ADVERTISEMENT

Rowan County Clerk Refuses After Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
JumperJack said:
It never gets old to see tolerance on display.
Click to expand...

If you support this bitch denying people equal rights that a) have nothing to do with you personally and b) affect your life in no way, then yeah, I won't tolerate your bigotry and will lob the ignorant redneck label at you.

And if you go around the Internet and read comments in support of her, you'll find a much larger percentage of posts with misspelled words and shitty grammar than you will in posts deriding her. I stand by my label.

I'm tolerant of ignorant opinions, but when that ignorance affects people who don't subscribe to it, my tolerance no longer applies.
 
Cawood86 said:
I stated very clearly I was against it. And don't think they are not already infringing on religious freedom. It will not stop here. They don't want it mentioned from a pulpit in church and will try to stop it there as well. Already are. It happened in Houston. Gods word is not subject to man's law and never will be.

You applaud this as a victory. It is not. It's another brick in the wall of freedom being removed. Just beware when something you strongly believe in becomes a crime when you are told you must conform. You won't be as joyful then.
Click to expand...

Serious question, do you know religious freedom applies to more than christians, correct? Your not applying the definition of religious freedom correctly anyway. Answer this, has anyone made her stop going to church? Anyone told her to not believe in her God? Told her she cant pray? Nope. So now answer this...what if the people who are getting marriage licenses don't believe in the same God....isn't Kim Davis actually infringing on the religious freedom of them? She's imposing her beliefs on them and forcing them to go by her interpretation of things. I guess we need to ignore that portion though, because only christians matter. If an amish man was county clerk and stopped issuing drivers licenses I have a feeling you wouldn't be clinging to your false definition of religious freedom.

Lastly, open that book you shake at gay ppl when you tell them how much you hate them and read into what Jesus said when confronted with paying taxes to the Romans. "Give Caesar what is Caesars and God what is Gods"...in other words obey the law of the land and you can still believe in God.

Lastly, since Davis is only signing a legal document...one she's had signed 4 times for her own sanctity of marriage, what Biblical passage is she violating? She isn't getting gay married, performing a gay marriage, etc. Someone else is doing all that. So the question, why are christians so obsessed with things that don't apply to them. If your going to hell for gay marriage..don't get gay married..why control others. Live your own life..it's pretty simple. You actually think Jesus would be on your side..no...look who he hung out with. The people who did wrong...and he never judged them
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Chase_
Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
 
ymmot31 said:
She should have stepped down Wayne. Once the rules changed, if she wasn't willing to play by them, she should have stepped. She was elected to serve the people of the county.


They are NOT infringing on HER religious freedom. She stills has as much as she ever has in the four years she's claimed it. Even though she has gone directly against the church in her personal life, she is attempting to force her newfound faith on someone else.

Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. She has no right at all to force her beliefs on another. They are not forcing her to marry them, they are asking she perform the duty she agreed to perform when she accepted the job. If the terms of her employment change, she must accept the change or leave. Just that simple.
Click to expand...
She refused based on her faith. If she were of another faith groups from all over would be defending and applauding her.

How many stories are out there of people being forced to stop practicing prayer or devotion because someone complained that it made them uncomfortable or was unconstitutional for prayer.

It was stopped. You don't think that's infringement? If she were Muslim and refusing to follow a federal law the ACLU would be all over this. There would be so many groups wanting to help they would have to take a number.

Also, there are numerous places for these folks to get married if they really wanted to so bad. This was as much about persecuting Christians as anything else. This was a blow against freedom
 
JumperJack said:
It never gets old to see tolerance on display.
Click to expand...
It's not intolerant to call some one a hill jack, like yourself. What's intolerant is when you take away rights from others. She was discriminating against others by refusing them the right to marry in their home county.

Yes, America, the poster above is part of the stupid that has taken over this country.
 
Cawood86 said:
She refused based on her faith. If she were of another faith groups from all over would be defending and applauding her.

How many stories are out there of people being forced to stop practicing prayer or devotion because someone complained that it made them uncomfortable or was unconstitutional for prayer.

It was stopped. You don't think that's infringement? If she were Muslim and refusing to follow a federal law the ACLU would be all over this. There would be so many groups wanting to help they would have to take a number.

Also, there are numerous places for these folks to get married if they really wanted to so bad. This was as much about persecuting Christians as anything else. This was a blow against freedom
Click to expand...
Delusional. And you assume a lot.
 
When I consider the totality of your religious beliefs, I am ashamed of my amazement at your simpleton view of this topic.
 
