Judge Orders Non-Dissenting Deputies to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

This is what I've been contending should be done since last night -- but along the way I heard from a lot of people on the right who are pro-gay-marriage that this is either impossible or unworkable or will cause our system of government to devolve into chaos.

And yet, that's what was done.

This was always the obvious solution -- if you think it is worthwhile, at all, to accommodate this woman's apparently-real religious objection while also finding a way to get this gay couple their Anthony Kennedy decreed license.

If you do not think that it is worth even the slightest deviation from standard procedure to make a minor tweak in order to protect someone's religious conscience, then I can see why you'd come down on this woman like a huge pile of government-coercion bricks.

A freedom-championing person should make coercion the last resort, not the goddamned first. *

And "because these are the rules!" is not a good enough answer when a different important consideration is at stake as well. Yes, "following the rules" is important, but only a moral cripple could possibly believe it's the only thing that matters, or that following the rules is an absolute in all situations.

And in fact almost no one believes that.

But people are quick to yell "We must follow All the Rules!!" without giving consideration to tweaks and work-arounds when they simply do not have sympathy for the person facing the hammer of coercion.

It's my belief that we should always try to avoid the hammer of coercion, and not just swing away "Because it's the rules!" (you wouldn't say that about someone you had sympathy for) without thought.

And that extends to people we don't necessarily have sympathy for.

And that includes this Muslim flight attendant who has been suspended for refusing to serve alcohol. I'd look for a way to accommodate her, and I wouldn't spring to the "fire the dissenter!" position.

However, I have to say: I've been thinking about this last night, and I don't see how she can be accommodated while still doing her job, because, from my observation of flight stewards, pretty much all they do once the plane is in the air is ferry drinks to passengers. I just cannot see how she can be excluded from this part of her job while still doing her job at all; unless, say, she agrees to serve almost every non-alcohol request (pillows, blankets, etc.)

And I'm not sure that would work.

It seems to me that drink service is pretty much what the flight attendants do.

But I think the company should try to think of an accommodation. If none can be conceived, then she'll have to find some other job.

* So gay marriage has gone from something that was illegal to something you can now be thrown into prison for opposing.

Do gay marriage opponents not wish to give the rest of us the slightest amount of time to evolve on this?

I can guarantee you that throwing people in jail willy-nilly is not convincing skeptics of the benevolence of the gay rights movement.

Posted by: Ace at 05:27 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 first?

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:29 PM (AkOaV)

2 wow. I feel like the aoshq gods are smiling on me to make up for my awesome 14 at post 14 that (ahem) got ruined by (ahem) someone.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:29 PM (AkOaV)

3 It's my understanding that before she was jailed, Davis did not allow the others (who she has seniority over) to issue the license. If that's the case, she should resign.

But I've been fabulously wrong before, so there's that.

Posted by: Jenny Is Thoroughly Embarrassed at September 03, 2015 05:30 PM (RxKcg)

4 But people are quick to yell "We must follow All the Rules!!"
without giving consideration to tweaks and work-arounds when they simply
do not have sympathy for the person facing the hammer of coercion.

Why, that's just crazy talk.

Posted by: The Public School System at September 03, 2015 05:30 PM (LAe3v)

5 I still say this had to be a put up case by the Gaystappo who go around the country looking for religious people to shit on.

And the judges appear to always want to accommodate them.

Posted by: Vic at September 03, 2015 05:30 PM (t2KH5)

6 I'll take these people's concerns about "following the rules" seriously when Hillary goes to jail and Obama is impeached.

There is no moral imperative to play by the rules with people that won't play by the rules.

Posted by: Grad School Fool at September 03, 2015 05:30 PM (A9KzJ)

7 It's my understanding that before she was jailed, Davis did not allow
the others (who she has seniority over) to issue the license. If that's
the case, she should resign.

If so, then I agree.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 05:31 PM (LAe3v)

8 I'll take the Fifyh!

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at September 03, 2015 05:31 PM (9mTYi)

9 also, I'm not sure how a federal judge can order state clerks to do what he says, especially since issuing marriage licenses is supposed to be their bosses job, not theirs, right?

whatever, i don't care either way.

I do like the idea of throwing elected Democrats in jail though, so i guess I can't fault the judge for that.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:31 PM (AkOaV)

10 Dammit..., or the Ninth

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at September 03, 2015 05:31 PM (9mTYi)

11 It was never about marriage licenses. It was always, from the beginning, about finding a Christian who could be jailed for refusing the demands of a special interest group, as a lesson to other Christians.

It is not about 'rule of law'. Obama has clearly demonstrated that 'the law' is meaningless. Only the whim of the King is 'the law'.

Obama's fundamental transformation continues apace.

Posted by: Herman Lackluster at September 03, 2015 05:32 PM (4/pk2)

12 Do gay marriage opponents not wish to give the rest of us the slightest amount of time to evolve on this?

Of course not. It was always in bad faith. The mask has slipped.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at September 03, 2015 05:32 PM (0NdlF)

13 BTW, I am sure that the muzzie flight attendant was told before she was hired what she was expected to do in the air. As in be a flying cocktail waitress.

If she was told what was expected of her then she hired on under false expectations and should be fired.

Posted by: Vic at September 03, 2015 05:32 PM (t2KH5)

14 Law is force, not reason.

Dave Brat said a thing or two about this.

And those who have force have decreed, Every knee shall bend.

And we we will watch and wait and see where the next knee will be made to bend.

Posted by: Kreplach at September 03, 2015 05:32 PM (eDW1j)

15 But I've been fabulously wrong before, so there's that.
Posted by: Jenny

----

ISWYDT, I think.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at September 03, 2015 05:33 PM (9mTYi)

16 There was a case in which Abercrombie & Fitch was sued by a Muslim because they didn't permit their employees to wear hats or headgear.

A&F lost.

Posted by: AmishDude at September 03, 2015 05:33 PM (JIElb)

17 The obvious, simple solution here is for states to get out of the business of issuing licenses to get married.

It's just a backdoor revenue collection scheme anyways.

Churches should be in charge of deciding who can be married, not the federal SCOTUS.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:33 PM (AkOaV)

18 Interestingly, five of her six deputies agreed to follow the order. The sixth did not. The sixth is her son.

She really is a Democrat.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at September 03, 2015 05:33 PM (2lndx)

19 "But I think the company should try to think of an accommodation. If none can be conceived, then she'll have to find some other job."

I think what you mean is, If they can't find some makework for her, then some judge will award her a couple hundred thousand.

Posted by: Jerome at September 03, 2015 05:34 PM (Opcdk)

20 They should automate the serving of drinks on a plane.

And why is serving drinks on a plane a required activity.

They have special cars on trains and only on certain kinds and certain routes. They don't serve on buses.

So why does alcohol rate as been indispensable to dispense. (heh)

Frankly except for showing you how to don the mask and put on a personal flotation device, flight attendants are pretty much no that valuable.

Put up automated drink dispensers in the aisles and reduce the cabin crew to 2.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 05:34 PM (x3GpS)

21 Sanctuary cities? They just tweaked the law to accommodate thousands of illegals.

Posted by: Soona at September 03, 2015 05:34 PM (Fmupd)

22 I pray I'm alive long enough to see a real live ghey v. muzzie mash-up. Just to see who blinks first.

Posted by: rickb223 at September 03, 2015 05:34 PM (EdhH3)

23 Someone mentioned earlier that she was a Dim.

I wonder if she voted for TFG.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 05:35 PM (LUgeY)

24 Reasonable accommodation is not to be found in the Age of 0bama.

But if gays really, really think their 'marriage' can only be sanctified on the bed of Christian tearz, then they can shove it where the moon don't shine. Again.

Posted by: se pa moron at September 03, 2015 05:35 PM (sI4OA)

25 "If she was told what was expected of her then she hired on under false expectations and should be fired."

This is probable, but it may also be that, like Davis, she had a recent religious awakening.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at September 03, 2015 05:35 PM (2lndx)

26 or will cause our system of government to devolve into chaos.

Chaos would be a step up for our 'system of government" these days.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 03, 2015 05:35 PM (zc3Db)

27 Or churches or whatever. If 17 people want to walk around saying they're all married to each other in one big collective, I don't care. That's fine.

But when you get the state in to sanctioning these kinds of things... well, let's just say I was much more for "gay marriage" in the abstract then I am now that it is a reality.

My whole reasoning behind being pro-gay marriage is that the state should not be in the business of deciding what is marriage and what isn't -- it's a religious institution, leave it outside the whole state apparatus with their implicit threats of force.

But now someone is in jail because they don't agree with one particular kind of marriage (as defined by SCOTUS), bakers are out of business, pizza shops are getting threatened with arson, etc. etc.

It's absurd.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:36 PM (AkOaV)

28 Ace: It seems to me that drink service is pretty much what the flight attendants do.

Right. And now we shouldn't because it would offend anyone of Muslim persuasion which is itself a civil right.

Posted by: CAIR at September 03, 2015 05:36 PM (1CroS)

29 Alrighty, then. And why are all of the mayors of the sanctuary cities not sitting in jail for refusing to carry out established law?

Posted by: Stu-22 at September 03, 2015 05:36 PM (vd4oB)

30 It seems to me that drink service is pretty much what the flight attendants do.

Nip sized bottles are TSA compliant. I pass this on as a public service.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at September 03, 2015 05:36 PM (1xUj/)

31 It's my understanding that before she was jailed, Davis did not allow the others (who she has seniority over) to issue the license. If that's the case, she should resign.

It's because ultimately, regardless of who takes their money and issues the license, HER name is on it because she is the clerk.

Posted by: rickb223 at September 03, 2015 05:37 PM (EdhH3)

32 The obvious, simple solution here is for states to get out of the business of issuing licenses to get married.

It's just a backdoor revenue collection scheme anyways.

Churches should be in charge of deciding who can be married, not the federal SCOTUS.

It's just the opposite. A civil union, defined as a contract between two people, should be the sole purview of the state.

A marriage should be an arbitrary and legally meaningless ceremony between 2 people in a church that thinks they're a legitimate couple in the eyes of God.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 05:37 PM (LAe3v)

33 25 This is probable, but it may also be that, like Davis, she had a recent religious awakening.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at September 03, 2015 05:35 PM (2lndx)

Then she should have a "new job awakening".

Posted by: Vic at September 03, 2015 05:37 PM (t2KH5)

34 this thread, like previous ones today, is getting all MUMR'y with disappearing comments. anyone know the backstory, or should I not ask?

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:37 PM (AkOaV)

35 Umm, this was never about accommodation because accommodation was already offered in the form of civil unions.

They did not want to accommodate they wanted every knee to bend.

And so it has and so it shall.

They have force, you we don't.

It's really as simple as that.

Posted by: Kreplach at September 03, 2015 05:37 PM (eDW1j)

36 But she's a big hypocrite because she's been married 4 times and Jesus said that people who get divorced should be stoned to death!!!

Posted by: Lefties on Facebook at September 03, 2015 05:38 PM (2jQGY)

37 "Frankly except for showing you how to don the mask and put on a personal flotation device, flight attendants are pretty much no that valuable."

My girlfriend is a flight attendant for Alaska Airlines. They put them through some pretty serious training for emergencies. They are expected to take charge in an emergency, assist everyone in exiting the plane, and be the last off the plane themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at September 03, 2015 05:38 PM (2lndx)

38 I can guarantee you that throwing people in jail willy-nilly is not convincing skeptics of the benevolence of the gay rights movement.

Silly boy. Since when did fascism ever need to convince its skeptics?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 03, 2015 05:38 PM (8ZskC)

39 Vic: "I still say this had to be a put up case by the Gaystappo who go around the country looking for religious people to shit on."

That would be my bet as well. They are looking for offense. They are predators.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at September 03, 2015 05:38 PM (1CroS)

40 18 The obvious, simple solution here is for states to get out of the business of issuing licenses to get married.

It's just a backdoor revenue collection scheme anyways.

Churches should be in charge of deciding who can be married, not the federal SCOTUS.

---

I think there ought to be something to tie your life to someone else's legally, a one-stop "this person now files taxes with me, our property is now jointly owned, we are one another's next-of-kin and any child borne or adopted by one of us during our union is the child of both of us (unless appropriate measures are taken to correct that presumption) and entitled to time and support from both of us". I'd call it a civil union, myself.

Posted by: Jenny Is Thoroughly Embarrassed at September 03, 2015 05:38 PM (GvNnD)

41 "...or will cause our system of government to devolve into chaos."

We're already there, I think.

Posted by: Stu-22 at September 03, 2015 05:38 PM (vd4oB)

42 Sheesh, it's 5 o'clock somewhere, I'ma start drinkin'.

Cheap Scotch & rocks, anyone ?

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at September 03, 2015 05:38 PM (go6ud)

43

The judge was faced with a person blatantly defying an injunction. That's what judges do.

