Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Artista

Kentucky Clerk In Contempt For Denying Gay Marriage Licenses

Recommended Posts

If it was a Muslim refusing to grant marriage licenses to gays because of Allah, little timmy would be demanding that Obama go down there to fix the situation personally.

 

Don't we have to celebrate Islam for all its beauty and such? Holding a Muslim accountable....is that really possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't we have to celebrate Islam for all its beauty and such? Holding a Muslim accountable....is that really possible?

The kidnapping, torture and murder isn't enough for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why? Are they not supposed to follow Federal Laws on immigration? Just like Kentucky is supposed to follow Federal Laws on ghey marraige?

 

That's my question...my point....

 

In San Fran this illegal immigrant who's been arrested 5 times for felonies was caught by Federal Agents and given to the San Fran Sherrifs office for detaining. Well the Sheriff decided not to detain him (against the order from the feds and the law) and let him go because the local leaders think SF is a 'sanctuary city'. Well said illegal alien felon goes walking on a pier and kills this beautiful woman for no apparent reason.

 

Why is some judge NOT putting the sheriff, who purposely went against FEDERAL LAW in jail too? Just like this cat lady from Kentucky.

 

Riddle me that?

Forget it, we are talking about gay marriage here. The libs check their double digit IQs at the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget it, we are talking about gay marriage here. The libs check their double digit IQs at the door.

 

Interesting article on how these 2 cases are different:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/why-kim-daviss-refusal-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-is-legally-different-from-a-sanctuary-citys-refusal-to-cooperate-with-federal-immigration-law/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord, Timmy Smiff somehow gets dumber every time he posts :o

Perhaps you can point to another occasion where a judge jailed an elected official for not doing their job. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why? Are they not supposed to follow Federal Laws on immigration? Just like Kentucky is supposed to follow Federal Laws on ghey marraige?

 

That's my question...my point....

 

In San Fran this illegal immigrant who's been arrested 5 times for felonies was caught by Federal Agents and given to the San Fran Sherrifs office for detaining. Well the Sheriff decided not to detain him (against the order from the feds and the law) and let him go because the local leaders think SF is a 'sanctuary city'. Well said illegal alien felon goes walking on a pier and kills this beautiful woman for no apparent reason.

 

Why is some judge NOT putting the sheriff, who purposely went against FEDERAL LAW in jail too? Just like this cat lady from Kentucky.

 

Riddle me that?

 

Has anyone with legal standing filed any kind of action against the Sheriff? The judge in the Kentucky case didn't just randomly decide to insert himself in the case. People who were being denied their legal rights took objection and filed suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget it, we are talking about gay marriage here. The libs check their double digit IQs at the door.

Says the braniac who wondered why an elected official couldn't just be fired.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Has anyone with legal standing filed any kind of action against the Sheriff? The judge in the Kentucky case didn't just randomly decide to insert himself in the case. People who were being denied their legal rights took objection and filed suit.

 

Not sure. But in that case an innocent person died. In Kentucky it was about marriage licences. Seems to me one is a little bit more important than the other.

 

But you're right, I'm sure there is some reason why the Sheriff was not in trouble of some sort. Maybe it's political. It's not a 1:1 analogy. Agreed.

 

However the overall point or question remains. Why is it okay for a San Francisco to not abide by Federal Laws on immigration or a Colorado okay to not abide by Federal Law on weed but its NOT okay for a state that voted on Ghey Marriage already to have to abide by a Federal Law.

 

There are Federal Laws on immigration, yet a locality (SF) can vote for a local law to not abide by it. There are Federal Drug laws, yet a state can vote not to abide by it. There is now a Federal Law about Ghey marraige, but a state cannot do the same with that law. It must abide.

 

Just seem inconsistent is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure. But in that case an innocent person died. In Kentucky it was about marriage licences. Seems to me one is a little bit more important than the other.

 

But you're right, I'm sure there is some reason why the Sheriff was not in trouble of some sort. Maybe it's political. It's not a 1:1 analogy. Agreed.

 

However the overall point or question remains. Why is it okay for a San Francisco to not abide by Federal Laws on immigration or a Colorado okay to not abide by Federal Law on weed but its NOT okay for a state that voted on Ghey Marriage already to have to abide by a Federal Law.

 

There are Federal Laws on immigration, yet a locality (SF) can vote for a local law to not abide by it. There are Federal Drug laws, yet a state can vote not to abide by it. There is now a Federal Law about Ghey marraige, but a state cannot do the same with that law. It must abide.

 

Just seem inconsistent is all.

 

From MDC link.