UKBrassowTipIN said:
Serious question, do you know religious freedom applies to more than christians, correct? Your not applying the definition of religious freedom correctly anyway. Answer this, has anyone made her stop going to church? Anyone told her to not believe in her God? Told her she cant pray? Nope. So now answer this...what if the people who are getting marriage licenses don't believe in the same God....isn't Kim Davis actually infringing on the religious freedom of them? She's imposing her beliefs on them and forcing them to go by her interpretation of things. I guess we need to ignore that portion though, because only christians matter. If an amish man was county clerk and stopped issuing drivers licenses I have a feeling you wouldn't be clinging to your false definition of religious freedom.

Lastly, open that book you shake at gay ppl when you tell them how much you hate them and read into what Jesus said when confronted with paying taxes to the Romans. "Give Caesar what is Caesars and God what is Gods"...in other words obey the law of the land and you can still believe in God.

Lastly, since Davis is only signing a legal document...one she's had signed 4 times for her own sanctity of marriage, what Biblical passage is she violating? She isn't getting gay married, performing a gay marriage, etc. Someone else is doing all that. So the question, why are christians so obsessed with things that don't apply to them. If your going to hell for gay marriage..don't get gay married..why control others. Live your own life..it's pretty simple. You actually think Jesus would be on your side..no...look who he hung out with. The people who did wrong...and he never judged them
Click to expand...
Your post is very ill informed and angry for some reason. I'm just going to sayI do not hate anyone. You judged me wrong
 
ymmot31 said:
When I consider the totality of your religious beliefs, I am ashamed of my amazement at your simpleton view of this topic.
Click to expand...
Ok. I thought we were going to have civil discussion and mutual respect of views. I was wrong. Good day.
 
Mutual respect of views? You are woefully ignorant of the points being made, yours and mine.
 
ymmot31 said:
Mutual respect of views? You are woefully ignorant of the points being made, yours and mine.
Click to expand...
You have a lot of mouth but not a lot of sense. Feel free to bother someone else. Move along. I am. Waste of time with you. Hate is all you have for Christians and their beliefs. Wasting no more time with you.
 
My word, the discussion on this amped up today. Amazing what a fat chick in a jail cell can do to spark interest. And so much venom. Nasty times in the Paddock. Cheers.
 
She was voted in to so a job. Her job duties are simple and is extremely over paid.

Her religion or your religion have nothing to do with her job that she put her name on the ballot for. Two men or two women have the same right to get married as two members of the opposite sex. That's the law.
 
ThroughBlue said:
She was voted in to so a job. Her job duties are simple and is extremely over paid.

Her religion or your religion have nothing to do with her job that she put her name on the ballot for. Two men or two women have the same right to get married as two members of the opposite sex. That's the law.
Click to expand...
Full of sound and fury signifying nothing
 
Mashburned said:
You people that ain't from round here crack me up.
Click to expand...

From around "here" meaning Kentucky or "that" part of Kentucky?

I'm Kentucky born and raised and the redneck culture is alive and well from Pikeville to Paducah.
WayneDougan said:
I'd like to renounce my comparison of Davis to Rosa Parks. It was a joke, but for those who don't know, besides having a better cause, Parks was about 800x a better person in the community than this lady. That said, Davis agreed to the job before the supreme court radically changed the meaning of marriage. Marriage had been between a man and a woman for the last 2000 years and the left up and decided that didn't matter anymore. So yeah, I'm behind her, and I don't care if she's trash. She at least has conviction, which went out the window for the democrats a long time ago.
Click to expand...

GOOOOOOOOOOOO RED TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
I respect her beliefs, but she isn't fulfilling her duties of her job she being paid to do. She should resign if her beliefs are interfering with her duties.
 
Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the clerk should've done her job or resigned.
But that brings up another topic, why does our government seemingly pick and choose which laws to enforce?
A law is the law of the land, until it is voted on and changed. Picking and choosing is a dangerous precedent to set in my opinion.
 
Cawood86 said:
She refused based on her faith. If she were of another faith groups from all over would be defending and applauding her.

How many stories are out there of people being forced to stop practicing prayer or devotion because someone complained that it made them uncomfortable or was unconstitutional for prayer.

It was stopped. You don't think that's infringement? If she were Muslim and refusing to follow a federal law the ACLU would be all over this. There would be so many groups wanting to help they would have to take a number.

Also, there are numerous places for these folks to get married if they really wanted to so bad. This was as much about persecuting Christians as anything else. This was a blow against freedom
Click to expand...

I think you're lost here. She chose to run for this position knowing what the responsibilities of it were. Once elected she has decided she doesn't want to do the job but wants to keep getting a pay check. Those people pay her salary and have every right to demand service for their money. If she wants to fight for her opinion she will have to do that on her dime, not the public's.

We don't pay the ACLU, or muslim's to fight for their beliefs and we are not going to pay her either. By law she has to perform her duties or she will be jailed and removed from office. It's the American way.
 
The evangelicals ITT certainly would've supported JFK had he refused to let his administration grant tax exempt status to heretical denominations like Anglicans and Methodists.
 