As for her allowing the clerks to sign, that would be ok, one supposes. Interestingly, Justice Scalia disagrees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/ justice-scalia-explains-why-kim-davis-should-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same -sex-couples-or-find-a-new-job/?tid=sm_tw

Posted by: imp at September 03, 2015 05:39 PM (XIXZz)

44 Would the airline be allowed to, during the hiring process, ask: Are there any routine aspects of this job that your beliefs prevent you from doing?
-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at September 03, 2015 05:39 PM (0MJOU)

45 Frankly except for showing you how to don the mask and put on a personal
flotation device, flight attendants are pretty much no that valuable.

But then who would scowl at you and speak harshly to you in a peevish, bitchy voice?

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 05:39 PM (LAe3v)

46 the thing about the "But the Muzz don't wanna" line is that their objections are weirdo foreigner BS that, hey, if you didn't like the basic foundations of first world society, then stay in your hell-hole. Here in KY, they're just following DNC's long established "sanctuary city" partisan enforcement rules for things they like or don't like.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at September 03, 2015 05:39 PM (9aeyG)

47 Opponents? Do you mean proponents? I think that's what you meant, but my brain hurts, it's too late in the day.

Posted by: Cashin at September 03, 2015 05:40 PM (ANCC/)

48 This is probable, but it may also be that, like Davis, she had a recent religious awakening.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at September 03, 2015 05:35 PM (2lndx)

Then she should have a "new job awakening".

Also possible that she was elected before this was ever an issue.

Posted by: rickb223 at September 03, 2015 05:40 PM (EdhH3)

49 It's like those poor girls in Missouri who are being labeled bigots because they don't want to share a locker room with a boy in a wig.

Apparently, we've come to the stage of the game where the only "rights" that matter are those of the LBGTBBQ mafia. The rest of us can pound sand.

Sorry, but no.

Posted by: Lauren at September 03, 2015 05:40 PM (LzzEz)

50 this thread, like previous ones today, is getting all MUMR'y with disappearing comments. anyone know the backstory, or should I not ask?

I saw one comment get vaporized in the last thread twice.

If you can catch one, just marvel at the speed at which those stubby little Ewok fingers can move. It is a thing of beauty.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 05:41 PM (LUgeY)

51 But the muslim knew she would be asked to serve alcohol when she applied for the job. The clerk didn't know the supreme court was going to suddenly say she had to issue gay marriage licenses.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 05:41 PM (2oWD2)

52 It was never about marriage licenses. It was always, from the beginning,
about finding a Christian who could be jailed for refusing the demands
of a special interest group, as a lesson to other Christians
==============================

Yes. This. The storm clouds are gathering and the handwriting is on the wall. Prepare. Learn the Word. Memorize the Word. In jail, or in the camps, you may not have access to the Word. Let it be written on your heart, and when all is said and done? Stand. Stand on the Word.

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 05:41 PM (dFi94)

53 It's really as simple as that.

Posted by: Kreplach

No, it isn't. This woman's job involves acting as an agent of the state. The state has decided, wrongly in my opinion, that two men are entitled to marry.

If she has a religious objection, she should get a job that does not conflict with her irrelevant religious values.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 05:42 PM (LAe3v)

54
Throw her into the Lion's Den.

Posted by: The gay romans at September 03, 2015 05:42 PM (ODxAs)

55 Also possible that she was elected before this was ever an issue.

Posted by: rickb223 at September 03, 2015 05:40 PM (EdhH3)

I was referring to the muzzie flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol.

Posted by: Vic at September 03, 2015 05:42 PM (t2KH5)

56 Silly boy. Since when did fascism ever need to convince its skeptics?

Since we're still armed?

Posted by: rickb223 at September 03, 2015 05:42 PM (EdhH3)

57 And that's all it takes now for a ~~perv horny guy~~ normal teenage boy to get to watch the local girls get nekkid?

A wig and a dress. (and a little teasing from the guys)

I'm in.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 05:43 PM (x3GpS)

58 So when is the lawsuit going to be filed on the mayors of "Sanctuary" cities going to be filed for not following the law?

Posted by: MrScience_ at September 03, 2015 05:43 PM (V1J2t)

59 I was referring to the muzzie flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol

Oh. Sorry Vic.

Posted by: rickb223 at September 03, 2015 05:43 PM (EdhH3)

60 And that includes this Muslim flight attendant who has been suspended for refusing to serve alcohol. I'd look for a way to accommodate her, and I wouldn't spring to the "fire the dissenter!" position.

islam is not a religion. It's a political ideology that demands the power of state. It enjoys no religious protections under the 1st amendment. Further, as islam is directly opposed to our "government of infidels" it is covered under the Constitution in the "aid and comfort to enemies" clause.

Lastly, marriage is a state concern - not a feral one. The feral judge might order the state to comply but I don't see where any feral court douchebag has the right to horn in on the state's power to jail any individual who is working for the state. The state is the entity to deal with this and if the feral judge wants to jail someone then he should probably be trying to hold the governor or other state officers in contempt.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 03, 2015 05:43 PM (zc3Db)

61 fruits of unnatural selection

Posted by: derit at September 03, 2015 05:43 PM (jT+gh)

62 "I can guarantee you that throwing people in jail willy-nilly is not convincing skeptics of the benevolence of the gay rights movement."

- Why are you surprised? since when was government another other than coercion? THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GOVERNMENT! :-(

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.

Posted by: DocMerlin at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (E59WX)

63 Posted by: Jenny Is Thoroughly Embarrassed at September 03, 2015 05:38 PM (GvNnD)

I suppose, but why?

We should all be paying a flat tax, and if you want to buy a house with your wife/ husband / sister-wives , put him/her/xe/they/xim on the deed and get them on the mortgage.

As for next of kin and stuff - I mean, I guess you can write up a contract if you so desire, but ... I don't know. Doesn't seem like a huge pressing thing.

Many states acknowledge common law marriages. Where "oh you own property together and have lived together for 10 years, and one person dies without a will? Well, obviously you're the next of kin..."

But we still all write wills, don't we?

I just don't see any real reason for states to be involved in the marriage game or pressing reason for the government to know who is sharing a bed with whom.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (AkOaV)

64 It's just the opposite. A civil union, defined as a contract between two people, should be the sole purview of the state.

A marriage should be an arbitrary and legally meaningless ceremony between 2 people in a church that thinks they're a legitimate couple in the eyes of God.

That's the thing, in my mind the state recognition of marriage is a nullity from a religious perspective. She neither approves of nor sanctions any marriage she signs the paperwork for. Her paperwork has no meaning at all and she does it for many marriages that have no religious sanction.

This is a "render unto Caesar" thing.

That being said, Article 6 of the Constitution says this:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or public trust under the United States. -- Article 6, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution

It seems to me that, given her beliefs, this constitutes a religious test of sorts.

At the very least, it seems there is a conflict here.

Posted by: AmishDude at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (JIElb)

65 just another sign of the GOP's unilateral surrender (even if this chick was a donk, she's a member of the hix from stix get dix group, the least $ contributing member of the dnc) that this gets punished but:
IRS scandal
FnFurious
everything else et al etc etc etc
for the donks gets zippo

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (9aeyG)

66 57
And that's all it takes now for a perv horny guy normal teenage boy to get to watch the local girls get nekkid?

A wig and a dress. (and a little teasing from the guys)

No, seeing a host of naked teenage girls is not worth it.

Posted by: Said no teenage boy, ever. at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (LAe3v)

67 re: Evolving

I'm confused. Once my views have 'evolved' to the Gay-Approved view, are my, and by extension, their views supposed to stop evolving.

Is that how evolution works? Get to a spot and then cover yourself in amber?

Posted by: BumperStickerist at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (0MJOU)

68 I can guarantee you that throwing people in jail willy-nilly is not convincing skeptics of the benevolence of the gay rights movement-ace

Thats what happens when 9 Justices usurp the power of the electorate. Both abortion and gay marriage was becoming accepted by states and state elections. But, the justices had to shove it down the throats of us. As long as these types of decisions are shoved down our throats there will always be more angst than had the electorate evolved.

Had the justices said it is a states decision within 10 years SSM would be legal. And the hub bub would have been minimal.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (Z58Xa)

69
The State will make you kneel or give the pound of flesh.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (ODxAs)

70 My girlfriend is a flight attendant for Alaska Airlines. They put them through some pretty serious training for emergencies. They are expected to take charge in an emergency, assist everyone in exiting the plane, and be the last off the plane themselves.

I wonder what FAA regs say? Probably something about passenger safety. Helping kids and the elderly would be my guess. And stuff like that there.

The fact they dispense alcohol is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 05:45 PM (LUgeY)

71 If you are a clerk at walmart and you are under 21 they bring in another clerk to handle the alcohol sale, the under 21 clerk cannot touch the alcohol at all.

How come Walmart can figure out how to accommodate such a thing and the government can't?

Posted by: Rory at September 03, 2015 05:45 PM (fsN5v)

72

Scalia's line was great:

n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.

That revolution is a brewin, methinks.

Posted by: imp at September 03, 2015 05:45 PM (XIXZz)

73 "So when is the lawsuit going to be filed on the mayors of "Sanctuary" cities going to be filed for not following the law?"

- No one would have standing to sue. In order to have standing sue you must be personally and directly harmed by their action.

Posted by: DocMerlin at September 03, 2015 05:45 PM (E59WX)

74 @149

Though the authors didn't know it at the time, the 14th amendment has become an enabling act that allows for rewriting and reimaging the entire constituon.

Allowing the courts to right any and all real or imagined inequities wherever they may exist.

It's quite amazing.

Posted by: Kreplach at September 03, 2015 05:45 PM (eDW1j)

75 In MA pharmacists that don't hold with birth control don't have to fill those scripts. Someone else steps in and does it. No big deal. Everybody gets what they want.

Posted by: plum at September 03, 2015 05:45 PM (vxuDM)

76 I think I read that they offered Davis a compromise: that the deputy clerks could issue the licenses and Davis would stay out of jail, as long as Davis agreed not to interfere with the deputy clerks when they issue these marriage licenses. Davis refused this compromise. So, she would not agree to issue the licenses and would not allow deputies to issue the licenses or agree not to interfere with them. Davis truly does have the key to her own jail cell.

Posted by: Patti at September 03, 2015 05:45 PM (LPFcl)

77 - No one would have standing to sue. In order to have standing sue you must be personally and directly harmed by their action.

The parents of the girl who was shot by an illegal alien are suing.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 05:46 PM (AJAk6)

78
At the very least, it seems there is a conflict here.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 03, 2015 05:44 PM (JIElb)

Christians are excluded from your conflict thoughts there AD. They are to be walked upon, spit on and crushed.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at September 03, 2015 05:46 PM (Z58Xa)

79 Lastly, marriage is a state concern - not a feral one. The feral judge might order the state to comply but I don't see where any feral court douchebag has the right to horn in on the state's power to jail any individual who is working for the state.

Nah. Once matrimonial butt piracy is enshrined as a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, alleged infringements on that right is a federal question.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 03, 2015 05:46 PM (8ZskC)

80 But people are quick to yell "We must follow All the Rules!!" without giving consideration to tweaks and work-arounds when they simply do not have sympathy for the person facing the hammer of coercion.

In a similar way, the Supreme Court has ruled several times in recent years that the Second Amendment is the goddamn Second Amendment and that it means what it says it means, and that various unconstitutional gun-banning attempts were indeed unconstitutional.

EVEN SO, progressives from coast to coast STILL uncork gun-banning attempts that are in blatant contradiction to existing Supreme Court rulings.

Do these leftist politicians go to jail for passing an obviously unconstitutional gun-banning local ordinance?

Of course not. We "accommodate" their "conscientious objection" to the Second Amendment, until the ordinance gets tossed out for being unconstitutional xx years from now, as it undoubtedly will happen.

And the cycle will begin again.

The point is that lefties get to disobey and violate Supreme Court rulings at will, with no legal punishments, whereas people like this Kentucky clerk woman are not given the same leeway.

Posted by: zombie at September 03, 2015 05:46 PM (jBuUi)

81 "Is that how evolution works? Get to a spot and then cover yourself in amber?"

Hahahahahaha

Posted by: Don't Ask, Don't Tell at September 03, 2015 05:46 PM (LzzEz)

82 Davis truly does have the key to her own jail cell.

Why is she in jail, again?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 05:47 PM (AJAk6)

83 The parents of the girl who was shot by an illegal alien are suing.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 05:46 PM (AJAk6)

I highly doubt they will make it very far.

They will have lack of standing to sue the city of san fran over their, uh, immigration enforcement policies.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:48 PM (AkOaV)

84 Yes. This. The storm clouds are gathering and the handwriting is on the wall. Prepare. Learn the Word. Memorize the Word. In jail, or in the camps, you may not have access to the Word. Let it be written on your heart, and when all is said and done? Stand. Stand on the Word.�Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 05:41 PM�

I just checked... The Bible says be fruitful and multiply. Which seems to be an endorsement of gheyness, ghey marriage, and ghey adoption.

Or an endorsement of a vegan lifestyle and accounting.

It's all so confusing.

