sheI kept the law and sacrificed her job to maintain true to her beliefs. If she resigns her position I will send her a check for $1,000. No joke. How about you?

I was under the impression that she, just like the multiple other Christians who have been targeted for destruction by the homo lobby, did try to be fairly discreet and accommodating. She has not said nor advocated a single hateful thing. She has stated zero agenda, other than she believes that her endorsement of homo union is a parody of the sacrament of marriage. Sacrilege. This is the push back the idiots get for their attempt to legislate matters of faith.

There is not a single sentence in the Bible that condemns same sex civil marriage, let alone the signing of a same sex marriage document. Neither God of the Old Testament or Christ of New says a word about it.

 

[koshergrl]

They aren't sore winners they aren't winners at all. What the gay mafia wanted was for Davis to violate her beliefs and apologize for having them. Until that happens they lose.

They are attempting to make Christianity illegal. They seek to force ppl to renounce their faith, participate in sacrilege, and be imprisoned if they don't. Pigs hate Christianity. Liberty and godliness pose a huge threat to depraved criminals. Just ask nazis and Marxists.

In fairness it seems to me that what the gays want in this issue is a marriage license.

I don't really see it being push to destroy Christianity.

BUT, that leaves the question of whether or not a person can be forced to go against their religious beliefs.

this whole issue should have been left up to the states. The SCOTUS has not right under the COTUS to make law, which clearly they have been doing for some time. There role, as I understand, is to rule on the consittutionality of law, not change the law to fit their opinion. Not to create laws out of sail cloth where no law exist.

Clearly when the court has made law they have made law badly. This is no different. Their ruling in gay marriage was a social statement it was not a ruling on the fact of law.

But it is what we have and until someone can change the COTUS to make this a states issue we are stuck with the decision.

The gays in question could have been married by anyone else. The insistence that people be removed from office and imprisoned for refusing to endorse the homo lobby is absolutely verification of their agenda, which includes closing churches and imprisoning Christians. They make no bones about it. Don't make the mistake of softsoaping and refusing to acknowledge the repeatedly stated purpose of pigs.

She's in jail for violating a court order, that's all. The so-called war on Christianity is a myth that empowers many of you to fight a battle you started losing the minute that the "moral majority" decided to put politics ahead of faith.

Don't correct me, fascist. I'm able to correctly analyze things regardless of your anti American, Christian hating nazi rhetoric. My sincerest thanks to God is that scum like you get what you are due.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

SC doesnt write federal law. Davis is actually following Ky law. Also, the state of colorado isn't following federal law in regards to marijuana and no one is being held in contempt. It just shows how lawless this administration is.

Maybe you should file a lawsuit against the state of colorado......

No, why is federal law enforced in ky but not colorado? What does another lawsuit have to do with anything? Nothing.

 

[occupied]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights

By ignoring hers?

...by removing hers, taking her money, and then throwing her in jail.

People like you are the reason the Christian right is losing "The War on Christianity". You absolutely cherish your personal right to religious freedom but you think it should always be more important than anyone else's rights in regard to anything. It's incredibly self-centered, to feel your individual rights are far more important than any number of people's civil rights.

 

[occupied]

They aren't sore winners they aren't winners at all. What the gay mafia wanted was for Davis to violate her beliefs and apologize for having them. Until that happens they lose.

They are attempting to make Christianity illegal. They seek to force ppl to renounce their faith, participate in sacrilege, and be imprisoned if they don't. Pigs hate Christianity. Liberty and godliness pose a huge threat to depraved criminals. Just ask nazis and Marxists.

In fairness it seems to me that what the gays want in this issue is a marriage license.

I don't really see it being push to destroy Christianity.

BUT, that leaves the question of whether or not a person can be forced to go against their religious beliefs.

this whole issue should have been left up to the states. The SCOTUS has not right under the COTUS to make law, which clearly they have been doing for some time. There role, as I understand, is to rule on the consittutionality of law, not change the law to fit their opinion. Not to create laws out of sail cloth where no law exist.

Clearly when the court has made law they have made law badly. This is no different. Their ruling in gay marriage was a social statement it was not a ruling on the fact of law.

But it is what we have and until someone can change the COTUS to make this a states issue we are stuck with the decision.

The gays in question could have been married by anyone else. The insistence that people be removed from office and imprisoned for refusing to endorse the homo lobby is absolutely verification of their agenda, which includes closing churches and imprisoning Christians. They make no bones about it. Don't make the mistake of softsoaping and refusing to acknowledge the repeatedly stated purpose of pigs.

She's in jail for violating a court order, that's all. The so-called war on Christianity is a myth that empowers many of you to fight a battle you started losing the minute that the "moral majority" decided to put politics ahead of faith.

Don't correct me, fascist. I'm able to correctly analyze things regardless of your anti American, Christian hating nazi rhetoric. My sincerest thanks to God is that scum like you get what you are due.