. Anyone who knows a freaking thing about US history, especially southern history, can see the many parallels with racial integration in public schools in the deep south and the current situation. It's obvious who is going to come out on the winning side of this, and it's mindblowing that anyone would willingly want to be associated with the traditional bigot-type losers in the south who have lost these battles over and over for 200 years. You almost gotta be sadistic to willingly align with these people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaBossIsBack and From-the-stands
JohnBlue_ said:
I think you're lost here. She chose to run for this position knowing what the responsibilities of it were. Once elected she has decided she doesn't want to do the job but wants to keep getting a pay check. Those people pay her salary and have every right to demand service for their money. If she wants to fight for her opinion she will have to do that on her dime, not the public's.

We don't pay the ACLU, or muslim's to fight for their beliefs and we are not going to pay her either. By law she has to perform her duties or she will be jailed and removed from office. It's the American way.
Click to expand...
Not lost but understand your view. I'm sure she was elected by folks who share her views. That's how elections work. Most of this uproar is coming from folks outside of Rowan county.
They only came to force someone to accept their way of life. Didn't care one iota about truly getting married.

Similar to looters who take advantage of a situation to benefit themselves.
 
Also, those that are saying she must abide by the law. Do you feel the same way about these sanctuary cities that do not abide by federal law. Shouldn't sll those elected officials be jailed or resign immediately?
 
Cawood86 said:
Not lost but understand your view. I'm sure she was elected by folks who share her views. That's how elections work. Most of this uproar is coming from folks outside of Rowan county.
They only came to force someone to accept their way of life. Didn't care one iota about truly getting married.

Similar to looters who take advantage of a situation to benefit themselves.
Click to expand...

comparing them to looters now? what law are these people breaking? regardless of why they won't go to another county to obtain their license, they are going to this county clerks office to obtain something they are afforded by rule of law. she doesn't get to choose which laws she wants to uphold and which ones she doesn't. simply does not work that way. you are losing this one BADLY cawood.
 
Apparently they put her in jail because it was obvious a penalty wouldn't suffice given the fact that big time money is headed her way for her trip to "martyrdom". Good for the judge having the balls to make the tough call and put her away to soak awhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: augustaky1
Cawood86 said:
Not lost but understand your view. I'm sure she was elected by folks who share her views. That's how elections work. Most of this uproar is coming from folks outside of Rowan county.
They only came to force someone to accept their way of life. Didn't care one iota about truly getting married.

Similar to looters who take advantage of a situation to benefit themselves.
Click to expand...

Well, it was people from her county both straight and gay that filed the law suit that has lead to this. They're only people that could. You and I couldn't sue for not doing it. People that share her belief and elected her are not getting service either. That's the rub, she knows she is wrong and is trying to deny everyone in attempt to make it look fair. The rest are just along to see how far she is going to take it.

I'm not a fan of someone who has lived their life recklessly suddenly finding religion and then goes out of their way to force what they never did onto others. This is not what the bible says to do. It's stupid and a self serving interpretation.
 
Irish Beck said:
Apparently they put her in jail because it was obvious a penalty wouldn't suffice given the fact that big time money is headed her way for her trip to "martyrdom". Good for the judge having the balls to make the tough call and put her away to soak awhile.
Click to expand...

Not going to lie, I wanted him to fine her just so that big money would pay the fine and make this a bigger joke than it already is. If her intent is not to obey the law and stay in jail she's going to be there at least until January. The Governor doesn't like to waste money on special sessions and when they do meet it will be to remove her from her position. She has done nothing but waste her time if she was doing it for a cause.
 
Cawood86 said:
She refused based on her faith. If she were of another faith groups from all over would be defending and applauding her.
Click to expand...

Except Christians. Other faiths are evil and going to hay-el, remember.

Cawood86 said:
How many stories are out there of people being forced to stop practicing prayer or devotion because someone complained that it made them uncomfortable or was unconstitutional for prayer.
Click to expand...

Not many. It's not against the law to pray. It is against the law for a public school/institution to REQUIRE prayer or punish someone for not praying.

Cawood86 said:
It was stopped. You don't think that's infringement? If she were Muslim and refusing to follow a federal law the ACLU would be all over this. There would be so many groups wanting to help they would have to take a number.
Click to expand...

False. So you're saying if a Muslim was refusing to issue a driver's license to a women 'cause women ain't sh!t in their eyes, the ACLU would intervene on their behalf? Nope, they'd represent the people being discriminated against - the women.

Cawood86 said:
Also, there are numerous places for these folks to get married if they really wanted to so bad. This was as much about persecuting Christians as anything else. This was a blow against freedom
Click to expand...

Why should these couples have to leave the county they pay taxes in because some hypocrite decided she was above the law? Why do those blacks need to eat in this whites only restaurant? There's a perfectly good blacks only restaurant down the road.