Posted by: some moron at September 03, 2015 05:48 PM (sI4OA)

85 "I can guarantee you that throwing people in jail willy-nilly is not convincing skeptics of the benevolence of the gay rights movement."

If the frothing, flouncing gay mob could stop acting like complete assholes for five minutes maybe I could be convinced of their benevolence. But they won't, so they can fuck off.

Posted by: UGAdawg at September 03, 2015 05:48 PM (c+vBe)

86 And armed with the marriage license, guess where the next stop will be on the march through the Matrimonial Industry?

That's right, the Church. The little building down on the common with a tall steeple and a cross on top.

And they're going to ~~want~~ demand their marriage be held in a church because they're such religious zealots.

Oh, Mr. Minister, you say you cannot marry us because we are of the same sex? Well we'll see about that. See you in court.

And the charges and counter charges begin and the new laws and regulations of churches begin and the people who believe in the Words of The Bible are told those words are no longer operative in the land of the ~~Free~~ Slave, Home of the ~~Brave~~ Gutless.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 05:48 PM (x3GpS)

87 no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or public trust under the United States. -- Article 6, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution

It seems to me that, given her beliefs, this constitutes a religious test of sorts.

To me, the wording is clearly meant to prevent discrimination against a particular religious sect, based not on the content of their beliefs, but only on their membership in, a particular sect, namely Catholics and Jews. However, if your sect requires child sacrifice, you're probably not a candidate for the SVU.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 05:48 PM (LAe3v)

88 this woman's apparently-real religious objection

The left, though, doesn't take religion seriously and, therefore, cannot believe that anyone else takes religion seriously either. To them there is no "religious" objection, since that's all fake, it's just bigotry, and bigots should be thrown in jail.

Do gay marriage opponents not wish to give the rest of us the slightest amount of time to evolve on this?

I thought the same thing when the whole uproar over the Duck Dynasty guy's comments happened. I mean, considering it took Barack Obama - brilliant, worldly, liberal, Harvard-educated, and smartest man ever to occupy the Oval Office - until mid-2012 to finally become pro-gay-marriage, it seemed a bit harsh to be beating up on the rednecks for not coming around right away.

Posted by: Cave Johnson at September 03, 2015 05:48 PM (2jQGY)

89 Christians are excluded from your conflict thoughts there AD. They are to be walked upon, spit on and crushed.
**
I guess they'll never find the secret path to power as shown by the ghey mafia:
1. pay lots of $ per person to DNC
2. give buzzfeed a lot of free pro-Christ content to create appearance of groundswell of support and to harass dissenters.
3. get politicians elected through mass unassimilated, zero-information voters
4. not give a fuck about anything other than one pet issue.
5. see point #1, repeat.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at September 03, 2015 05:48 PM (9aeyG)

90 Muslim Flight Attendant?

On second thought, I think I'll take the train.

Posted by: Juan Williams at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (TzlU8)

91 It's all fun and games in the sky until Shit Gets Real.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/2014/09/08/amazing-flight-attendants/

link under name

Posted by: BumperStickerist at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (0MJOU)

92 I can guarantee you that throwing people in jail willy-nilly is not convincing skeptics of the benevolence of the gay rights movement."
-----------------
- Why are you surprised? since when was government another other than coercion? THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GOVERNMENT! :-(

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.

"Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together"

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (0NdlF)

93 71
If you are a clerk at walmart and you are under 21 they bring in another
clerk to handle the alcohol sale, the under 21 clerk cannot touch the
alcohol at all.

How come Walmart can figure out how to accommodate such a thing and the government can't?

Posted by: Rory at September 03, 2015 05:45 PM (fsN5v)

Depends on the State law. Some Walmarts I am familiar with have no problem selling beer and wine and having under 21 clerks ringing it up. They do not sell liquor in this State.

Posted by: Vic at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (t2KH5)

94 If the frothing, flouncing gay mob could stop acting like complete assholes for five minutes maybe I could be convinced of their benevolence. But they won't, so they can fuck off.
Posted by: UGAdawg at September 03, 2015 05:48 PM (c+vBe)

again, its not like this is 'all gay people' who feel this way.

It's a small group of ultra progressive activist gay lawyers, many from San Francisco who are pushing 100% of this.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (AkOaV)

95 This issue has not won in a statewide ballot ever. It was explicitly acted upon in California! of all places and Prop 8 passed..... but a court invalidated the will of the electorate. 5 judges on SCOTUS invented their own law out of the ether and attached it to the freaking 14th amendment.

KY explicitly states marriage is Woman+Man. So there is a discrepancy between KY Constitution and the new law the SCOTUS made up. You will be made to care. You will embrace all the things because the SCOTUS said so! Eleventy!

Posted by: Yip at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (e7T6D)

96 No, it isn't. This woman's job involves acting as an
agent of the state. The state has decided, wrongly in my opinion, that
two men are entitled to marry.

If she has a religious objection, she should get a job that does not conflict with her irrelevant religious values.

Posted by: pep

Was she elected before the order was decreed to issue gay marriage licenses? If so, then the job requirements changed quite a bit and into the realm of becoming a religious issue. If she was elected after the state said she had to declare gays married then she should have looked elsewhere for a job.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (2oWD2)

97 @53

When you say state, do you mean state or do you mean federal state?

Because Kentucky law says one thing and the SCOTUS decision says something different and I don't believe Kentuckey has rewritten its law since the SCOTUS ruling.

So I ask what is the LAW and which should she follow?

Posted by: Kreplach at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (eDW1j)

98 "This is what I've been contending should be done since last night -- but along the way I heard from a lot of people on the right who are pro-gay-marriage that this is either impossible or unworkable or will cause our system of government to devolve into chaos."

http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/LOTR_Two071DourifHill.jpg

It's an issue.

Posted by: Severely Conservative at September 03, 2015 05:50 PM (p6UPL)

99 I mean, considering it took Barack Obama - brilliant, worldly, liberal, Harvard-educated, and smartest man ever to occupy the Oval Office - until mid-2012 to finally become pro-gay-marriage, it seemed a bit harsh to be beating up on the rednecks for not coming around right away.

In-group gets a pass. Out-group must be burned at the stake.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at September 03, 2015 05:50 PM (0NdlF)

100 Thats what happens when 9 Justices usurp the power of the electorate. Both abortion and gay marriage was becoming accepted by states and state elections. But, the justices had to shove it down the throats of us. As long as these types of decisions are shoved down our throats there will always be more angst than had the electorate evolved.

Not to fuss too much, but gay marriage had been voted down by 30 states. That's why SCOTUS had to cram it down our throats.

We would not comply with the gaystapo's radical agenda.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 05:50 PM (LUgeY)

101 Depends on the State law. Some Walmarts I am familiar with have no problem selling beer and wine and having under 21 clerks ringing it up. They do not sell liquor in this State.
Posted by: Vic at September 03, 2015 05:49 PM (t2KH5)

In my old state, an 18 year old could serve or sell booze. In my current state, I think you have to be 21, since it seems to cause issues when I try to buy beer at walgreens and there is a youngish clerk working.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:50 PM (AkOaV)

102 We should all be paying a flat tax, and if you want to buy a house with your wife/ husband / sister-wives , put him/her/xe/they/xim on the deed and get them on the mortgage.

---

But we're not paying a flat tax and probate is fucking hell.

Plus we're creatures of tradition and convenience. We've had state-recognized marriage for kind of a long time. "No legal recognition of marriages/civil unions" might be the right answer in 2115, or 2075, but for now "civil unions for everyone who wants to legally tie their lives together" makes the most sense. To me anyway.

Posted by: Jenny is Often Wrong at September 03, 2015 05:50 PM (GvNnD)

103 How can you say we are not better in these enlightened times where a man's position as CEO and quite possibly his entire life can be ruined by the revelation that he opposes gay marriage?

Do you want us to go back to the intolerant days where a man's position as CEO and quite possibly his life could be ruined by the revelation that he was gay?

-Tim Cook's Id

Posted by: Glen at September 03, 2015 05:51 PM (1x4u/)

104 The point is that lefties get to disobey and violate
Supreme Court rulings at will, with no legal punishments, whereas
people like this Kentucky clerk woman are not given the same leeway.

Posted by: zombie

Then your problem is with unequal application of the laws. That isn't remotely the same thing.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 05:51 PM (LAe3v)

105 Nah. Once matrimonial butt piracy is enshrined as a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, alleged infringements on that right is a federal question.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 03, 2015 05:46 PM (8ZskC)

Then any discrepancies in state marriage laws would be "illegal" (for want of a better term). Then there is no such thing as state law for marriage, since it has to be the same for every state, lest one state not offer something another is offering and, thus, be infringing on some "rights" of the individuals.

If the feral judge has a problem with the state issue of marriage, then that judge must deal with the state in question, not beat up on some clerk.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 03, 2015 05:52 PM (zc3Db)

106 Ace, big ol' confusing typo:

"Do gay marriage opponents not wish to give the rest of us the slightest amount of time to evolve on this?"

gay marriage proponents, not gay marriage opponents

I'm seconding #47 Cashin, above.

Posted by: m at September 03, 2015 05:52 PM (ELEPX)

107 Plus we're creatures of tradition and convenience. We've had state-recognized marriage for kind of a long time. "No legal recognition of marriages/civil unions" might be the right answer in 2115, or 2075, but for now "civil unions for everyone who wants to legally tie their lives together" makes the most sense. To me anyway.
Posted by: Jenny is Often Wrong at September 03, 2015 05:50 PM (GvNnD)

I mean, I suppose.

But we have not had state sanctioned marriage for THAT long. I mean, in the early days of this country, marriages, births, deaths, etc. were all recorded by the church and/or the families themselves, not by the state.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:52 PM (AkOaV)

108 KY explicitly states marriage is Woman+Man. So there
is a discrepancy between KY Constitution and the new law the SCOTUS
made up. You will be made to care. You will embrace all the things
because the SCOTUS said so! Eleventy!

Posted by: Yip

Good point.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 05:52 PM (2oWD2)

109 "again, its not like this is 'all gay people' who feel this way. "

It's not them that can fuck off. It's the ones-a not insignificant minority, by the way-that seek and destroy anyone who objects to ANY part of their agenda that can fuck off.

Gays that don't destroy people-don't fuck off.
Hateful, vindictive gays-fuck off.

Posted by: UGAdawg at September 03, 2015 05:52 PM (c+vBe)

110 Then any discrepancies in state marriage laws would be "illegal" (for want of a better term). Then there is no such thing as state law for marriage, since it has to be the same for every state, lest one state not offer something another is offering and, thus, be infringing on some "rights" of the individuals.

If the feral judge has a problem with the state issue of marriage, then that judge must deal with the state in question, not beat up on some clerk.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 03, 2015 05:52 PM (zc3Db)

If that's true, then all state gun laws should have been invalided post-Heller.

Which they weren't.

So I don't know.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:53 PM (AkOaV)

111 In my old state, an 18 year old could serve or sell booze. In my current state, I think you have to be 21, since it seems to cause issues when I try to buy beer at walgreens and there is a youngish clerk working.

Under these circumstances, shoplifting could be considered as an option.

Posted by: Winona Ryder at September 03, 2015 05:53 PM (8ZskC)

112 Put up automated drink dispensers in the aisles and reduce the cabin crew to 2.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger

Hand them out at the gate in a sealed bag, and ask people to wait until they are seated to open it.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at September 03, 2015 05:54 PM (JmGFJ)

113 While I personally disagree with the concept and lifestyle of homosexuality, I was on board with removing the government from the bedroom right up and until gays insisted on co-opting the definition of marriage and doing the exact same thing to Christians (and Muslims for that matter) by forcing others to accommodate their lifestyle. They are no better than the prudes they originally fought against. The lesson learned? Never give your adversaries an inch. Never.

Posted by: dogfish at September 03, 2015 05:54 PM (jWtyG)

114 Cop in Massachusetts shot up and burned his own car!
Wth is going on?

Everybody is officially Insane.

Posted by: weirdflunkyonatablet at September 03, 2015 05:54 PM (34NjD)

115 Gays that don't destroy people-don't fuck off.
Hateful, vindictive gays-fuck off.
Posted by: UGAdawg at September 03, 2015 05:52 PM (c+vBe)

They're just using their sexual identity to push their political preferences. It's not even about being gay, it's about cultural Marxism (or whatever the kids call it these days.)

There was a legit argument to be made for allowing gays to form civil unions and/or civil marriages under existing tax law.

But that's where it ended.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:54 PM (AkOaV)

116 Was she elected before the order was decreed to issue gay
marriage licenses? If so, then the job requirements changed quite a bit
and into the realm of becoming a religious issue.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that when she applied for the job, she was not told that her job was to abide by the state laws as they then were, with no possibility of change.

Her job is to do what the state tells her to do, based on current law. If she doesn't like it, she can resign.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 05:55 PM (LAe3v)

117 Did someone say KY?

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at September 03, 2015 05:55 PM (2jQGY)

118 It's my belief that we should always try to avoid the hammer of coercion, and not just swing away "Because it's the rules!" (you wouldn't say that about someone you had sympathy for) without thought.

