If I was a real life troll, and not just an internet troll, I'd take my dog down to the Rowan County court house and request a marriage license.
Rowan County Clerk Refuses After Supreme Court
- Thread starter -LEK-
- Start date
- Status
Rowan County has about 23k people. Here mom was clerk for 30+ years. They just knew the
Your comparisons are not alike. While both violate law, Davis was actively denying rights to citizens. This is the distinction. Not just breaking laws.
However, in your discussion, when a person violates a direct order from the court, as Davis or Moore, then it has been pushed to a level where a Judge must intervene. If you break those orders, well..,
This is the point that continues to bother me. Take this particular situation out of the equation, what if...
An individual spends years studying for a profession, they spend their life doing that job and then the government changes the laws which then forces that individual to provide a service and/or practice that truly goes against their values, morals and/or their religion.
Because abortion is legal, what if Obamacare mandated that any hospital that wants to be eligible for government payments or support, ie. medicare, federally funded insurance, etc., must provide abortion services for their patients. You may not only have certain nurses and doctors who refuse, the entire hospital may refuse. (And this is not so far fetched as it seems, take the case of the Catholic Church, Hobby Lobby, etc. who were initially told they would provide insurance for abortions.)
These individuals didn't go into their chosen profession knowing that abortion services were going to be forced on them--if so they may have done something else. But now that they've their formative years practicing in this field nothing more than a government edict forces them out. And, at the same time, they are being skewered by the press and large parts of the public---not because they did anything repulsive, but simply because they stood on their own principles and did not do something forced upon them.
It's the precedent in this situation that bothers me, not this particular stand on homosexuality.
I'm still not over the silly seatbelt thing, tbh. I just don't get it. The goal is to get government the f outta here, and we keep handing them more and more responsibility. Great plan! Keep voting! They can't balance a checkbook. But, by all means, put them in charge of everything. We are but stupid civilians incapable of taking care of ourselves.
She's not going to make jack. Once this is over the religious people aren't going to give her the time of day. She is a phony and her only belief is that she doesn't like gays. Do you think the church is going to make a woman who's on her fourth marriage with kids out of wedlock their poster child? The last thing she is, is a hero.
Let me share something with you that your TV isn't going to tell you... she doesn't marry people. All her job to do is issue them a license and they go somewhere else to actually get married. They aren't married when they leave her office. Her entire argument about a belief against gay marriage is a farce. She's also in charge of elections, is she going to not allow their vote too?
Great post. Our church just completed a series on current events and our preacher gave the Methodist's stance on said topics. Guess what? We Methodists love and welcome the gays as everyone is worthy of God's grace. However, they still do not recognize gay marriage. That is excepted to change when the head council meets in 2016. One thing is for sure, you'll not hear any degrading of gay individuals/lifestyle from our church's pulpit.
We also believe in once you accept Jesus into your heart, you instantly become reborn. Even if it's on your deathbed (so long as you mean it). Hence, the Methodist stance on the death penalty is against it (every person should be given the opportunity to accept Christ and if you carry out the death penalty you are taking away that chance).
Last edited:
Good points here. I'm all for a woman choosing whether or not she wants a human being growing inside of her. I don't care what her reasoning is based on, because it's her body and her life. Pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment for an activity that a certain group of people think is wrong.
How does a doctor get around the part of the oath that says "do no harm"?
No one should be forced to perform an abortion. No one should be forced to perform a ceremony marrying a same sex couple.
No one should be forced to bake a gay cake.
If the doctor performed abortions but excluded whites or blacks or whomever... would be more apt to the cake analogy.
If you are going to perform a function or service that can be serviced to all, generally (stress that), you have to have that function or service available to all. When you start excluding certain classes/races/peoples, is the difference between the analogies. This is the point of discrimination.
Funny, Davis did exclude everyone, so there is that. However, it was a legal duty of her job function.
They're pretty clear cut FTS, you enter the country illegally you're breaking US law, and will be deported. It's only complicated because political parties make it complicated so they can get around the law.
Its just absurd all around, the law is the law for everyone.
No doctor or nurse or hospital is forced to provide abortions. They all have choices and those choices may have consequences. If a hospital wants and seeks taxpayer money then there might be strings attached. Likewise, if you work for taxpayers then you elected to accept a job that comes with strings attached to that job. Many jobs become obsolete or undesirable over time.
