Cunt goes to Jail...

Lord Zero

Registered User
And people are forced to pay for gay marriage.
Just like same-sex couples are forced to pay for straight marriages.
Cycle of state lunacy, only solution is removing the state from the marriage process.
Agreed.
People without kids have to pay for your kids school. People who aren't married and do not believe in marriage still have to pay for you to get married. People with jobs who don't qualify for certain welfare programs are paying for something they can't use and the ones using it are not even paying for it. So people are forced to pay equally for something they do not or can't use all the time.
Making or keeping it even more unequal doesn't help.

By the way, of course Mike Huckabee was at this twat's release party. Why wouldn't he be? Fucking prick.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Yes. By morons who think she has the right to do this because "her conscious"...
Thats why the gays should have been fighting to get government out of their lives but they fought to keep government in their life and get government acceptance. Fighting for permission to be 'free'.
 
Where did the rest of her go? Fuck you if you think l'm reading this whole thread.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Thats why the gays should have been fighting to get government out of their lives but they fought to keep government in their life and get government acceptance. Fighting for permission to be 'free'.
One of the prerequisites of freedom is having a government to protect you and your rights from savages. It has nothing to do with "permission". It's how civilization works. We can't all just live by ourselves in our mom's basement. Society needs rules to function. One of the main rules is that government officials can't just do whatever they feel like.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
One of the prerequisites of freedom is having a government to protect you and your rights from savages.
Unfortunately the savages eventually get into government to free themselves and oppress everyone else.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
And that's when they hopefully go to jail, just like this lovely lady did.
And in the process violating her rights.

They go to jail if they have no real power and its insignificant nonsense. Run guns to drug cartels and only the whistle blower gets fired. Target your political opponents with the IRS and nothing happens. Spy illegally without a warrant on every American, nothing. But refuse to put your name on a marriage license because it violates your beliefs and you have gone too far.

One shouldn't celebrate that the state will go after a nobody but they will let those with the most power get away with massive crimes.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
We've been over this. What she did is a crime. Jailing criminals is not a violation of rights.
Woopdeedoo a crime. You say that as if laws apply to everyone. Your, 'but its the law' argument will be valid when government decides to start enforcing the law equally.



 

KRSOne

Registered User
Religion is actually spelled out in the constitution, but she was imprisoned for her religious beliefs. Gay marriage on the other hand can only be seen in the Constitution by activist judges with a decoder ring.
 

LiddyRules

Johny Charro Card Holder #1
Religion is actually spelled out in the constitution, but she was imprisoned for her religious beliefs. Gay marriage on the other hand can only be seen in the Constitution by activist judges with a decoder ring.
The Constitution also talks about freedom of speech. Would you be defending her if every time someone asked for a marriage certificate she said "fuck you leave"?
 

KRSOne

Registered User
The Constitution also talks about freedom of speech. Would you be defending her if every time someone asked for a marriage certificate she said "fuck you leave"?
My argument would be the same, her position/job should not exist. Government should not be involved.

To answer your question, if that was the situation and you believe in this form of the state, you should let the voters decide if she keeps her elected position. Not a judge, Obama, or a group of activists.

The left always says that 90% of Americans believe in banning guns (a lie) so to them thats a valid reason to take away the rights of a 10% minority. So why shouldn't the same reasoning apply to this situation?
 

LiddyRules

Johny Charro Card Holder #1
Yes. By morons who think she has the right to do this because "her conscious"...
I know there's no way to prove this, but whenever someone claims to do things that harm/inconvenience other people for "religious reasons," I almost always think it's a fraudulent excuse. Like they're being a dick because they're a dick (generally because of homophobia) but know they can use religion as a catchall defense. Like going to rehab after being caught being naughty, except you get national supporters.
 


Umm dude in overalls 5 heads hubby?

He has green plastic on the rim of his hat... wtf... what a queeb.

If you do a straw hat you get a manly one like this...

 

Mags

A.K.A. Chad
Donator
Woopdeedoo a crime. You say that as if laws apply to everyone. Your, 'but its the law' argument will be valid when government decides to start enforcing the law equally.



So because a few criminals skate we should just have total anarchy. Brilliant. See below:

We can't all just live by ourselves in our mom's basement. .
:haha7:
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
So harboring illegals is legal?
They're not harboring them. The federal government arrests illegals in "sanctuary cities" all the time. Sanctuary cities just refuse to help arrest them. And they have every right to do that.

Same thing happens with some states and cities refusing to enforce federal drug laws. All perfectly legal. The federal government is not in charge of local law enforcement.

Also, what the fuck does this have to do with this thread? Why does every right wing apologist change the subject to Mexicans no matter what we're talking about?
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Donator
You said government officials can't just do whatever they feel like yet that's just what they do all of the time.
 

NotSoFast

Registered User
Instead of removing the state from marriage, let's remove religion from it. After all, you can get married without the church, but can't get married without the license issued by the state. It's a legal contract between two people that grants certain rights and privileges. None of which are offered by the church, itself. If marriage was only a church thing, then politicians that happened to be Christian could choose to not recognize the marriages of other religions, since they see their religions as invalid.

On that note, was this Davis woman asking all of the straight couples if they were Christians and refusing them if they weren't? I mean if marriage is so holy in her eyes, certainly she couldn't allow herself to sully the perfect bond of matrimony by allowing people of false religions to get married.
 

NotSoFast

Registered User
One shouldn't celebrate that the state will go after a nobody but they will let those with the most power get away with massive crimes.
Since not every one is punished the equally, then no one should be held accountable for their actions by the law?
 
Top