| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On 9/5/15 7:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2015 5:57 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 9/5/2015 1:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote: The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it one. bingo. I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are "off" until next year. I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to create that situation. Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county. I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties to perform and which not to perform. Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue licenses to women. Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another person's curse. Being dense must be a hardship, no? WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman' then it's no longer in play. -- Ban idiots, not guns! You don't have a big enough 2x4 to knock sense into KKKrause. Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ... Is Luddite still daily pimping his legal opinions on Hillary Clinton's emails? |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/5/15 7:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/5/2015 5:57 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 9/5/2015 1:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote: The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it one. bingo. I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are "off" until next year. I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to create that situation. Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county. I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties to perform and which not to perform. Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue licenses to women. Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another person's curse. Being dense must be a hardship, no? WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman' then it's no longer in play. -- Ban idiots, not guns! You don't have a big enough 2x4 to knock sense into KKKrause. Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ... Is Luddite still daily pimping his legal opinions on Hillary Clinton's emails? Can not read? |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On 9/5/2015 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 7:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/5/2015 5:57 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 9/5/2015 1:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote: The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it one. bingo. I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are "off" until next year. I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to create that situation. Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county. I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties to perform and which not to perform. Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue licenses to women. Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another person's curse. Being dense must be a hardship, no? WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman' then it's no longer in play. -- Ban idiots, not guns! You don't have a big enough 2x4 to knock sense into KKKrause. Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ... Is Luddite still daily pimping his legal opinions on Hillary Clinton's emails? Can not read? Is Harry implying he's not reading Luddite? Waa Ha Ha. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:42:53 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 9/5/2015 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 7:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/5/2015 5:57 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 9/5/2015 1:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote: The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it one. bingo. I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are "off" until next year. I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to create that situation. Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county. I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties to perform and which not to perform. Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue licenses to women. Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another person's curse. Being dense must be a hardship, no? WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman' then it's no longer in play. -- Ban idiots, not guns! You don't have a big enough 2x4 to knock sense into KKKrause. Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ... Is Luddite still daily pimping his legal opinions on Hillary Clinton's emails? Can not read? Is Harry implying he's not reading Luddite? Waa Ha Ha. No ****! LOL. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On 9/5/2015 7:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2015 5:57 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 9/5/2015 1:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote: The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it one. bingo. I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are "off" until next year. I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to create that situation. Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county. I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties to perform and which not to perform. Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue licenses to women. Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another person's curse. Being dense must be a hardship, no? WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman' then it's no longer in play. -- Ban idiots, not guns! You don't have a big enough 2x4 to knock sense into KKKrause. Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ... Problem is, Harry doesn't know what's important or not. He's so wrapped up in towing the party line that he's lost whatever ability he had, to think for himself. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:00:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 9/5/2015 5:57 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 9/5/2015 1:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote: On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote: The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it one. bingo. I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are "off" until next year. I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to create that situation. Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county. I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties to perform and which not to perform. Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue licenses to women. Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another person's curse. Being dense must be a hardship, no? WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman' then it's no longer in play. -- Ban idiots, not guns! You don't have a big enough 2x4 to knock sense into KKKrause. Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ... Right now the question is whether the licenses they are issuing are valid ... and real lawyers are saying that. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Michele Davis | General | |||
| Watch this clerk dance! - Feel Good! | General | |||
| Watch this clerk dance! - Feel Good! | Cruising | |||
| Watch this clerk dance! - Feel Good! | Boat Building | |||
| Davis wind meter | Cruising | |||
Hybrid Mode
