I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.

On 9/3/2015 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?


It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.


She has a smart lawyer.

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

Yet you give Hillary, whose 'malfeasance' was much more severe, a pass.

What a f'ing hypocrite.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 7:21:24 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

Yet you give Hillary, whose 'malfeasance' was much more severe, a pass.

What a f'ing hypocrite.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Email-gate keeps rolling along. Now a Clinton staffer that helped to setup the server says he's going to "take the 5th". Heh. I think the Clinton teflon is wearing thin, and this guy doesn't want to have an "accident".

On 9/3/15 3:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2015 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?


It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.


She has a smart lawyer.





She's a piece of work.

Davis describes herself as an Apostolic Christian and has been married
four times, with three different husbands, and her second and fourth
husbands are the same man. The first three marriages ended in divorces
in 1994, 2006, and 2008.

She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce
from her first husband in 1994. The biological father of the twins is
her third husband, but her second (who is also her current) husband has
adopted them.

Yep, a true follower of Jesus.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:04:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 3:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2015 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?


It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.


She has a smart lawyer.





She's a piece of work.

Davis describes herself as an Apostolic Christian and has been married
four times, with three different husbands, and her second and fourth
husbands are the same man. The first three marriages ended in divorces
in 1994, 2006, and 2008.

She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce
from her first husband in 1994. The biological father of the twins is
her third husband, but her second (who is also her current) husband has
adopted them.

Yep, a true follower of Jesus.

Jesus sounds like he was a "player" too. The image was just scrubbed
up a bit in the 16th century when the Europeans gave the religion a
makeover. (also when Jesus became a white guy). Those old jews thought
sex was a zesty part of life.

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:56:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.

As I believe you have pointed out before, the gov shouldn't even be in the marriage business. To them, marriage is just a contract that two folks enter into, and when they do, a set of laws govern how the parties interact. Leave it at that, problem solved. Want to be "married"? Find a church that will do it in the eyes of God. Why can't someone in DC figure that out?