 

One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:

 

The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

 

 

County clerks like Kim Davis, on the other hand, are not being asked to administer or implement a federal program. To the contrary, issuing marriage licenses is a function of state and local government governed by state law. Rather, Davis and other county clerks are being ordered to administer their own state and local programs in conformance with the Constitution, as interpreted by federal courts, and the Supremacy Clause provides that state laws must yield when they conflict with federal law.

 

You are not comparing the same things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So she's not going to resign and we have a state senator who supports her! WTF! I don't know how it works, but there must be someone that can toss her azz out of that job for violating citizen's legal rights! And now we don't know if the licenses issued are valid because her dumbazz sig isn't on it. Wow. I'd be afraid if I were her when she gets out. She'll be a moving shooting target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From MDC link.

 

 

You are not comparing the same things.

Actually, thanks for the links. So because of what kind of federal law it is gives the government leeway to put cat lady in jail but not the sheriff. Got it. :thumbsup:

 

That only speaks to the jail part though. I still contend both govt employees still need to follow the GD law though and not go rouge based on personal beliefs.

 

And maybe that sheriff can't be put in jail, BUT they can deny funds to this county or put other pressures on the city to follow the focking law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBC News lead story was her leaving jail. How did she handle it? The right way might have been to hold a small press conference and say "I'm sorry this happened. I going to reevaluate my decision and my current employment. Thank you."

 

Unfortunately.... huge press conference with religious nuts screaming and waiving crosses and crying "I just want to give God the glory! His people have rallied, and you are a strong people!" Hallelujah! :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why she just doesn't resign in protest. She can become a martyr for the 'cause' that way.

 

But if you are gov't employee you have to follow the law. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to work. Hopefully all the local gays got their marriages approve in the window of opportunity provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why she just doesn't resign in protest. She can become a martyr for the 'cause' that way.

 

But if you are gov't employee you have to follow the law. :doh:

 

Because she wants more attention...because she wants a book deal.

Hell, she can probably run for office and easily win now too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just had the songwriter for Survivor on CNN and the band is upset that they used their song "Eye Of The Tiger" for the release of this nut. Said the song is for personal motivation and achievement, like in sports (think the movie Rocky), and has nothing to do with politics or religious beliefs. They need to give permission for their songs to be used in commercials, sports, etc and no one asked them if it was ok for this rally..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because she wants more attention...because she wants a book deal.

Hell, she can probably run for office and easily win now too.

I'm thinking reality tv. The cancellation of the Duggars and Honey BooBoo left the door wide open for this moron and her straw hatted family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would happen if this "woman" was Muslim and rejecting marriage license on some weird, archaic beliefs to straight couples. Say a single mom, child born out of wedlock. Or a divorced person wants to remarry. You get the idea.

 

Would Ted Cruz and Huckabee be there in her defense? Protection for all religious beliefs right? Or just Christian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking reality tv. The cancellation of the Duggars and Honey BooBoo left the door wide open for this moron and her straw hatted family.

That there are pictures of all the GOP candidates with the Duggars...and now they are falling over themselves to get pictures with this hag is sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would happen if this "woman" was Muslim and rejecting marriage license on some weird, archaic beliefs to straight couples. Say a single mom, child born out of wedlock. Or a divorced person wants to remarry. You get the idea.

 

Would Ted Cruz and Huckabee be there in her defense? Protection for all religious beliefs right? Or just Christian?

 

Welcome to Walmart! I'm sorry, but I'm Catholic. I can't sell you these condoms, but Cindy can assist you on register 8. But let's go ahead and ring you up for that Beer and Bacon. She's a Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Welcome to Walmart! I'm sorry, but I'm Catholic. I can't sell you these condoms, but Cindy can assist you on register 8. But let's go ahead and ring you up for that Beer and Bacon. She's a Muslim.

 

 

Come on now, we all know that Walmart shoppers don't use condoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBC News lead story was her leaving jail. How did she handle it? The right way might have been to hold a small press conference and say "I'm sorry this happened. I going to reevaluate my decision and my current employment. Thank you."

 

Unfortunately.... huge press conference with religious nuts screaming and waiving crosses and crying "I just want to give God the glory! His people have rallied, and you are a strong people!" Hallelujah! :banana:

 

 

I didn't see it but I heard they played "Eye Of The Tiger". :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good for her. fake marriage shouldnt be signed off on. scotus cant make laws. put in jail!???? :lol: :lol: liberals are sick in the head

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good for her. fake marriage shouldnt be signed off on. scotus cant make laws. put in jail!???? :lol: :lol: liberals are sick in the head

a law is a law. Agreeing with it or not is irrelevant. I believe prostitution should be legal, but it's not. So do you think if I get caught banging one, I can say I believe the law is wrong and walk free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good for her. fake marriage shouldnt be signed off on. scotus cant make laws. put in jail!???? :lol: :lol: liberals are sick in the head

SCOTUS didn't make the law.

