Cunt goes to Jail...

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
And in the process violating her rights.
Her rights were not violated. She is acting as an elected official of the state. The state can have no religious stance and must preform as a secular entity. If she is unable to carry out her duties due to her religious convictions then she has the right to pass that duty to another clerk (which she did not allow) or resign from her position.

She absolutely does NOT have the right to use her secular government position as a bully pulpit for her religious beliefs. It is not only broadly unconstitutional, in this case it was specifically illegal and she paid the price for knowingly violating the law.


My argument would be the same, her position/job should not exist. Government should not be involved.
Your ignorance is showing. The clerk handles all legal contracts, not just marriage.

Instead of removing the state from marriage, let's remove religion from it.
Which is what a civil union is. Marriage is a religious term, no matter how we try to spin it.

As long as that unit is called a marriage, the religious in this country will fight to keep the contract religion and morality based.
As long as there is marriage, various groups (rightly) will fight for equal access and will not settle for civil unions.
The religious in this country will fight to keep the federally recognized contract called marriage because a) They want state acknowledgement of their religious union b) they don't want their federally recognized union to be "equal" to any non-typical man-woman union and c) if the state is no longer in the marriage business, they can no longer keep gays from getting married since their will always be pastors and priests sympathetic to the cause.

And C) is what really frightens their bible thumping minds. If this country went 100% civil union, not only would the sinners be equally recognized by the government, the lack of government control of marriage would allow those same sinners to get married as well.
 

Lord Zero

Registered User
Marriage is a religious term, no matter how we try to spin it.
No it isn't. "Marriage" hasn't been a religious term since the first atheists got married, and even less so since it became a part of secular government. Saying otherwise no only effectively denies a large chunk of the institution's history, but it also effectively denies the self-evident evolution of the term. "Marriage" has at least one other application in language besides referring to a union between people. For example, take a sentence like, "grunge is a marriage of punk rock and heavy metal". That sentence clearly has no religious implications, and this use of the term is clearly and commonly understood by the vast majority of English-speakers.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm I thought you have to be married in church to be married in the eyes of doG. Like I just had a civil ceremony so I was never married... well in the eyes of the Catholic church.

And I think my parents got married in a church and like some office in a town building.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
No it isn't. "Marriage" hasn't been a religious term since the first atheists got married, and even less so since it became a part of secular government. Saying otherwise no only effectively denies a large chunk of the institution's history, but it also effectively denies the self-evident evolution of the term. "Marriage" has at least one other application in language besides referring to a union between people. For example, take a sentence like, "grunge is a marriage of punk rock and heavy metal". That sentence clearly has no religious implications, and this use of the term is clearly and commonly understood by the vast majority of English-speakers.
That may be what it used to be, but it isn't anymore. Not in the United States. The history of the term is irrelevant to current political realities. There is too much religious baggage attached to the term now to couch it any other way.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
All marriages should be domestic partnerships in the eyes of the government, and they should be treated like any business partnership, in that they mitigate separations based on the terms two consenting adults agreed to, don't assume one party is a victim based solely on gender, and don't discriminate based on any qualifications that wouldn't be relevant in a business partnership.

And then the churches have the right to marry or not marry anyone they want, since it carries no weight beyond being recognized by that religion.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
All marriages should be domestic partnerships in the eyes of the government, and they should be treated like any business partnership, in that they mitigate separations based on the terms two consenting adults agreed to, don't assume one party is a victim based solely on gender, and don't discriminate based on any qualifications that wouldn't be relevant in a business partnership.

And then the churches have the right to marry or not marry anyone they want, since it carries no weight beyond being recognized by that religion.
Exactly.
 

CougarHunter

Lying causes cat piss smell.
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.
That's not entirely true, depending on where you live.
 

Lord Zero

Registered User
That may be what it used to be, but it isn't anymore. Not in the United States. The history of the term is irrelevant to current political realities. There is too much religious baggage attached to the term now to couch it any other way.
According to who? I live in the Bible Belt and that's not even true here.
 

KRSOne

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


:haha7:
nn
A few? Its not like these are people who slipped through the cracks. They knowingly break the law because they know they are above it. If you are a nobody, you could end up dead over selling a pack of cigarettes. If you are a president, you can target your political enemies with the IRS to win an election and nothing happens.

If we had total anarchy these people would actually be held accountable because there would be no state to protect them. They wouldn't be able to commit these crimes in the first place.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Her rights were not violated. She is acting as an elected official of the state. The state can have no religious stance and must preform as a secular entity. If she is unable to carry out her duties due to her religious convictions then she has the right to pass that duty to another clerk (which she did not allow) or resign from her position.

She absolutely does NOT have the right to use her secular government position as a bully pulpit for her religious beliefs. It is not only broadly unconstitutional, in this case it was specifically illegal and she paid the price for knowingly violating the law.
There is no difference between forcing something on someone for secular reasons or religious reasons. It all ends the same with you dead, injured, in prison, or a little poorer.
 

Lord Zero

Registered User
There is no difference between forcing something on someone for secular reasons or religious reasons.
She wasn't acting as a private citizen, she was acting in her capacity as a government official. Her denials for licenses were effectively denials by the state itself. Jail might've been too extreme (not that I feel sorry for her one bit), but the law in the state being what it is and her being and elected official actively preventing the people under her from doing their jobs, the judge didn't have a lot of choices available. The only other option seems like it would've been to let her continue breaking the law and violating other people's civil rights until the law was changed, however long that would've taken. (The plaintiffs were seeking a simple fine, which, let's be honest, wouldn't have done anything – especially not after Huckabee and the rest of the Bible Brigade arrived to help her financially.) And that wouldn't have done at all.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
There is no difference between forcing something on someone for secular reasons or religious reasons.
No one forced anything on her. She's the one who took the job, no one made her do it, and no one is making her keep doing it.

This is so ridiculously retarded. She is an unrepentant criminal and she should be charged with abuse of power.
 

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih
So the Pope met with her and everyone's super pissed about it. It's so great to see all the outrage :haha7:.
 
So the Pope met with her and everyone's super pissed about it. It's so great to see all the outrage :haha7:.
Did the pope actually meet her or is she saying that he did? If we are taking her word for things then we also know that God told her to not do her job as well.
 

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih
Maybe if you adopted a Popehat/leather jacket combo you could come back from this, but as it stands, you're no longer cool, Pope. This release is far too late.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Kentucky clerk who refused same-sex marriage licenses can be sued
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...x-marriage-licenses-can-be-sued-idUSKCN1VD284

You can't sue a politician or bureaucrat who doesn't do their jobs and protects an illegal who ends up killing or rayping your loved one but you can sue this dopey lady for hurt feelings. They don't even try to create the illusion of equality under the law anymore.

Does this mean tea party groups who were discriminated against by the Obama admin can personally sue Obama or Lois Lerner? I do not understand a lot of these court rulings in the Trump era, they seem so backwards.
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
Kentucky clerk who refused same-sex marriage licenses can be sued
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...x-marriage-licenses-can-be-sued-idUSKCN1VD284

You can't sue a politician or bureaucrat who doesn't do their jobs and protects an illegal who ends up killing or rayping your loved one but you can sue this dopey lady for hurt feelings. They don't even try to create the illusion of equality under the law anymore.

Does this mean tea party groups who were discriminated against by the Obama admin can personally sue Obama or Lois Lerner? I do not understand a lot of these court rulings in the Trump era, they seem so backwards.
Man has a point.

This woman should follow the law or resign. But yeah, then you should be able to sue anyone who doesn’t enforce laws.
 
Top