And that extends to people we don't necessarily have sympathy for.

And that includes this Muslim flight attendant who has been suspended for refusing to serve alcohol. I'd look for a way to accommodate her, and I wouldn't spring to the "fire the dissenter!" position.

In general I agree that we should find ways to accommodate people and not use coercion to force people against their will or conscience. That's a basic American concept.

But I'd be on the "fire them" side if someone whose job it was to serve alcohol refused to do so. There's no reason to even have taken the job in the first place. If you refuse to do a basic task of your job you knew very well about when you took it, you forfeit your job.

But having people change the rules halfway through? Without recourse? That's another category.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 03, 2015 05:56 PM (39g3+)

119 Remember when AGs across the country - including in Kentucky - refused to defend the marriage laws of their states?

So, here's an example of a state officer refusing to do the state job. And the left cheered them on. No judge threw them in jail. Accommodation was made or judges found it grounds to dismiss cases (or standing).

Completely and utterly corrupt.

Posted by: gwelf at September 03, 2015 05:56 PM (+7Usq)

120 There will be no compromise. No peace. What should be done? The total eradication of degenerate sodomites.

Posted by: Achilles at September 03, 2015 05:56 PM (85/zS)

121 Hey, you got your KY on my penal code!

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 05:56 PM (2oWD2)

122 Aside from the lack of technology, I feel like the Amish (and Hasidics to a lesser extent) might have the right idea
in having a culture/community that is simply as detached. Maybe withdrawing is the right move
right now. How is the gay marriage ruling affecting the Amish? Not one whit. What if the state threatens their non-profit status if their churches don't do gay marriage (which by the way is the next frontier)? I don't think their churches are 501(c)(3)s so once again, not at all. What will an Amish county clerk do in this position? They don't work for the government so irrelevant. What if a tranny wants to change with the girls? Amish educate their own so it wouldn't happen. Etc. Etc.

Posted by: Naes at September 03, 2015 05:56 PM (Ypc8j)

123 Was she elected before the order was decreed to issue gay marriage licenses?

If elected afterward, the will of the voters trumps the useless scotus.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 05:57 PM (ZbV+0)

124 "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force."

Oh, but computers will change that.

Posted by: A Lefty Who Has Never Read Orwell at September 03, 2015 05:57 PM (2lndx)

125 It was only a matter of time... SJWs have spread to RPG-land:

http://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2015/09/offensive-content-policy.html

Posted by: R. Shackleford at September 03, 2015 05:57 PM (y7Ml3)

126 Then any discrepancies in state marriage laws would be "illegal" (for want of a better term).

Not sure what you have in mind, but a state can have any marriage law it wants as long as it doesn't infringe upon rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I'll admit that the range of possibilities gets more and more narrow since judges are discovering new right all the time.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 03, 2015 05:58 PM (8ZskC)

127 Her job is to do what the state tells her to do, based on current law. If she doesn't like it, she can resign.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 05:55 PM (LAe3v)

================
Uff da

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 05:58 PM (dFi94)

128 Her job is to do what the state tells her to do, based on current law. If she doesn't like it, she can resign.

Posted by: pep

But is the state of KY telling her to do something that is not the state of KY law?

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 05:58 PM (2oWD2)

129 "The fact they dispense alcohol is just icing on the cake."

I don't understand the numbers, but alcohol/food apparently does make serious change for the airline. That said, it pretty much is on the bottom of their priority list as soon as anything untoward happens. Someone's having a heart attack or something like that, you are not going to get your drink until they've finished talking with MedLink.

Other airlines may differ, of course, (but I hope not).

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at September 03, 2015 06:00 PM (2lndx)

130 Clean up on Aisle 120.

Posted by: Consuela at September 03, 2015 06:00 PM (KrAjA)

131 But is the state of KY telling her to do something that is not the state of KY law?

Posted by: Dang

That is a very different argument as well. Now you're discussing which governmental body has primacy, and as Cicero above noted, if the feds hold that a state law violates the Constitution, as they did here (again, incorrectly IMO), then guess who wins.

Gay marriage is small potatoes compared to the larger issue of who decides.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:00 PM (LAe3v)

132 125 R. Shackleford,

Yup, personal fave is all the Glee gangers slagging on Fallout 4 for "hetero-cis-normative restrictions on backstory"....

I warned years ago the SJW/Glee Gangers are demanding we make society change for 2-4% of us.

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:00 PM (BXOyX)

133 Way, way O/T.

The 2015/16 College football season started 4 minutes ago.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 06:01 PM (LUgeY)

134 Oops. Off, domestic staff sock!

Although, in context, that one kind of works.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at September 03, 2015 06:02 PM (KrAjA)

135 Dude. WTF is with the internet tough man comments today?

Posted by: Jenny is Often Wrong at September 03, 2015 06:02 PM (GvNnD)

136 Personally I think each government employee should have a personal veto over any law they aren't in love with - just decline to execute it. It would train people not to expect anything from government. Otherwise, yeah, once SCOTUS has ruled on a law, executive employees are well-advised to take that very seriously.

Posted by: major major major major at September 03, 2015 06:02 PM (241Iy)

137 The 2015/16 College football season started 4 minutes ago.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 06:01 PM (LUgeY)

========================

Second best news I've heard all day. Who's playing?

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:02 PM (dFi94)

138 The 2015/16 College football season started 4 minutes ago.

w o w .

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:03 PM (2oWD2)

139 Not sure what you have in mind, but a state can have any marriage law it wants as long as it doesn't infringe upon rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I'll admit that the range of possibilities gets more and more narrow since judges are discovering new right all the time.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 03, 2015 05:58 PM (8ZskC)

If a couple can be married in state A but not in state B, then that couple can argue that their "right" to marry (which the SCOTASS has declared to be fundamental and of utmost importance, superseding pretty much anything) is being infringed by state A. This couple would have a much better argument than the gaystapo ever had since they could have gone to state B, gotten married, and state A would have recognized their marriage. But now, they don't have to go through those hassles since the SCOTASS declared that their "right to marry" is fundamental and since state B allows it it would clearly be nothing less than an infringement for state A to disallow it.

i.e. there is no more state marriage law since there can be no differences allowed in state marriage "law", and the feral government decides what infringes on the "right to marry" and what doesn't ... not to mention the feral government holding the power to pervert the word "marry" at a moment's notice just for shits and giggles.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 03, 2015 06:03 PM (zc3Db)

140 Don't worry, soon we'll see all the lefty mayors thrown into jail for nullifying federal immigration laws.

And lots of people in Colorado to for nullifying federal laws regarding dope.

Oh, that's right. Lefties get to nullify federal laws all they want.

Posted by: gwelf at September 03, 2015 06:03 PM (+7Usq)

141 We must follow lawful and constitutional laws.

Does the issuance of gay marriage licenses decreed by the Supreme Court rise to that level?

Posted by: SH at September 03, 2015 06:03 PM (gmeXX)

142 "It's my understanding that before she was jailed, Davis did not allow
the others (who she has seniority over) to issue the license. If that's
the case, she should resign."

It is my understanding that would not allow anyone else to issue licenses that had her name on the letterhead. Not that she would not allow anyone else to issue at all.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Proud owner of Luap Nor's Last Brain Cell at September 03, 2015 06:03 PM (QLqUE)

143 Is Willow still banned?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at September 03, 2015 06:03 PM (4ErVI)

144 Her job is to do what the state tells her to do, based on current law. If she doesn't like it, she can resign.

Posted by: pep

But is the state of KY telling her to do something that is not the state of KY law?

No. Feds.

Posted by: rickb223 at September 03, 2015 06:03 PM (EdhH3)

145 "To me, the wording is clearly meant to prevent discrimination against a particular religious sect, based not on the content of their beliefs, but only on their membership in, a particular sect, namely Catholics and Jews."

Didn't the Romans have a religious test that involved forcing suspected Christians to participate in some state rite? They didn't particularly that they were Christians, just that they didn't worship the state.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at September 03, 2015 06:04 PM (2lndx)

146 We must follow lawful and constitutional laws.

=======================

I respectfully disagree.

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:04 PM (dFi94)

147 136 Personally I think each government employee should have a personal veto over any law they aren't in love with - just decline to execute it.

----

So, the cop who uses his personal veto on assault, or rape?

Posted by: Jenny is Often Wrong at September 03, 2015 06:04 PM (GvNnD)

148 Err .. I mixed up the "A" and "B" in my above comment. You know what I meant.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 03, 2015 06:04 PM (zc3Db)

149 >>>benevolence of the gay rights movement.

Pretty sure this corroborates my belief that the movement had nothing to do with 'equal rights' and everything to do with squashing dissent and forcing the legitimacy of their sexual relationship down everyone's throat.

No one may be permitted to dissent. In any way.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:04 PM (0q2P7)

150 The 2015/16 College football season started 4 minutes ago.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 06:01 PM (LUgeY)

Michigan v. Utah in 53 minutes.

I might watch it since it's a conference game (Nebraska fan).

I'll laugh my ass off if Michigan blows it like they have in the preseason stuff for the last few years.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at September 03, 2015 06:05 PM (4ErVI)

151 ...didn't particularly *care* that they were Christians...

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at September 03, 2015 06:05 PM (2lndx)

152 North Carolina vs South Carolina.

ESPN. IIRC, there are three games tonight.

Naturally, the real season begins on Saturday night when my Beloved Crimson Tide plays Wisconsin.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 06:06 PM (LUgeY)

153 re the muzzie stew with the urge to sue --

Even if you're a fan of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and its requirement of 'reasonable accommodations', there's that whole 'reasonable' thingie. This has the effect of turning every small businessperson into a lawyer. (It also has the effect of employing a vast horde of lawyers). Most flights have just two or three stews aboard.

What about their right to not have to work twice or three times as hard for the same pay? The real problem is the jackwagons in office continue to believe they can legislate a perfect world.

Posted by: GnuBreed at September 03, 2015 06:06 PM (gyKtp)

154

Once again, for those who missed the earlier thread:

She is not in jail for her beliefs, she is in jail because she refused to comply with a federal court injunction order. The court has jurisdiction and the power to order her to do anything it wants, subject only to appeal and a motion to stay the injunction. She did neither.

Even if the underlying basis of the injunction was dead-assed wrong, like it said she had to run the Nazi flag in front of her office, she would have to obey the order or seek to have it overturned. The Supreme Court denied a stay, and she refused to resign or comply. So it's jail.

A federal judge is not to be defied. Right or wrong.

Posted by: imp at September 03, 2015 06:06 PM (XIXZz)

155 Her job is to do what the state tells her to do, based on current law. If she doesn't like it, she can resign.

Not in the Age of Obama.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at September 03, 2015 06:06 PM (0NdlF)

156 KY explicitly states marriage is Woman+Man. So there is a discrepancy between KY Constitution and the new law the SCOTUS made up.

------

Exactly, and I'm guessing she took an oath to uphold both the KY and US Constitution. Nothing in either of those tells her she must give out a marriage license to two people of the same sex.

I really wish she was making that argument, but I understand this one plays better to the public. But that is only because we have accepted judicial supremacy as law of the land.

Posted by: SH at September 03, 2015 06:06 PM (gmeXX)

157 Why didn't this happen in Colorado with pot? Or in sanctuary cities?

That's what I have a fucking problem with. It's all bullshit. It's run amok.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:06 PM (2oWD2)

158 Naturally, the real season begins on Saturday night when my Beloved Crimson Tide plays Wisconsin.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 06:06 PM (LUgeY)

======================

Which Wisconsin will most assuredly win.

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:07 PM (dFi94)

159 Intercepted in the end zone!

Posted by: weirdflunkyonatablet at September 03, 2015 06:07 PM (34NjD)

160 Remember the laws about how you had to turn over black people that wanted to flee their masters to their owners?

I believe the Supreme Court gave us that one, too.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 06:07 PM (AJAk6)

161 Even if the underlying basis of the injunction was dead-assed wrong, like it said she had to run the Nazi flag in front of her office, she would have to obey the order or seek to have it overturned.

They're really more like suggestions.

Posted by: The Prezzy at September 03, 2015 06:08 PM (0NdlF)

162 @128 Bingo. KY-Law... heh heh.... The laws of SF ! But seriously folks! So Kentucky Constitution is out of compliance with the brand new FEDERAL edit from on high from the wise-five! All hail the wise-five!

So Kentucky says all county clerks MUST issue licenses. I will assume that goes back to Jim Crow days or before to ensure black folk could get married state-wide. My assumption.

Noting in Constitution of US says jack squat about marriage. Kentucky Constitution does. Clerk tried to abstain from issuing any marriage licenses in violation of Kentucky law, right? But in issuing licenses, she would be in violation of Kentucky Constitution, which she gave oath to uphold. Sooooo... here we are.