And spare me the persecuted Christians BS. Just because your religion can FINALLY no longer use its ancient fables to discriminate against people in a free country, you people cry and moan about being persecuted. You're not persecuted in America, you just can't legislate laws for the whole population based on a novel. (You are persecuted in the middle east, I'll give you that).

You old school Christians can be bigots all the f you want to. You can do it at home. You can do it on the town square. You can do it in your car. Just don't work in government and take a taxpayer-funded paycheck to serve ALL residents of the community (not just the ones your imaginary friend is cool with).

This wasn't a blow against freedom. It was a blow against archaic thinking and using an old book to deny others of constitutionally protected rights in a secular society. Keep the religion in your house, not the statehouse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThroughBlue, DaBossIsBack, fatguy87 and 3 others
Elected officials pick and choose frequently which laws to enforce. Probably for the same reason this lady did, to ensure they get reelected.

Why is this case any different? A law is a law, right?
 
Bill Derington said:
Elected officials pick and choose frequently which laws to enforce. Probably for the same reason this lady did, to ensure they get reelected.

Why is this case any different? A law is a law, right?
Click to expand...

Well the obvious answer is that this is a hot button issue in the bible belt. The not so obvious question is, why do the elected officials feel they can bend the rule of law to their will to begin with? Just because it happens doesn't mean this should be an exception.
 
thabigbluenation said:
comparing them to looters now? what law are these people breaking? regardless of why they won't go to another county to obtain their license, they are going to this county clerks office to obtain something they are afforded by rule of law. she doesn't get to choose which laws she wants to uphold and which ones she doesn't. simply does not work that way. you are losing this one BADLY cawood.
Click to expand...
Says who, you? I know someone wouldn't understand what I said about looters. Ha ha.
 
It's unbelievable how fast culture can change from homosexuality being accepted and preferred over Christianity .
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymmot31
I'm not saying it should be an exception, but why does where it happens matter?

There should be no exceptions, that's how power gets abused. When elected officials feel, and by and large are above the law the people no longer have control of the govt.
 
I suppose those that are supporting her views and her decisions are looters as well, no? I doubt there aren't "outside" religious influences at play here.
 
Bill Derington said:
I'm not saying it should be an exception, but why does where it happens matter?

There should be no exceptions, that's how power gets abused. When elected officials feel, and by and large are above the law the people no longer have control of the govt.
Click to expand...

With the exception of our infancy, we rarely had any power/control over the government. That's why I crack up over people who claim they need an AR-15 to protect them from Federal Powers. You think you and your AR are going to stop the freaking government of the United States? But I digress. I agree with you, the law is the law. That said, there are certain areas where the law is very gray and certain laws where it is black and white. In this regard, she is mandated by oath to issue marriage licenses. The highest court in the land changed the rules of marriage and she doesn't want to follow her oath anymore. That's on her. Not quite the same as a judge using discretion to not imprison a teenager for an ounce of pot.
 
She does not have a constitutional right to that job.

She does not have a constitutional right to force her religious views on others while acting as an agent of the government.

This really isn't that complicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UK_Norm, JDHoss, Nuke99m and 5 others
Irish Beck said:
With the exception of our infancy, we rarely had any power/control over the government. That's why I crack up over people who claim they need an AR-15 to protect them from Federal Powers. You think you and your AR are going to stop the freaking government of the United States? But I digress. I agree with you, the law is the law. That said, there are certain areas where the law is very gray and certain laws where it is black and white. In this regard, she is mandated by oath to issue marriage licenses. The highest court in the land changed the rules of marriage and she doesn't want to follow her oath anymore. That's on her. Not quite the same as a judge using discretion to not imprison a teenager for an ounce of pot.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about elected officials not following the law, and I agree should be held accountable. But so should every elected official, ALL elected officials, and we don't.

As for an AR-15, people buy them because they look like a fully automatic rifle, that's it.
They're no more dangerous than a semi automatic hunting rifle. Or do anything different, they just look more menacing.
 
Bill Derington said:
I'm talking about elected officials not following the law, and I agree should be held accountable. But so should every elected official, ALL elected officials, and we don't.

As for an AR-15, people buy them because they look like a fully automatic rifle, that's it.
They're no more dangerous than a semi automatic hunting rifle. Or do anything different, they just look more menacing.
Click to expand...

Do you have a specific example in mind of an elected official not following the law in comparison to what Ms. Davis is doing? I must have misunderstood what you meant.

And I have heard people defend the need for automatic/semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves against the government. I'm not anti-gun at all, just drawing a similarity given how hot button both issues seem to be in these areas.
 
I don't think the average person can buy fully automatic weapons, and semi automatic includes hunting rifles and shotguns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back