 

Jail may have been to verbiard...but that's what you get when you refuse a court order to do your job.

 

Should her fake marriages have been signed off on?

 

You can seriously be this foolish can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS didn't make the law.

 

Jail may have been to verbiard...but that's what you get when you refuse a court order to do your job.

 

Should her fake marriages have been signed off on?

 

You can seriously be this foolish can you?

That is not exactly true. States voted and passed their own marriage laws. The people of the state have spoken. Then the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot use their own laws and must abide by federal marriage laws. Effectively taking away states rights. Which is questionable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not exactly true. States voted and passed their own marriage laws. The people of the state have spoken. Then the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot use their own laws and must abide by federal marriage laws. Effectively taking away states rights. Which is questionable.

Or ruling that the state's laws were bogus.

 

And who is she to judge what is just or unjust?

 

Do your job...or step down.

 

She wants attention and little more.

 

Nothing in her religion prevents her from doing her job.

 

Unless you now expect Christian waiters and waitresses to not serve fat people?

 

Can't be supporting those gluttonous sinners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not exactly true. States voted and passed their own marriage laws. The people of the state have spoken. Then the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot use their own laws and must abide by federal marriage laws. Effectively taking away states rights. Which is questionable.

Doesn't matter what the people of the state voted, when they vote on a law that is found unconstitutional. People voted for laws for school segration, prohibiting inter-racial marriage, gun bans, just to name a few----states can't make laws that deny rights that fed goverment gives individuals. It is not questionalbe at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not exactly true. States voted and passed their own marriage laws. The people of the state have spoken. Then the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot use their own laws and must abide by federal marriage laws. Effectively taking away states rights. Which is questionable.

Yikes, someome has no idea how the Constitution works :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, involves the scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what the people of the state voted, when they vote on a law that is found unconstitutional. People voted for laws for school segration, prohibiting inter-racial marriage, gun bans, just to name a few----states can't make laws that deny rights that fed goverment gives individuals. It is not questionalbe at all.

 

I'm not arguing that point, rather letting Shonuff know that the Supreme Court ruling is how those state laws became void and trumps any state law. He said the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it, when if fact their ruling is the lynch pin for all of it. That was my only point.

 

I think I've said, I don't know, 6 times now that this lady needs to do her job. And if she has an objection she needs to resign in protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not arguing that point, rather letting Shonuff know that the Supreme Court ruling is how those state laws became void and trumps any state law. He said the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it, when if fact their ruling is the lynch pin for all of it. That was my only point.

 

I think I've said, I don't know, 6 times now that this lady needs to do her job. And if she has an objection she needs to resign in protest.

I did not say they had nothing to do with it.

 

I disputed the false claim that was made that SCOTUS was making laws. They aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give this lady props. I put gays/lesbians in the same disgusting category as people who f*ck animals. Its a perversion and of course it shouldn't be legal. She did handle it the wrong way though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give this lady props. I put gays/lesbians in the same disgusting category as people who f*ck animals. Its a perversion and of course it shouldn't be legal. She did handle it the wrong way though.

Consensual relationships are the same as animals?

 

You realize being gay (like being straight) isn't just about sex right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensual relationships are the same as ###### animals?

 

You realize being gay (like being straight) isn't just about sex right?

 

Its a perversion, thats all it is. Be a couple do whatever you want, but they shouldn't aloud to be married. Why do millions of Americans have to pay more in taxes to pay the benefits of homosexual couples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its a perversion, thats all it is. Be a couple do whatever you want, but they shouldn't aloud to be married. Why do millions of Americans have to pay more in taxes to pay the benefits of homosexual couples?

Gay people don't pay taxes? I'm going to have to re-think this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its a perversion, thats all it is. Be a couple do whatever you want, but they shouldn't aloud to be married. Why do millions of Americans have to pay more in taxes to pay the benefits of homosexual couples?

I doubt you pay any income tax at all. Or anyone else in your park

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its a perversion, thats all it is. Be a couple do whatever you want, but they shouldn't aloud to be married. Why do millions of Americans have to pay more in taxes to pay the benefits of homosexual couples?

Why should we pay more in taxes to pay the benefits of straight couples who do things I don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its a perversion, thats all it is. Be a couple do whatever you want, but they shouldn't aloud to be married. Why do millions of Americans have to pay more in taxes to pay the benefits of homosexual couples?

holy fock. I never heard of you before, but you've immediately jumped into the lead as dumbest poster here. Congrats. I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holy fock. I never heard of you before, but you've immediately jumped into the lead as dumbest poster here. Congrats. I think.

 

Well, he is a Pecker fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×