Posted by: Yip at September 03, 2015 06:08 PM (e7T6D)

163 Which Wisconsin will most assuredly win.

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:07 PM (dFi94)

*coughs*

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at September 03, 2015 06:08 PM (4ErVI)

164 So gay marriage has gone from something that was illegal to something you can now be thrown into prison for opposing.

Gay marriage was never actually illegal. I've never heard of gays being tossed into prison for having a gay wedding ceremony, only that until very recently government wouldn't recognize it as a state sanctioned marriage.

Posted by: mugiwara at September 03, 2015 06:08 PM (UFZRg)

165 And no elbows. WTF?

It's like I don't know this place anymore...

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 06:08 PM (LUgeY)

166 A federal judge is not to be defied.

No.

God trumps the government. It is merely a construction of men. We must not obey its wicked demands.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:09 PM (ZbV+0)

167 A federal judge is not to be defied. Right or wrong.

Posted by: imp

If only there were some remedy. A way to challenge a wayward judge. Not sure what we would call that. Maybe... impeachment?

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:09 PM (2oWD2)

168 The Supreme Court denied a stay, and she refused to resign or comply. So it's jail.

A federal judge is not to be defied. Right or wrong.

-----

That may be fine - so be it. That is what civil disobediance is.

Posted by: SH at September 03, 2015 06:09 PM (gmeXX)

169 149 Pretty sure this corroborates my belief that the movement had nothing to
do with 'equal rights' and everything to do with squashing dissent and
forcing the legitimacy of their sexual relationship down everyone's
throat"

Why do you think the "movement" has been targeting the Boy Scouts for so long? They want a lot of unsupervised time with children to eventually normalize pedophilia. The historical pattern is so clear. Tolerance of homosexuality is followed by the sort of gender blurring we're seeing now and followed eventually by pedophilia.

Posted by: Naes at September 03, 2015 06:10 PM (Ypc8j)

170 >>>Personally I think each government employee should have a personal veto over any law they aren't in love with - just decline to execute it.

Slippery slope much? Because a religious exception based on thousands of years of religious history throughout the world is just too unreasonable to accomodate.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:10 PM (0q2P7)

171 154 Imp,

The court gets its laws from Congress...well unless Kennedy wants to get married...

CO ignores Federal law as does Cali and "crickets"...

Fuck the Feds, and "Judges" most particularly...

There is NO equal justice under law...progs get to play "do whatever the fuck we want"

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:10 PM (BXOyX)

172 160
Remember the laws about how you had to turn over black people that wanted to flee their masters to their owners?

I believe the Supreme Court gave us that one, too.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk

Yes, and the people who defied it went to jail most of the time. They didn't say "I don't like this law, so I won't obey it, and I expect to pay no consequences for my actions".

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:11 PM (LAe3v)

173 willow got banned?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 06:11 PM (x3GpS)

174 That is what civil disobediance is. -SH

Exactly.

Posted by: Moderate Salami, weeping for our dead Republic at September 03, 2015 06:11 PM (/Ho8c)

175 Nothing like a little irony. Just saw Josh Earnest on the tube saying that everyone must follow the law.

No shame at all.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 03, 2015 06:12 PM (OGm46)

176 Yes, and the people who defied it went to jail most
of the time. They didn't say "I don't like this law, so I won't obey it,
and I expect to pay no consequences for my actions".

Posted by: pep

Until the shooting started, and then "runaways" weren't returned.

Posted by: Moderate Salami, weeping for our dead Republic at September 03, 2015 06:12 PM (/Ho8c)

177 Unless her oath said "to uphold the laws that I agree with," and everyone thought that was fine, then she should be fired... except she's elected and can't be.

The Law is the Law.

Follow it or pay. Nobody told her to work for Big Brother. You take the king's shilling; you do the king's bidding.

Posted by: RobM1981 at September 03, 2015 06:12 PM (zurJC)

178 161 Prezzy,

Correct...ONLY Urkle X gets to "follow his conscience"

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:12 PM (BXOyX)

179 Yes, and the people who defied it went to jail most
of the time. They didn't say "I don't like this law, so I won't obey it,
and I expect to pay no consequences for my actions".

Posted by: pep

You sound like you're good with that.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:13 PM (2oWD2)

180 What should be done? The total eradication of degenerate sodomites.

So, gas chambers?

How am I misreading this?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at September 03, 2015 06:13 PM (1xUj/)

181

We have 4 boxes of liberty in this country: soapbox, ballot box, jury box, and cartridge box.

You can decide which one you will be resorting to in any given situation, but posturing on the intertubes is just the soapbox.

Posted by: imp at September 03, 2015 06:13 PM (XIXZz)

182 willow got banned?

That's what I heard, but I can't imagine it was deliberate.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:13 PM (ZbV+0)

183 God trumps the government. It is merely a construction of men. We must not obey its wicked demands.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow)

This will come across as name-calling, but I'm asking a legitimate question. How does your position differ from that of ISIS?

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:13 PM (LAe3v)

184 177 RobM1931,

Like Sanctuary City Mayors right Rob?

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:13 PM (BXOyX)

185 >>>Even if the underlying basis of the injunction was dead-assed wrong

Then that's why the system is dead assed wrong. And unjust to the point of being criminally so.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:14 PM (0q2P7)

186 I mentioned this yesterday, in that if I have to choose who's rights have the winning hand in freedom poker, I would always err towards the citizen. If everyone's rights can't be protected, then the State should lose. If that means an elected clerk, it is what it is.

The example I use is New Jersey pistol permits. They have rules to follow in the issuance of those, which they constantly break, because they can. If you don't want to issue the permit, then you can go ahead and quit rather than dragging your feet and impeding my rights.

If you don't think gay marriage is a "right", that's great and all; good luck with your windmills.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 03, 2015 06:14 PM (QFjNO)

187 A federal judge is not to be defied. Right or wrong.

Sure they are. progtards do it all the time and get away with it. One of the bigwigs involved with immigration did it here recently.

He isn't in jail.

You go ahead and obey. progtardia is counting on that expedience.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Proud owner of Luap Nor's Last Brain Cell at September 03, 2015 06:14 PM (QLqUE)

188 The Law is the Law.

"The Law" is shit and should be treated similarly.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:15 PM (ZbV+0)

189 183
This will come across as name-calling, but I'm asking a legitimate question.

Just because you preface it doesn't make it a legitimate question.

Posted by: Naes at September 03, 2015 06:15 PM (Ypc8j)

190 #unbanwillow

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 06:15 PM (x3GpS)

191 Not to say that the gay mafia hasn't exposed their hand, because they absolutely have.

Didn't the couple that pushed this try to walk it back, not because it was the right thing to do, but because the clerk was becoming a sympathetic foil?

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 03, 2015 06:15 PM (QFjNO)

192 It's my belief that we should always try to avoid the hammer of coercion, and not just swing away

You really don't get the leftist mentality, do you?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at September 03, 2015 06:16 PM (oKE6c)

193

There is NO equal justice under law...progs get to play "do whatever the fuck we want"

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit

Yes, and your point? We choose to comply or defy. Choose. And tell no one.

Posted by: imp at September 03, 2015 06:16 PM (XIXZz)

194 Did Willow really get banned? I thought that was a meme like Buzzion being dead. Maybe she's down at the last thread talking to herself? She's too a nice a person to have gotten herself banned

Posted by: L, Elle at September 03, 2015 06:16 PM (b/6cr)

195 A federal judge is not to be defied. Right or wrong.

Pfffffffft!

Posted by: Andrew Jackson at September 03, 2015 06:16 PM (AJAk6)

196 189
183

This will come across as name-calling, but I'm asking a legitimate question.

Just because you preface it doesn't make it a legitimate question.

Posted by: Naes

So, no answer then.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:16 PM (LAe3v)

197 willow got banned?

That's what I heard, but I can't imagine it was deliberate.

Not deliberate but she kept posting to an old thread until it rolled off the list because nobody remembered to go get her.

Posted by: dogfish at September 03, 2015 06:16 PM (jWtyG)

198 #bringbackourwillow

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 06:16 PM (x3GpS)

199 The Law is the Law.

Follow it or pay. Nobody told her to work for Big Brother. You take the king's shilling; you do the king's bidding.

Posted by: RobM1981 at September 03, 2015 06:12 PM (zurJC)

Exactly what "law" is she disobeying? She's opposing a feral court order, not a law. The court should have ordered the state to take of this, not beat up on a clerk for fun.

So, what you mean is "The Courts make the Law". The wise, empathetic latina would agree with you. She happily noted that it's in the courts where policy is made ... and that still didn't keep her off the bench.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 03, 2015 06:17 PM (zc3Db)

200

How does your position differ from that of ISIS?

Posted by: pep

ISIS is writing its own laws.

Posted by: imp at September 03, 2015 06:17 PM (XIXZz)

201 >>>How does your position differ from that of ISIS?

Endowed by their creator with certain Unalienable Rights. Just like ISIS thinks.

She wasn't trying to hang them, or stone them to death, or behead them. She was refusing to participate in what she considered was immoral. We believe that people do have rights. Sure that "couple" has a legal right to a license as granted by the State. That clerk has a moral right to say go get it from someone else.

Only in a backwards mentality would you confuse refusing to act, with something along the lines of ISIS who retribuitively acts in a violent manner.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:17 PM (0q2P7)

202 193 Imp,

The left counts on our reflexive cleavitng to the system they attack us with...

If Ogabe gets to allow his conscience to trump law we all do.

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:17 PM (BXOyX)

203 "The Law is the Law.Follow it or pay. Nobody told her to work for Big Brother. You take the king's shilling; you do the king's bidding."

No it's not the law it's an unlawful edict passed down from 9 robed tyrants who had no right to 'create' a law based on NOTHING but their own desires.

The ruling is just garbage from Kennedy and the other communists on the bench.

Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at September 03, 2015 06:18 PM (gMhCJ)

204 >>Not deliberate but she kept posting to an old thread until it rolled off the list because nobody remembered to go get her.

Never go full willow.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 03, 2015 06:18 PM (OGm46)

205 [QUOTE]And that includes this Muslim flight attendant who has been suspended for refusing to serve alcohol. I'd look for a way to accommodate her, and I wouldn't spring to the "fire the dissenter!" position.[/quote]

Gotta disagree. Every job comes with a set of duties that is either assumed or explained in detail at the time of hiring. If I have a moral objection to one of those duties, it's incumbent on me to tell the potential employer... and he should be free to not hire that person.

With regards to the Kentucky clerk, as an elected official, it's probable she swore an oath to uphold laws. Like it or not, gay marriage is now the law. Because they can't fire her short of impeachment, there are few options. She's not doing her job and upholding the law, and she's depriving others of their rights in the process. Contempt of court and jail are most appropriate.

Posted by: douger at September 03, 2015 06:18 PM (eM6QK)

206
"It's my belief that we should always try to avoid the hammer of coercion, and not just swing away"

But we have the hammer now.

Posted by: The Gaystapo at September 03, 2015 06:18 PM (OD2ni)

207 Yeah, that's right. Someone protecting their religious beliefs as guaranteed by the constitution is exactly the same as ISIS.

Nice strawman you've got there.

I've got a match and some gas.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 06:18 PM (x3GpS)

208 >>>> thread until it rolled off the list because nobody remembered to go get her.

I want her to come back and feel bad about anyone getting accidentally banned, but it's a little funny that willow got banned by willowing herself again

Posted by: L, Elle at September 03, 2015 06:19 PM (b/6cr)

209 This will come across as name-calling, but I'm asking a legitimate question. How does your position differ from that of ISIS?
Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:13 PM (LAe3v)

How is the position any different from Harriet Tubman's, you mean.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 06:19 PM (AJAk6)

210 Well if gman is just lurking but not commenting let met set you straight on something buddy, since I just read your comment 2 threads below. I am neither desperate, nor far left. Ask anyone here who knows me, how long I have been a member in good standing with the horde. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of this woman because she said flat out she can't go against God's word. Yet, she's been married four times. She said this isn't a gay issue, I just cannot go against God's word. Sorry, but she's a hypocrite.

Quite frankly I know the reason I stopped coming by here as often as I used to. The gay bashing and horrible things said are just more than I can stomach sometimes. Yes.. there are many who are assholes and paint a very bad picture of the gay community. But for every one of them, there are 10 who vehemently disagree with their tactics.

Posted by: jewells45 at September 03, 2015 06:19 PM (/IQip)

211 #letwillowgo

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 06:19 PM (x3GpS)

212 #willowslifematters

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 06:20 PM (x3GpS)

213 >>>Follow it or pay. Nobody told her to work for Big Brother. You take the king's shilling; you do the king's bidding.

So the defense at Nuremberg of following orders was valid?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:20 PM (0q2P7)

214 This will come across as name-calling, but I'm asking a legitimate question. How does your position differ from that of ISIS?

It doesn't. They're right, if you ignore the fairly significant fact that they worship at best an idol. You notice they have a lot more success "taking back their country" than any of us pleading to courts or politicians for justice do, yes?