Oh my, God's love is just flowing from you like the Jordan river this morning.Why would anyone want to join a club that would have someone like you for a member? All this anger from the right has done more to drive people away from Christianity than any other single factor.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

I was under the impression that she, just like the multiple other Christians who have been targeted for destruction by the homo lobby, did try to be fairly discreet and accommodating. She has not said nor advocated a single hateful thing. She has stated zero agenda, other than she believes that her endorsement of homo union is a parody of the sacrament of marriage

Yes, she's very discretely and accomodating refusing to do her job. Even more discretely and accomodating, she also forbid her assistants to do her job instead because that's not what Jesus would have wanted.

This is the push back the idiots get for their attempt to legislate matters of faith.

Indeed, that's why she's in jail now.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

No, why is federal law enforced in ky but not colorado? What does another lawsuit have to do with anything? Nothing.

Davis is in jail because of contempt of court so if you get the state of colorado to ignore the court too they'll go to jail and everyone is happy...

 

[koshergrl]

They are attempting to make Christianity illegal. They seek to force ppl to renounce their faith, participate in sacrilege, and be imprisoned if they don't. Pigs hate Christianity. Liberty and godliness pose a huge threat to depraved criminals. Just ask nazis and Marxists.

In fairness it seems to me that what the gays want in this issue is a marriage license.

I don't really see it being push to destroy Christianity.

BUT, that leaves the question of whether or not a person can be forced to go against their religious beliefs.

this whole issue should have been left up to the states. The SCOTUS has not right under the COTUS to make law, which clearly they have been doing for some time. There role, as I understand, is to rule on the consittutionality of law, not change the law to fit their opinion. Not to create laws out of sail cloth where no law exist.

Clearly when the court has made law they have made law badly. This is no different. Their ruling in gay marriage was a social statement it was not a ruling on the fact of law.

But it is what we have and until someone can change the COTUS to make this a states issue we are stuck with the decision.

The gays in question could have been married by anyone else. The insistence that people be removed from office and imprisoned for refusing to endorse the homo lobby is absolutely verification of their agenda, which includes closing churches and imprisoning Christians. They make no bones about it. Don't make the mistake of softsoaping and refusing to acknowledge the repeatedly stated purpose of pigs.

She's in jail for violating a court order, that's all. The so-called war on Christianity is a myth that empowers many of you to fight a battle you started losing the minute that the "moral majority" decided to put politics ahead of faith.

Don't correct me, fascist. I'm able to correctly analyze things regardless of your anti American, Christian hating nazi rhetoric. My sincerest thanks to God is that scum like you get what you are due.

Oh my, God's love is just flowing from you like the Jordan river this morning.Why would anyone want to join a club that would have someone like you for a member? All this anger from the right has done more to drive people away from Christianity than any other single factor.

Don't worry about it, fascist. That's not your problem.

 

[Misty]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

I thought liberals felt our prisons are overcrowded with non violent offenders?

 

[bripat9643]

Finally logic is introduced by an openly gay man....

You Taliban wannabees can cite all the the "logic" you want but gay marriage is still legal and loony christian clerks won't be able to turn the country into a theocracy.

so the country was a "theocracy" in 2010?

 

[koshergrl]

I was under the impression that she, just like the multiple other Christians who have been targeted for destruction by the homo lobby, did try to be fairly discreet and accommodating. She has not said nor advocated a single hateful thing. She has stated zero agenda, other than she believes that her endorsement of homo union is a parody of the sacrament of marriage

Yes, she's very discretely and accomodating refusing to do her job. Even more discretely and accomodating, she also forbid her assistants to do her job instead because that's not what Jesus would have wanted.

This is the push back the idiots get for their attempt to legislate matters of faith.

Indeed, that's why she's in jail now.

So you maintain Obama should be in jail for ignoring the law and advising those under him to ignore it as well? When criminals are in charge, laws mean nothing and are often illegal.

 

[occupied]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

I thought liberals felt our prisons are overcrowded with non violent offenders?

Public officials violating the constitutionally protected civil rights of citizens deserves a response up to and including imprisonment every time. Last time I checked most of the non-violent offenders in jail violated statutory law, not the constitution.

 

[koshergrl]

Finally logic is introduced by an openly gay man....

You Taliban wannabees can cite all the the "logic" you want but gay marriage is still legal and loony christian clerks won't be able to turn the country into a theocracy.

so the country was a "theocracy" in 2010?

There's no limit to the degree of lunacy they will offer in their rhetoric. The lunatics run the asylum now...time to round them up and put them back in chains.

 

[Misty]

Our system must be more zealous about protecting civil rights than social conservatives are about violating them.

I thought liberals felt our prisons are overcrowded with non violent offenders?

Public officials violating the constitutionally protected civil rights of citizens deserves a response up to and including imprisonment every time. Last time I checked most of the non-violent offenders in jail violated statutory law, not the constitution.

Yet when our constitutional right to keep and bear arms comes up liberals seem to whine and make up their own definition.

She doesn't deserve jail for this. Impeach her. But jail? Come on.