Nobody has a right to a job simply because they studied long and hard for that job. The world changes and we all have to adapt with those changes. What happened to all of the blacksmiths and candlestick makers? Phone operators?
Finish your thought. "I think I can do as I please...UNTIL I get to the point I am preventing someone else from doing as THEY please".
It's not that tricky.
You're one spewing hate. You are the one holding her past against her to justify hour disdain if her. You're the one with the problem. You don't know her and neither do I. But you have pronounced judgement upon her because you don't like her stance or her past.
I don't know if she is 100% percent genuine or not. I do respect her willingness to take a stance. You are the coward, not her.
The hypocritical thing is that the people who talk most about freedom of religion only talk about one religion. They really are talking about the freedom of christianity. Every other religion is wrong and should be ignored.
I don't hate her, if she is being sincere I even agree with her stance on gay marriage. The problem is though I understand she is wrong both from a religious stand point and legal. Kim Davis can do whatever she believes in but the Rowan country circuit clerk must and will follow the law. You, like her are unable to separate what you can do in your personal life vs her role as a government employee. She is not making a stance, she is being defiant and neglecting her sworn duty. Her argument is a lie. She doesn't marry people thus she wasn't being asked to do something against her beliefs.
If whatever religion you belong to teaches you to hate someone, you're doing it wrong.
Is your dog 16? If not, that bitch is too young to get married.
False. I seriously doubt Kim Davis and Al Franken have the same political ideology.
In most cases southern Dems are conservative and vote GOP in presidential races.
Being a Democrat does not mean you are an Obama Democrat.
So you're saying people have differing opinions/views based on where they're from and personal experiences?
That is batshit crazy concept and won't be tolerated by the USofA.
That is batshit crazy concept and won't be tolerated by the USofA.
He did spin it but he makes the point our retarded media makes every.damn.day.
EBWRYBODY IS TBE SAME! Everybody is equal! Yayyy!!! TTHINK LIKE US AND BE LIKE US OR ELSE!!!! YAYYYYY!!! SOOO POSITIVE!!!! Unless you disagrees with me we will ruin you!!!
#positivity #world #views
EBWRYBODY IS TBE SAME! Everybody is equal! Yayyy!!! TTHINK LIKE US AND BE LIKE US OR ELSE!!!! YAYYYYY!!! SOOO POSITIVE!!!! Unless you disagrees with me we will ruin you!!!
#positivity #world #views
Technically, the dog only needs to be around 26 months old. Dog years and what not. Where he'll run into a problem is with the dog giving consent. That shouldn't be too much problem if he first self identifies as a dog whisperer and then relays the dogs whispers to the clerk. The Rowan co clerk, fresh out of jail and having tasted dyke ass, will willingly comply.
He did spin it but he makes the point our retarded media makes every.damn.day.
EBWRYBODY IS TBE SAME! Everybody is equal! Yayyy!!! TTHINK LIKE US AND BE LIKE US OR ELSE!!!! YAYYYYY!!! SOOO POSITIVE!!!! Unless you disagrees with me we will ruin you!!!
Sounds just like Islam.
Edit: because faith is fragile.
Last edited:
Did god change his mind and just now tell the Methodist leaders to start recognizing gay marriage after several hundred years of discrimination???
Of course, the answer is that humans created religion and change the rules as they see fit (or as forced by society). God only exists as an idea in the brainwashed believers head.
Spot on.He did spin it but he makes the point our retarded media makes every.damn.day.
EBWRYBODY IS TBE SAME! Everybody is equal! Yayyy!!! TTHINK LIKE US AND BE LIKE US OR ELSE!!!! YAYYYYY!!! SOOO POSITIVE!!!! Unless you disagrees with me we will ruin you!!!
The liberal media is ridiculous. "Agree with our free thinking open mindedness, or we will make your condemnation look like a walk in the park." How do people not see through this?
Religion and faith are two completely different things. I thought atheists were supposed to possess superior intellect and yet they can't comprehend such a simple concept.
Right but like willy pointed out its the same on the other side. Same exact rude attitude, his different personal opinions.