People are motivated by what they believe. Governments come and go. Eternity is, well, forever.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:20 PM (ZbV+0)

215 Moral objection to the law is a fundamental part of the American experience.

It's called the Declaration of Independence. Some guy named Thomas Jefferson or something said that you know, laws of Nature and Nature's God sometimes takes precedence over those of men.

And the guys who signed the Declaration did so knowing that they were facing consequences.

It happens.

Posted by: blaster at September 03, 2015 06:20 PM (2Ocf1)

216 Yes, and the people who defied it went to jail most
of the time. They didn't say "I don't like this law, so I won't obey it,
and I expect to pay no consequences for my actions".

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:11 PM (LAe3v)

====================

Many Christians have paid heavy prices through the centuries for following God's laws above man's. The call to Christ is by necessity a call to prepare to die for Him. Or go to jail. Or lose your job. Or be shunned in the college classroom. Or to be ridiculed in the public square. It's just that for a few generations, America has largely been benevolently tolerant of Christianity in general, and has seen "church goers" as normal members of society and public discourse. We've grown comfortably affable.
The tide has turned. American Christians are having to adjust to the turning. For some, it's a little disconcerting. We don't have our sea legs yet, as it were. Those of us raised in 1960 American Churchdom are now being asked, "Are you in this for real? Or what?"

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:20 PM (dFi94)

217 Funny, the people selling baby body parts are still walking around free. Selling baby body parts is illegal. They have video of them confessing their crimes and still they walk free.

But a Christian woman is thrown in jail at the drop of a hat.

Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at September 03, 2015 06:21 PM (gMhCJ)

218 I linked this on an earlier thread. Karl Denninger asks why we need a government-issued license to get married in the first place. A license is official permission to do something that would be illegal for you to do otherwise.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230624

Posted by: rickl at September 03, 2015 06:21 PM (sdi6R)

219 She wasn't trying to hang them, or stone them to death, or behead them.
She was refusing to participate in what she considered was immoral. We
believe that people do have rights. Sure that "couple" has a legal right
to a license as granted by the State. That clerk has a moral right to
say go get it from someone else.

Not if her job involves doing the bidding of the state. Take it or leave it.

Only in a backwards mentality would you confuse refusing to act,
with something along the lines of ISIS who retribuitively acts in a
violent manner.]

The specifics are irrelevant. The question is who decides? If everyone decides which laws they will obey, then we have no laws, and we have anarchy. We've tried that. It doesn't end well.

If you want to claim the mantle of someone willing to stand for your beliefs, then accept the consequences. And don't tell me you won't accept the rules laid out by the people I elected and for which I pay.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:22 PM (LAe3v)

220 Posted by: jewells45 at September 03, 2015 06:19 PM (/IQip)

Nice case of being judgmental without all the facts.

She had those marriages before she became a Christian.

She had an epiphany and saw that she needed to change her life and that Christianity would help.

So thanks for your quick judgment without all the facts.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 06:22 PM (x3GpS)

221 >>>Like it or not, gay marriage is now the law. Because they can't fire her short of impeachment, there are few options. She's not doing her job and upholding the law, and she's depriving others of their rights in the process. Contempt of court and jail are most appropriate.

This just in. The Nuremberg defense ***was*** valid. You can say you are just following orders.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:22 PM (0q2P7)

222 Yip:

It's won plenty of Statewide ballots. Including my state. We legalized gay marriage and recreational weed on the same day.

She's in jail because she's in contempt of court. She's an idiot. She took an oath to uphold the law and she's in violation of it.

The reason the left doesn't give a shit about her religious beliefs is because we are even handed. If we have to accept her beliefs we have to accept everyone's. It's much easier to just say we don't accept any than to accept one or two and ignore the other fifty thousand.

When the muslims come knocking, at least we'll be consistent when we tell them to stick their beliefs in their pipes and smoke them. You'll be a hypocrite.

Posted by: seattle slough at September 03, 2015 06:22 PM (mCz8+)

223 210 Jewell45,

Yeah damn tragedy that all of them but Gay Patriot have cauterized vocal chords and broken fingers...

At least they get their cake I guess or fuckers go to jail.

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:22 PM (BXOyX)

224 Exactly what "law" is she disobeying? She's
opposing a feral court order, not a law. The court should have ordered
the state to take of this, not beat up on a clerk for fun.

So, what you mean is "The Courts make the Law". The wise,
empathetic latina would agree with you. She happily noted that it's in
the courts where policy is made ... and that still didn't keep her off
the bench.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair

FUCKIN' A! Well said. Laws are to be made in a certain way. I watched Schoolhouse Rock. We need to impeach these fucking legislating judges. Like when Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited international law when deciding cases?!? That is utter bullshit! Impeach her wretched ass.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:23 PM (2oWD2)

225 Like it or not, gay marriage is now the law.

Posted by: douger at September 03, 2015 06:18 PM (eM6QK)

Not really. Legislatures create laws, not courts. Until the legislatures craft and pass the appropriate laws then no such "laws" exist, regardless of what any court says.

What we have is courts taking control of the operations of states, on their whims.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 03, 2015 06:23 PM (zc3Db)

226 The Law is the Law.

But where is this law? I know some states have gay marriage as The Law, but many, including KY I think, do not. All I see is the Supreme Court imposing it upon the nation, but I don't see any Law.

Posted by: mugiwara at September 03, 2015 06:23 PM (UFZRg)

227 How is the position any different from Harriet Tubman's, you mean.

Harriet Tubman knew the consequences of her actions, and accepted them as a risk she was willing to take.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:23 PM (LAe3v)

228 Posted by: Misfortune Pestilence at September 03, 2015 06:21 PM (gMhCJ)

Unfortunately due to technicalities in the legislation, they are allowed to extract a fee for providing those "free" fetal organs. So they have not violated the law just violated just about everyone's sense of morality.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at September 03, 2015 06:23 PM (x3GpS)

229 >>>> 211 #letwillowgo

----

#twoweeks

Posted by: L, Elle at September 03, 2015 06:23 PM (b/6cr)

230
A freedom-championing person should make coercion the last resort, not the goddamned first. *

Actually Wicket, coercion is the whole fucking point.

NONE of these leftist cockholsters give TWO SHITS about gay marriage. It's all about creating a cudgel to bludgeon anyone who is not 100% behind the leftist agenda, and organized religion in particular.

Vilifying people, imposing fines, shutting down their businesses, throwing people in jail.....THIS is the point. The American Left simply ENJOYS CAUSING PAIN AND DESTROYING PEOPLE'S LIVES.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at September 03, 2015 06:24 PM (o98Jz)

231 How does your position differ from that of ISIS?

Posted by: pep

Our form of government derives its power from the will of the people. This gay marriage ruling is a slap in the face to all those millions of Americans who voted against it in their state referendums.

Additionally, Christianity introduced the concept of absolute truths which we based our country and our laws upon. ISIS is based on the death cult of islam where people are killed because quran. Big difference.

Death vs life. I kinda like life myself.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 06:24 PM (LUgeY)

232 Bitter Clinger.. duly noted. The article I read did not mention that.

SB.. yeah, I'm sure the MSM will be all over that shit. Doesn't fit their agenda. Many HAVE spoken. No one wants to listen.

Posted by: jewells45 at September 03, 2015 06:25 PM (/IQip)

233 222 When the muslims come knocking, at least we'll be consistent when we
tell them to stick their beliefs in their pipes and smoke them. You'll
be a hypocrite.

No you won't. You'll allow no go zones like they do in Europe. You'll let them molest children like in Rotherham. You'll stop selling pork in public. You'll beg for fucking mercy. And there will be none.

Posted by: Naes at September 03, 2015 06:26 PM (Ypc8j)

234 222 Seattle Slough,

Well except sanctuary cities, pot meccas and the like buckin federal law then it's totes cool to the leftoids...

And the next time the left tells Jihadi Jim to get bent will be the 1st.

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:26 PM (BXOyX)

235
How does your position differ from that of ISIS?

Posted by: pep

ISIS is writing its own laws.

Posted by: imp

Yes, that's at the heart of it. I think your question is legitimate, pep, and the answer is that ISIS is the government. The dudes getting tossed off the buildings are more like the KY clerk.

Posted by: Moderate Salami, weeping for our dead Republic at September 03, 2015 06:26 PM (/Ho8c)

236
It's amusing (again, as always any more, in a dark way) that the Rule of Law process school here thinks it's actually important, not to mention morally correct, for federal judge's orders to be followed.

You ought to get out a bit more. Take a look around. There is lawlessness from every side, from above, from below - almost all of it, of course, to further a potpourri of racist/fascist objectives (the whole marriage redefinition thing might need its own category, dunno).

I believe the administration has defied several court orders, not to mention contemptuously spit in courts' faces as they in some cases incompletely comply. "Standing" has finally been taken to its logical potential conclusion, where it can be used as an orwellian dodge to disenfranchise citizens and also negate, on a discretionary basis, state constitutions and rule of law in general.

The country is limping along just fine, even with mass lawlessness at all levels on many issues vastly more consequential than the optional luxury of marriage licenses for an invisibly tiny fringe of the population.

A county clerk defying a particularly ridiculous SCOTUS ukaz is no threat to a rule of law that is already quite spotty. Pretending that it's a big deal is silly.

Posted by: rhomboid at September 03, 2015 06:27 PM (QDnY+)

237 And don't tell me you won't accept the rules laid out by the people I elected and for which I pay.

I think several of us have told you exactly that.

You want to tie yourself to this filthy government, go right ahead.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:27 PM (ZbV+0)

238 233 Naes,

Like Dearborn and parts of Minneapolis.

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:27 PM (BXOyX)

239 Our form of government derives its power from the will of the people.
This gay marriage ruling is a slap in the face to all those millions of
Americans who voted against it in their state referendums.

And those state laws were overruled by a superior authority elected by the entirety of the American electorate. I may not like it, but it's where we are.

All of you who call for states to override the Feds, please explain what will take it's place.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:28 PM (LAe3v)

240 >>>Not if her job involves doing the bidding of the state. Take it or leave it.

Um. No. Perhaps you've read the concepts of "unjust laws". It's pretty well elucidated in academic circles. We rebelled and established our own country over them.

>>>The specifics are irrelevant. The question is who decides?

Well if our decision is a religious conviction that is thousands of years old and held by most of the worlds faithful today and throughout all of human history cannot be *reasonably accomodated* there is no such thing as religious liberty. If we are going to be on that path, we are no longer a free republic and all social contracts and oaths with such unjust tyrant are void. It deserves to be undermined to destruction.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:28 PM (0q2P7)

241 Harriet Tubman knew the consequences of her actions, and accepted them as a risk she was willing to take.

She defied court orders and resisted being imprisoned.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 06:29 PM (AJAk6)

242 And those state laws were overruled by a superior authority elected by
the entirety of the American electorate. I may not like it, but it's
where we are.

===================

The Supreme Court justices were elected by the entirety of the American electorate? Who knew?

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:29 PM (dFi94)

243 I'd agree with you, if she wasn't a public official in charge of executing the laws on the books.

Sure, if there's an accommodation, great, have at it. But I'm skeptical that he have to acommodate someone whose job is to execute the laws and suddenly decides she can't do that.

I think that there is a different standard for a government worker.

As I posted before, it's not like I can go somewhere else to get my driver's license renewed if the #BLM-supporting clerk decides she hates white people too much to issue me one in good conscience.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at September 03, 2015 06:30 PM (laMCB)

244 237
And don't tell me you won't accept the rules laid out by the people I elected and for which I pay.

I think several of us have told you exactly that.

No, what you said is that you'll obey the laws with which you agree, and ignore the rest. It doesn't work that way.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:30 PM (LAe3v)

245 If everyone decides which laws they will obey, then
we have no laws, and we have anarchy.

Posted by: pep

And it's the libs deciding which laws they follow or not. Sanctuary cities, pot in Colorado are cases of actual LAWS being ignored. Have a nice ride sitting in the back of the bus.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:30 PM (2oWD2)

246 >>The reason the left doesn't give a shit about her religious beliefs is because we are even handed. If we have to accept her beliefs we have to accept everyone's.

Bullshit.

You guys accept a white woman who wants to pretend she is black. You accept the beliefs of Muslims. You accept any belief that is in opposition to anything remotely conservative or having to do with traditional Christian beliefs.

Stop patting yourself on the back. Lefties are the least tolerant people on the face of the earth.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 03, 2015 06:30 PM (OGm46)

247 All of you who call for states to override the Feds, please explain what will take it's place.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:28 PM (LAe3v)

=======================

My vote is for War, Famine, Pestilence and Death. But that's just me.

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:30 PM (dFi94)

248 The Muslim flight attendant was aware she was required to serve alcohol when hired she should have no case. The supreme's changed the clerks terms of employment without her consent or her employer's approval. Forcing her to participate in something that was not part of her employment agreement is a form of labor abuse.

