Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[bybee]

Again, no one is demanding you accept anything. Just as there are still people who refuse to accept interracial marriages, or interfaith marriages, there are still people who refuse to accept same sex marriages. And you're all perfectly free to do so.

Hmmmmm.

 

[kiwimacahau]

That has limitations. There are certain parts of a "job description" that simply are not and cannot be considered acceptable in certain historical and social contexts. And note, I am not even making a religious or moral point, here.

Go to Iran and try to hire a female secretary who won't wear a veil. Just try.

Actually most Iranian women do not cover their faces. It is not such a requirement in Shia Islam as it is in the Wahabbi / Salafi sects of Sunny Islam.

 

[Jose Fly]

Hmmmmm.

Perhaps it would help if you could point to an instance where you're being forced to accept same sex marriage?

 

[Traditio]

Apparently she doesn't have to sign but her name still appears somewhere on it.

You don't see how she would find that problematic?

 

[Foxfire]

You don't see how she would find that problematic?

Her name DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT appear on the license unless she personally affixes her signature to it.

 

[Rusha]

Her name DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT appear on the license unless she personally affixes her signature to it.

So ... her *real* excuse is that she wishes to use her position to keep those she hates from marrying.

 

[TracerBullet]

They are utterly stupid comparisons (note, of course, that these words should not be understood as insulting to the persons who make them). Historically speaking, there is no comparison between segregationist racism and the JW prohibition of blood transfusions, on the one hand, and the moral prohibition of sodomy, on the other hand.

That's just a fact.

The comparisons are real and legitimate. the very fact that all you can do to oppose them is to unilaterally declare them wrong and insult them speaks volumes about their relationship.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

In my opinion the Federal Supreme Court placed a burden to act upon a state officer without proper constitutional authority (See federal constitutional amendment 10.)

This is absolutely correct.

The 4 dissenting judges including the Chief Justice realized this action was a stepping out of bounds.

In four separate dissents, the court's conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — said the court usurped a power that belongs to the people.

Reading a dissent from the bench for the first time in his tenure, Roberts said, "Just who do we think we are?"

 

[ebenz47037]

In this case, Kim Davis is a County Clerk, and we know one of the primary duties of that position is to issue marriage licenses to citizens of the county.

I know that at least one of those homosexual couples that Kim Davis refused to give the license to came down to Kentucky from Ohio. They also brought the news crew with them to try to force Kim to give them a marriage license.

 

[Jose Fly]

In my opinion the Federal Supreme Court placed a burden to act upon a state officer without proper constitutional authority (See federal constitutional amendment 10.)

This is absolutely correct.

Then I assume you opposed Loving v. Virginia on the same grounds?

 

[Town Heretic]

This is absolutely correct.

The 4 dissenting judges including the Chief Justice realized this action was a stepping out of bounds.

In four separate dissents, the court's conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — said the court usurped a power that belongs to the people.

A sad thing, to see Justices who should know better than that suggest that right is a show of hands. But then, the majority also confused money with speech and the ability to get more tax money sufficient reason to take your land, so that's life for you.

Reading a dissent from the bench for the first time in his tenure, Roberts said, "Just who do we think we are?"

So any time you don't like a ruling you just point to the dissent? Okay. I sometimes agree with the dissent too. Well, if it makes us feel better why not, but the ruling is still the controlling part.

I know that at least one of those homosexual couples that Kim Davis refused to give the license to came down to Kentucky from Ohio. They also brought the news crew with them to try to force Kim to give them a marriage license.

You know how many cameras there were when the first black student was put into a mostly white school? Doesn't matter, really. Force? She didn't have a legal right to deny them. Like saying someone tried to force a fireman to fight a fire.

 

[TracerBullet]

I doubt if the Founding Fathers ever thought that "Same Sex" unions would become a Constitutional issue?
But here we are living in the lunatic fringe and it's legal!

I'm sure they never gave much thought to child labor laws, segregation, interracial marriage and woman's suffrage either.

Like it or not the constitution provides for equal rights for everyone, even people you chose to hate. If you don't like the label "hate" then you need to look at your post and ask if you would write"lunatic fringe" when speaking of any other minority and their civil rights.

 

[Foxfire]

I know that at least one of those homosexual couples that Kim Davis refused to give the license to came down to Kentucky from Ohio. They also brought the news crew with them to try to force Kim to give them a marriage license.

Anecdotal and irrelevant to a point of civil law.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know that at least one of those homosexual couples that Kim Davis refused to give the license to came down to Kentucky from Ohio. They also brought the news crew with them to try to force Kim to give them a marriage license.

That is true. But some of the other couples are citizens of Rowan County.

 

[TracerBullet]

I am speaking of something society, up 'til now has regarded as aberrant behavior.
What science comes up with is something else entirely.
No doubt more and more behaviors once considered aberrant shall be considered normal and all shall be forced to accept it.
The accepting part is noxious to me.

Prejudice and hate (such as the way you speak of minorities with contempt and disgust) are now (happily) considered to be aberrant.

 

[TracerBullet]

This is absolutely correct.

The 4 dissenting judges including the Chief Justice realized this action was a stepping out of bounds.

In four separate dissents, the court's conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — said the court usurped a power that belongs to the people.

Reading a dissent from the bench for the first time in his tenure, Roberts said, "Just who do we think we are?"

just like they did in Loving v. Virginia

 

[bybee]

Prejudice and hate (such as the way you speak of minorities with contempt and disgust) are now (happily) considered to be aberrant.

You must qualify what minorities I am showing such emotions?
I have repeatedly stated that I believe in and support the freedom of choice for all of us.
I am not showing contempt nor am I showing disgust. I am stating my belief that the homosexual life style is contrary to nature. It is an aberrant lifestyle which people are free to choose.

 

[TracerBullet]

You must qualify what minorities I am showing such emotions?

would you speak of blacks the way you are speaking of gays?

 

[Ktoyou]

I'm sure they never gave much thought to child labor laws, segregation, interracial marriage and woman's suffrage either.

Like it or not the constitution provides for equal rights for everyone, even people you chose to hate. If you don't like the label "hate" then you need to look at your post and ask if you would write"lunatic fringe" when speaking of any other minority and their civil rights.

Children are children, they do not choose to be children

People look different, and this is the main issue, looks, and how one appears is not of one's choosing, how they essentially look . Normal persons are female or male, they do not choose to be one sex over the other.

Homos choose to be queer, there are no conclusive studies proving beyond doubt anyone is born a queer.

Th difference is the condoning of a choice to live an unnatural life, and now wanted this unnaturalness condoned and protected by law.

 

[Ktoyou]

would you speak of blacks the way you are speaking of gays?

You would because you are a moron.