You can't seem to differentiate the aspect of not condoning a lifestyle and hate. I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and that won't change. I do not hate them or wish them harm either. But my faith and my beliefs are not negotiable.
I have enjoyed your posts in the past and I'm sure I will in the future, but you are very harsh toward this woman for some reason and we disagree.
There are cities in this country which willfully violate Fedral law concerning immigration daily. According to your view , they should all be jailed or resign. Even Obama wanted to grant immunity to millions of ILLEGAL immigrants.
We are fine but we haven't been talking about a lifestyle. This subject is about a woman who refuses to do a job she swore an oath to do.
Anybody who calls it a "lifestyle" immediately reveals themself as at least heteroflexible. TS.
Being gay is not a "lifestyle" just like being left handed or having blue eyes isn't a "lifestyle" . They are gay because they are gay.
It's interesting how much time is spent in legislation and in the media by a group of people who barely make up 3% of the population. Transgender is said to only be 0.03% of the population yet Hollywood and the media bombards us with their agenda with sitcoms, social rhetoric, and other garbage.
IDGAF is someone is gay but to act as if they're "normal" is BS. Their lifestyles in general are far different than that of the 97% of heterosexuals. The NYT ran an article about five years ago with a study out of San Francisco State that revealed 80% of homosexual relationships are open. Other studies have shown how promiscuous the gay "lifestyle" really is and yes, a lifestyle is an accurate term considering it is a lifestyle that differs than others...just like a rich lifestyle, a lifestyle of drugs and substance abuse, a lifestyle of being a whore, etc. Their amount of partners, in general, dwarf the average heterosexual.
People have been brainwashed with propaganda to believe that homosexuals are on par with African Americans during the civil rights movement and that is laughable. You would also think gays were half the population considering how much it consumes the media.
This is what I have an issue with...I don't care about gays being married or getting benefits. It's obviously not normal but I don't care. What bothers me if the conveniently shifting platform that we always see from this group and liberals.
When confronted with someone saying being gay is a choice (acting on it), they say they were born this way and nature made them this way. It's natural. Okay. Biology/reproduction alone shows it isn't the intended way but who cares...so with that platform accepted, why does that shift when it comes to adoption? If you accept that nature made you gay then aren't you also, accepting that nature predetermined you NOT to be parents by the fact that you're gay?
IDGAF is someone is gay but to act as if they're "normal" is BS. Their lifestyles in general are far different than that of the 97% of heterosexuals. The NYT ran an article about five years ago with a study out of San Francisco State that revealed 80% of homosexual relationships are open. Other studies have shown how promiscuous the gay "lifestyle" really is and yes, a lifestyle is an accurate term considering it is a lifestyle that differs than others...just like a rich lifestyle, a lifestyle of drugs and substance abuse, a lifestyle of being a whore, etc. Their amount of partners, in general, dwarf the average heterosexual.
People have been brainwashed with propaganda to believe that homosexuals are on par with African Americans during the civil rights movement and that is laughable. You would also think gays were half the population considering how much it consumes the media.
This is what I have an issue with...I don't care about gays being married or getting benefits. It's obviously not normal but I don't care. What bothers me if the conveniently shifting platform that we always see from this group and liberals.
When confronted with someone saying being gay is a choice (acting on it), they say they were born this way and nature made them this way. It's natural. Okay. Biology/reproduction alone shows it isn't the intended way but who cares...so with that platform accepted, why does that shift when it comes to adoption? If you accept that nature made you gay then aren't you also, accepting that nature predetermined you NOT to be parents by the fact that you're gay?
Last edited:
John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, interpreted the Bible's main message to be "all of God's children are worthy of his grace and are sacred". That's how most Methodists I've been around live their life.
That's always been God's message in the churches I've belonged to.
Is it all a load a shit? Well,I still question religion (I like to keep my mind open to all of the possibilities). But John Wesley's interpretation of the bible seems like a solid way to live your life either way.
You paint with a broad brush. Which is not unusual on topics like these.
Did God change his mind? Hardly. Most likely man just ruined his message.
Last edited:
The denomination I grew up in has been behind gay rights and gay marriage for as long as I can remember. There was a big dust up back home when the ministers at my church came out as pro gay everything in a letter to the editor in the local paper. This was in 1998 if I recall correctly
- Status