Posted by: Rose at September 03, 2015 06:31 PM (epC6E)

249 Pretty sure this corroborates my belief that the movement had nothing to do with 'equal rights' and everything to do with squashing dissent and forcing the legitimacy of their sexual relationship down everyone's throat.

No one may be permitted to dissent. In any way.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose
----------

Word

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at September 03, 2015 06:31 PM (9mTYi)

250 All of you who call for states to override the Feds, please explain what will take it's place.

Why does something need to?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 06:31 PM (AJAk6)

251 >>>Harriet Tubman knew the consequences of her actions, and accepted them as a risk she was willing to take.

That didn't make those repercussions just or right.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:31 PM (0q2P7)

252 Ms. Davis refused herself reasonable accommodation by refusing to let her clerks issue the licenses. She also admitted in court that she could not resign because her office gave her a great platform from which to promulgate/demonstrate her religious views. It just wouldn't be the same if she was just hanging out on the porch.

In short, Ms. Davis confused her office with her person; she thought she was the office, had a right to it, and could do with it as she pleased, or in her case, as God demanded.

Ms. Davis wanted to use the power of her secular office for religious reasons, while refusing to carry out the requirements of that office. She wanted a pulpit on the government's dime.

Is her God so petty and tyrannous that he would commit her to a lake of fire for allowing her clerks to issue gay marriage licenses? My guess is he would have figured out what was going on, and given her a pass.

Sorry, but Ms. Davis is a very flawed messenger. In fact, she's all kinds of nuts. L'etat c'est moi is a principle entirely antagonistic to the principles upon which this country was founded.

Posted by: Joseph K at September 03, 2015 06:31 PM (3//tw)

253 She defied court orders and resisted being imprisoned.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk

Of course. What she didn't do is say "I won't obey the laws, and I expect no repercussions because I'm special".

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:31 PM (LAe3v)

254 The Supreme Court justices were elected by the entirety of the American electorate? Who knew?

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree

Why do you think we argue so much around here every four years?

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:32 PM (LAe3v)

255 "Unfortunately due to technicalities in the legislation, they are allowed to extract a fee for providing those "free" fetal organs. So they have not violated the law just violated just about everyone's sense of morality."

I know what you are saying but it's a technicality that only the left gets to hid behind.

A prostitute can't get away with selling t-shirts and then have sex for free.

There are all kinds of situations where people try these technicalities and are arrested just the same.

Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at September 03, 2015 06:33 PM (gMhCJ)

256 253 She defied court orders and resisted being imprisoned.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk

Of course. What she didn't do is say "I won't obey the laws, and I expect no repercussions because I'm special".

Yeah, she knew that would be so ridiculous and unreasonable.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 06:33 PM (AJAk6)

257 Lefties are the least tolerant people on the face of the earth.
Posted by: JackStraw
-------
Can't be repeated too often; Inside of every Liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at September 03, 2015 06:33 PM (9mTYi)

258 I have to say it is deeply weird to me that you keep ignoring the obvious fact that makes it impossible to logically support Kim Davis' defiance: That is, that she IS the government, here. You cannot practice civil disobedience when you ARE the legal authority. If she won't do the job, she certainly should authorize her underlings to do it (she has done the opposite), and failing that, she should resign.

This is a simple open-and-shut case, and I'm a bit confused why you seem to be pretending there's no difference between her and e.g. the Muslim flight attendant.

The difference is so obvious and fundamental (govt. vs. non-govt.) that I'm really at a loss to understand why you're ignoring that.

Posted by: wiggumpi at September 03, 2015 06:33 PM (6X4Ka)

259

Posted by: rhomboid

Very well said, sir. Or ma'am.

Or...geometric shape of undetermined configuration.

Posted by: Moderate Salami, weeping for our dead Republic at September 03, 2015 06:33 PM (/Ho8c)

260 Is your argument seriously that Harriet Tubman should agree she should go to jail? You think she'd mount no defense in court (if she got there)?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 03, 2015 06:34 PM (AJAk6)

261 252 Joseph K,

Good enough for Barry O good enough for the Dog Catcher

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:34 PM (BXOyX)

262 And it's the libs deciding which laws they follow or
not. Sanctuary cities, pot in Colorado are cases of actual LAWS being
ignored. Have a nice ride sitting in the back of the bus.

Posted by: Dang

Again. See my #104.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:34 PM (LAe3v)

263 And those state laws were overruled by a superior authority elected by the entirety of the American electorate. I may not like it, but it's where we are.

Sorry, but no. I don't remember casting a vote for anyone in SCOTUS. They are just people and people make mistakes.

You can't tell me that each and every SCOTUS decision has been correct, just, and in accordance with the truth.

Look at Roe vs Wade.

Posted by: RetroPuer at September 03, 2015 06:34 PM (LUgeY)

264
Referendum "win" column, seattle? Not "plenty". Very few. "Plenty" not being relevant, anyway. There's no threshhold for state referenda to effectuate a federal change, outside of actual constitutional amendments.

It's an amusing, widespread, and counter-factual throw-away line for everyone now (even the idiot Roberts in his pathetic dissent) to claim that marriage refedefinition was moving along. No it wasn't.

Posted by: rhomboid at September 03, 2015 06:34 PM (QDnY+)

265 Sorry, but Ms. Davis is a very flawed messenger. In fact, she's all kinds of nuts.

==========================

I can see myself doing something similar if I found myself in her shoes. Call me crazy.

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:35 PM (dFi94)

266 Some of these posts read better with a really, really thick German accent.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:35 PM (2oWD2)

267 257Can't be repeated too often; Inside of every Liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

They even stole the formerly honorable word "liberal" which used to mean people like Edmund Burke and John Locke.

Posted by: Naes at September 03, 2015 06:35 PM (Ypc8j)

268 And those state laws were overruled by a superior authority elected by
the entirety of the American electorate. I may not like it, but it's
where we are.

Really? When does the next scotus election come up?

All of you who call for states to override the Feds, please explain what will take it's place.

There's no real need for anything. DC exists today primarily to steal from productive people to give to its constituents and impose its foreign values on whatever Americans remain in this country. The only useful thing it has is the military and there's no good reason not to return it to state level control.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:35 PM (ZbV+0)

269 251
>>>Harriet Tubman knew the consequences of her actions, and accepted them as a risk she was willing to take.

That didn't make those repercussions just or right.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose

I never said they did.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:35 PM (LAe3v)

270 Why do you think we argue so much around here every four years?
Posted by: pep
-------------

I think it from eating too much cheese. Makes people cranky. Keep an especially close eye on my good friends and colleagues from Wisconsin.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at September 03, 2015 06:35 PM (9mTYi)

271 >>>Is her God so petty and tyrannous that he would commit her to a lake of fire for allowing her clerks to issue gay marriage licenses? My guess is he would have figured out what was going on, and given her a pass.

So you saying either she issued the license *OR GAVE THE ORDER* that someone else issue the license? Let's put it a different manner. Either she pulls the trigger or orders someone else to. Yeah. That's not reasonable accomodation.

>>>Ms. Davis wanted to use the power of her secular office for religious reasons

Because the only thing secular office can be used for is money and power. You aren't allowed to persue the greater good based on your moral convictions. Great argument!!!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:36 PM (0q2P7)

272 Again. See my #104.

Posted by: pep

Saw it. Not impressed.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:36 PM (2oWD2)

273 260
Is your argument seriously that Harriet Tubman should agree she should
go to jail? You think she'd mount no defense in court (if she got
there)?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk

What she would do, I think, is stand in the dock and denounce the law as grossly unjust. Many people seek out arrest for just that opportunity.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:36 PM (LAe3v)

274 No, what you said is that you'll obey the laws with which you agree, and ignore the rest. It doesn't work that way.

Now it does.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:37 PM (ZbV+0)

275 Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree

Why do you think we argue so much around here every four years?

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:32 PM (LAe3v)

===========================

I assumed it was because of the high degree of liquor consumption.

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:37 PM (dFi94)

276 The same anarchists like the Baltimore mayor who thought protestors should be allowed to riot and the Occupy squatters and rapists are now lecturing us on following the law and demanding that we follow the law as if there aren't laws about vandalism, property destruction and rape on the books.

No, absolutely not. You first, anarchists

Posted by: L, Elle at September 03, 2015 06:37 PM (b/6cr)

277 >>>I never said they did.

Well we weren't arguing over whether the State had enough guns to through her in jail. Rather that the action is an injustice and not befitting of a free Republic.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:38 PM (0q2P7)

278 Makes people cranky. Keep an especially close eye on my good friends and colleagues from Wisconsin.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at September 03, 2015 06:35 PM (9mTYi)

========================

I heard that.

Posted by: grammie winger, watching the fig tree at September 03, 2015 06:39 PM (dFi94)

279 274 Methos,

Everyone should show the same reverence for the rule of law and court orders Obama and Clinton do...

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:39 PM (BXOyX)

280 Sorry, but no. I don't remember casting a vote for anyone in SCOTUS. They are just people and people make mistakes.

You can't tell me that each and every SCOTUS decision has been correct, just, and in accordance with the truth.

Look at Roe vs Wade.

Sorry, but yes. Like it or not, we elect officials, knowing full well that they will decide who is on the court.

Please tell me when I said I approved of every SCOTUS decision.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:39 PM (LAe3v)

281 >>wiggumpi at September 03, 2015 06:33 PM (6X4Ka)

Up Twinkles.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 03, 2015 06:40 PM (OGm46)

282 274
No, what you said is that you'll obey the laws with which you agree, and ignore the rest. It doesn't work that way.

Now it does.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow)

And are you happy with that? No? Want to return to the rule of law? If so, then we agree.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:40 PM (LAe3v)

283 But we have not had state sanctioned marriage for THAT long. I mean, in the early days of this country, marriages, births, deaths, etc. were all recorded by the church and/or the families themselves, not by the state.

Posted by: mynewhandle at September 03, 2015 05:52 PM (AkOaV)

For most of human history the church and the state were intertwined. Rulers ruled by the will of God, and the church (whatever religion it was) often functioned as the bureaucracy necessary to keep the basic functions of society going.

Furthermore, up until the last 150 years, the vast majority of people lived in small communities, often agrarian, with limited mobility. Society didn't need strong marriage laws or licensing because individual communities could enforce standards themselves. That is no longer the case.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at September 03, 2015 06:40 PM (fC9RO)

284 Saw it. Not impressed.

Posted by: Dang

Where did you get the notion I was interested in impressing you?

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:41 PM (LAe3v)

285 I heard that.
Posted by: grammie winger
---------------

Uh,oh.
I'm just hoping Misanthropic doesn't catch wind (a pun!) of the comment.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at September 03, 2015 06:41 PM (9mTYi)

286 Well we weren't arguing over whether the State had enough guns to through her in jail.

Yeah it's a shame there was time to organize something like the Bundy ranch to protect her from the fedcoats.

Everyone should show the same reverence for the rule of law and court orders Obama and Clinton

Exactly

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:42 PM (ZbV+0)

287 Please tell me when I said I approved of every SCOTUS decision.

Posted by: pep

So you live your life doing things you don't approve of. And if you don't currently, plan to in the future? Things you might feel are unethical or wrong because "like it or not"? That is pathetic. And weak. And sad.

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:42 PM (2oWD2)

288 That which is not prohibited is mandatory. You should know that, citizen.

Posted by: Your friendly neighborhood bureaucrat at September 03, 2015 06:42 PM (amQXf)

289 Good enough for ~~Barry O~~ the Dog Eater, good enough for the Dog Catcher

Posted by: The Smiling Bandit@sven10077 at September 03, 2015 06:34 PM (BXOyX)

FIFY.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at September 03, 2015 06:42 PM (oKE6c)

290 Dinner time!

Posted by: Dang at September 03, 2015 06:43 PM (2oWD2)

291 That is pathetic. And weak. And sad.

I'll try to carry on in the face of your disapproval.

Posted by: pep at September 03, 2015 06:43 PM (LAe3v)

292 But we have not had state sanctioned marriage for THAT long. I mean,
in the early days of this country, marriages, births, deaths, etc. were
all recorded by the church and/or the families themselves, not by the
state.

Posted by: mynewhandle

This isn't my specialty, but I read somewhere that State intervention in marriage came about after the Civil War to prevent interracial marriages.

Posted by: Moderate Salami, weeping for our dead Republic at September 03, 2015 06:43 PM (/Ho8c)

293 "Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear
reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither
safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do
no other. God help me. Amen."

Posted by: some random lutheran guy at September 03, 2015 06:43 PM (dFi94)

294 Gay marriage was perfectly legal in the United States until 1973 when the first state law forbidding gay marriage was put on the books in Maryland. A gay male couple was married in Minnesota in the early 70's. Subsequent court cases did not invalidate the marriage.

The Supreme Court decision struck down these state laws and the situation reverted to what it was pre-1973. That is all.

Posted by: Socrates at September 03, 2015 06:43 PM (3//tw)

295 Want to return to the rule of law?

I want my fellow Americans to be free of the progressives and the cowardly moderates who empower them.

I will worry about the rule of law sometime after that.

