![]() |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:28:24 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
You might want to read the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, among other documents. It is interesting that the left is not willing to extend the full faith and credit of concealed carry rights across state lines. The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her alleged religious beliefs. That was before she was "saved" ;-) |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/4/15 3:56 PM, wrote: On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:28:24 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: You might want to read the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, among other documents. It is interesting that the left is not willing to extend the full faith and credit of concealed carry rights across state lines. Oh? Is there a federal regulation that allows concealed carry rights across state lines? 14th. If marriage laws apply across state lines, why nor concealed carry? |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:04:26 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/4/15 3:56 PM, wrote: On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:28:24 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: You might want to read the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, among other documents. It is interesting that the left is not willing to extend the full faith and credit of concealed carry rights across state lines. The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her alleged religious beliefs. That was before she was "saved" ;-) That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times, have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :) She'd have been much better off as a beheaded Muslim, no? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On 9/4/2015 4:49 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@ 4ax.com, says... It is as complex as any ambulance chasing lawyer wants to make it. The fact is, the SCOTUS has invalidated the only federal law defining marriage and now this court has invalidated the Kentucky statute, along with those in many other states. (man/wonan is so entwined in the language that it is hard to separate without legislation) The only reason this has become a religious mater is because Ms Davis wanted it to be. She did stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and she was legally on sound footing if she chose to go that way Legally sound? She's in jail. The only "political" part is coming from her. My wife and I lived in a rented apartment in Zion, Ill. for almost two years in the early 70's. Zion was founded around 1905 by a very religious guy who wanted to create a "Christian Utopia". No drinking, smoking ... the original city council didn't even allow a doctor to set up shop in the town because they believed in "divine healing". Even when we lived there the town was still dry. No booze or beer could be sold anywhere within the city limits. I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city council to approve permits to open liquor stores. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
In article o_KdnYh8h68cl3fInZ2dnUU7-
, says... I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city council to approve permits to open liquor stores. By the same token, the Feds may make sales of bologna permissible only on Tuesdays. But they won't, because neither beer or bologna sales falls within the ambit of "civil rights." You are free to make a case for them, however. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On 9/4/2015 2:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/4/15 1:36 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/4/15 11:22 AM, wrote: On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:29:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/3/15 10:59 PM, wrote: On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/3/15 8:42 PM, wrote: On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:53:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: I noticed that the news did not show any pictures of the straight couples who could not get a license there. I suppose they just drove 15 miles down the road to the next county seat. Because the clerk in their county refused to do her job, and keep her damned religion out of it. So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual hardship. I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be. I'm not admitting anything of the sort. What is the matter with your processing? Maybe if your answers were more responsive, it would make more sense. This was clearly a political protest because there were no straight couples protesting and they were locked out too. They arranged cameras to be there when a gay couple came up to the counter in a clearly staged event. If this is what you are referring to my statement is clearly relevant. BTW I would not be shocked if this couple never got married. It is like the handicapped, would be, stripper who forced the case of a wheelchair accessible titty bar stage. Once they put it in, she never came back Not one time,. There are just some professional protesters. I guess it is a living I have no knowledge of whether it was "clearly a political protest" and neither do you. Davis was elected to do the job of the clerk, which includes issuing marriage licenses. If she has some moronic religious reason preventing her from doing that, she should resign. This is not a country in which the christian taliban rule, and while she is entitled to believe whatever she wants, she cannot use those beliefs to determine whether she will issue marriage licenses. She was found in contempt of court. Bull**** Who arranged to have the TV station there? It is very possible that there may not be any marriage licenses at all in Kentucky since the law that defines the way they are issued has been ruled unconstitutional. There is no federal law that defines the marriage process either. I think I'll defer to the jurisdiction of the federal judge in this matter, even though you think you know more about the issues and laws than he does. Federal judges have overstepped their jurisdiction before. So you think a civil official ought to be able to use his or her superstitious religious beliefs to make office policy, eh? Nope, but I also think it is a state offense and problem, not Federal. I still support States Rights, like the founding fathers did. Doncha jes love how sheet fer brains KKKrause jumps to wrong conclusions pretty consistantly? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com