Posted by: Methos believes in free will(ow) at September 03, 2015 06:44 PM (ZbV+0)

296 >>>individual communities could enforce standards themselves.

Yeah that has never been true. At least in a "Would work then won't work now" way.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:46 PM (0q2P7)

297 Well, I sense that you cannot argue law with agenda-holders who do not respect laws on the books and want them changed or over-ruled.. So the agenda-folks get law decreed for them and they throw up their grubby hand and shout, STOP, the law is settled! We have this here new law! Eleventy!

See, the pot in Colorado and Washington State, =Good DC and Chicago ignoring the 2nd amendment and guns = good. Sancuary cities = courageous and good!

Was ghey marriage on the same ballot with POT legalization in Washington? Because I know the Donks in Colorado threw a bunch of their favorite things on the ballot with Pot to get the turnout up with the dirty hippie vote.

Posted by: Yip at September 03, 2015 06:48 PM (e7T6D)

298 I don't see why there would be any backlog of gay couples in KY. I read that the clerk's defense was that you do not have to get your license in your county of residence, any KY country can issue it and she was just not issuing any marriage licenses anymore so she was not discriminating on basis of orientation.

So probably all hetero couples and most same sex couples just did the go to the next county thing. But the political SS couple and the leftist judge ruled that not celebrating this new SS marriage law is verboten. Not celebrating the "trans" gender teenager using the girls locker room is verboten too.

Posted by: PaleRider at September 03, 2015 06:48 PM (dkExz)

299 Naes:

You're fucking wrong. We have the ACLU. We've always had it and we always will. We've been pushing for the separation between church and state and for strict scrutiny since before any of us were born. We have been fighting this fight (against you) for decades.

It won't be any different whether it's muslims, mormons, or mennonites.

It's you guys that are paving the way. If a court has to consider the Bible today, they have to consider the Quran tomorrow. If they have to accept the beliefs of Jews, they have to accept those of Scientologists.

We won't change our stance. It's all personal belief and NONE of it is relevant for policy considerations. None. Not yours, not his, and not theirs.

Thanks to us, it not only won't happen, it can't. Our system is now so indifferent to religion that none (not even yours) can take root in it any more. Isn't that reassuring?

Posted by: seattle slough at September 03, 2015 06:49 PM (mCz8+)

300 @24: "Reasonable accommodation is not to be found in the Age of 0bama."

Sure it is. You do what we say, or we fine, jail, or kill you. You reasonably accept your place as a worthless insect should, and we accommodate you by not exterminating you.

Posted by: Your friendly neighborhood bureaucrat at September 03, 2015 06:49 PM (amQXf)

301 "...why we need a government-issued license to get married in the first place. "

Was first in place to prevent race mixing, and first cousins marrying each other. At least, in the USA, that is the story line. Today I think it just to raise money.

Posted by: navybrat at September 03, 2015 06:49 PM (ETxiG)

302 >>We won't change our stance. It's all personal belief and NONE of it is relevant for policy considerations. None. Not yours, not his, and not theirs.

What exactly do you think gay marriage is, some holy grail written in stone? It's personal belief.

You really don't see your own bias, do you?

Posted by: JackStraw at September 03, 2015 06:52 PM (OGm46)

303
Of course she should resign, or do the speak-truth-to-power thing in court, etc. Whatever.

But pretending that her defiance of "law" (SCOTUS ukaz), ona matter affecting (nationally) fewer people than attend the Super Bowl every year, will usher in Somalia? Come on.

The list of cases with state/local authorities defying the clear requirements of such things as the Heller decision is pretty long (DC and Chicago have made some headlines, but there are many more). And of course, facially, most of the firearm laws in CA, NY, NJ, and MA are completely unconstitutional under both Heller and McDonald. Doesn't matter. Life goes on. Wild beasts do not roam the deserted streets.

And of course the lawlessness and bad faith are not limited to executive behavior. The judiciary itself shows no seriousness or good faith on 2nd Amndt. issues either. In CA it is taking literally a decade or more to litigate open/shut gun control cases of egregious infringement of a specifically ennumerated const. right. Yet completely ridiculous, indefensible crap like SSM (ridiculous and indefensible as const. matters properly dealt with by courts) get magically resolved - complete with unethical and extravagantly improper judicial behavior, and laughable SCOTUS "reasoning", in the blink of an eye.

This KY clerk's behavior, scaled for importance, wouldn't even show up on a graph of lawless official behavior in the US these days.

Posted by: rhomboid at September 03, 2015 06:53 PM (QDnY+)

304 superior authority elected by the entirety of the American electorate.

All this time I've been negligent in the SCOTUS elections. Didn't know it was even possible. Dumb me.

Posted by: Ronster at September 03, 2015 06:53 PM (0qASP)

305 >>>The Supreme Court decision struck down these state laws and the situation reverted to what it was pre-1973. That is all.

Boy this one really brings them out. To say that law was not explicit such that it relied on common law understanding and therfore the state of law (Based on one instance in one state) was as you speak, is quite simply a lie.

When many states made sodomy illegal all the way up until 2003. It's a laughable lie.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 03, 2015 06:53 PM (0q2P7)

306 @298 Yep, evidently she refused to issue ANY marriage licenses except KY does forbid her from doing that. So she tried to remove herself from the ghey issue, but some mens/women/s couples also sued because she stopped issuing M-licenses. So... Kentucky has screwed up laws on the books. The State should be held accountable bu this clerk is. Good on her. I like the progs and gheys are showing themselves to be so inclusive and understanding. To the extent that normal folk hear of this... they will surely make politically incorrect mental note to keep to themselves.

Posted by: Yip at September 03, 2015 06:53 PM (e7T6D)

307 306. That is stupid (KY law that she could not stop issuing licenses) She is cutting county revenue doing that and it would be a (minor) inconvenience to everyone planning to marry to have to go to the next county but the correct response would be to organize to vote her out or maybe instigate a recall. But leftist bullies won't risk not getting their way by putting things to a vote unless/until the courts decline to step in for them.

Posted by: PaleRider at September 03, 2015 07:00 PM (dkExz)

308 "seattle slough" is lying again. Only three states ever passed gay marriage referendums. And only six ever passed it legislatively. If those places wanted to have it, fine. Their business. But everyone else said hell no.

No, this is just more of what the Left does. You will not just "tolerate" us (homosexuals), you will not just "accept" us. You will "celebrate" us because WE SAY SO, and if you don't, we will send people with guns to make you.

And this "federal law" bit? No, it was rammed down our throats by judicial fiat, like so many other things in the past 50 years or so. And as has been pointed out, it is interesting to note how some "federal laws" are selectively enforced, depending on what the lefties want. The immigration and marijuana "federal" laws, just to name two examples. Or in the case of Hillary!, were she a Republican, she would already be in an orange jumpsuit having been frogmarched off to prison for violations of the "federal" laws governing the handling of secret documents. But that's not going to happen either, is it "seattle"?

Posted by: The Oort Cloud - Source of all SMODs at September 03, 2015 07:03 PM (AYY6Y)

309 We have the ACLU

Ha Ha. A great organization to be defending.

Posted by: Ronster at September 03, 2015 07:06 PM (0qASP)

310 Christians are excluded from your conflict thoughts there AD. They are to be walked upon, spit on and crushed.

I'm fucking done. Some of us are willing to fucking shoot back.

Posted by: gman at September 03, 2015 07:07 PM (nPdsm)

311 seattle slough

May you take that position as I hurl you off a 10 story building...because at this point, I will, and gladly.

Posted by: gman at September 03, 2015 07:09 PM (nPdsm)

312 That went from " we only want civil unions" to "here's your jail cell" pretty quickly.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at September 03, 2015 07:13 PM (Xhvpw)

313 They should just revise the marriage licensure laws to simplify the process -

Purchase license for, say, $100.
Fill in form for name 'A' and the other name 'A'.
Post in a public place for at least 24 hrs.
'A' and the other 'A' are now married.
The completed form is proof they are now 'married'.

Posted by: Burnt Toast at September 03, 2015 07:15 PM (NaeCR)

314 If we are going to be ruled by the whim of one unelected official, I'd prefer a Caesar to a Kennedy.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at September 03, 2015 07:18 PM (rwI+c)

315 If we are going to be ruled by the whim of one unelected official, I'd prefer a Caesar to a Kennedy.

Posted by: Grump928(C)

Yeah, at least they have tasty salads.

Posted by: Moderate Salami, weeping for our dead Republic at September 03, 2015 07:18 PM (/Ho8c)

316 Posted by: gman

I respectfully ask for you to chill a bit. You may be needed later.

Posted by: Moderate Salami, weeping for our dead Republic at September 03, 2015 07:21 PM (/Ho8c)

317 "314 If we are going to be ruled by the whim of one unelected official, I'd prefer a Caesar to a Kennedy."

Hail Trumpius, we who are about to die salute you.

Posted by: Severely Conservative at September 03, 2015 07:25 PM (p6UPL)

318 "It's all personal belief and NONE of it is relevant for policy considerations. None. Not yours, not his, and not theirs.

Thanks to us, it not only won't happen, it can't. Our system is now so indifferent to religion that none (not even yours) can take root in it any more. Isn't that reassuring?"

Only one word for that:

Risible

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 07:26 PM (OSs/l)

319 I don't see how she can be jailed. There is no law pertaining to gay marriage. The Supremes don't get to make law. The law on the books is heterosexual marriage. She is actually the only one that is following the law. This country is so backwards right now.

Posted by: Freedom_costs at September 03, 2015 07:36 PM (9L0hB)

320 I was pointing out the hypocrisy of this woman because she said flat out she can't go against God's word. Yet, she's been married four times. She said this isn't a gay issue, I just cannot go against God's word. Sorry, but she's a hypocrite.

In this particular case the woman was married before she ever became a Christian.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 07:38 PM (OSs/l)

321 Sorry. meant she was divorced before she ever became a Christian.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 07:40 PM (OSs/l)

322 we're still waiting for judges to issue arrest warrants to those in IRS for contempt of court

Posted by: oic at September 03, 2015 07:49 PM (uvlNx)

323 The Christian woman has more or a case . . .

Posted by: DrZin at September 03, 2015 07:56 PM (ff+FM)

324 >>Sorry. meant she was divorced before she ever became a Christian.

You would think that if "gender is fluid" so that last year Jenner was a man and today he is a woman, that they would be a little more tolerant of someone not being a Christian last year (or whatever) but being a Christian today.

Posted by: Lizzy at September 03, 2015 07:56 PM (NOIQH)

325 "Onboard Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar flights you can expect it to be "business as usual" during Ramadan . . . alcohol should be served to all destinations except Saudi Arabia, which is the case year round."

Posted by: DrZin at September 03, 2015 07:58 PM (ff+FM)

326 What the Commies give the gays, the Muslims will take away.

And make no mistake, they WILL take it away.

Posted by: Hikaru at September 03, 2015 07:58 PM (FrHC0)

327 And Hillary weighed in:

Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law. End of story.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 07:58 PM (OSs/l)

328 >>Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law. End of story.

Predictable.
Just like Obamacare is the law of the land. Period.

But not the 1st and 2nd Amendments...

Posted by: Lizzy at September 03, 2015 08:00 PM (NOIQH)

329 So this is the Establishment Government Church (i.e., the Universal Church of teh Pink Gaystapo) that the Founders were worried about.

Posted by: Hrothgar at September 03, 2015 08:01 PM (ftVQq)

330 Exhibit 1. . .

Posted by: DrZin at September 03, 2015 08:04 PM (ff+FM)

331 And in case she's still here

Hi, Jewell. I have always appreciated your posts. I agree with you that the vitriol against gays can sometimes be venomous here-which is a turn off -and if I'm recalling correctly you have a daughter or son or both who are so I can understand it really hitting home. I have dear friends and collegeagues who are gay. The sponsor of my son for baptism is gay.

However,I would have to disagree in this. There may only be a small number of people who are militantly gay, but their clout is enormous, they have lots of money and are backed up by the left that is gleeful about this clerk being thrown in jail. These are the same people who force others out of jobs because they won't bake cakes for gay weddings or gave money support a referendum on traditional marriage. Even 'Gay Patriot" which is an internet site for gay conservatives have real issues with the gay left and their mob mentality This is yet another shot in the culture wars. I expect more people to be imprisoned and I expect moves against churches in the rest of Obama's term..

I used to be in favor of gay marriage. Now because of militant gays I think everyone would have civil unions-straights and gays -and marriages should be done in churches under the rules their polity an doctrine supports.

I wish you well.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 08:14 PM (OSs/l)

332 Posted by: Lizzy at September 03, 2015 08:00 PM (NOIQH)

And it's worthy of big eye rolls that Hillary thinks officials should support laws. Riiiiiight Hillary, just not about National Security the sever security.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 08:16 PM (OSs/l)

333 "320 I was pointing out the hypocrisy of this woman because she said flat out she can't go against God's word. Yet, she's been married four times. She said this isn't a gay issue, I just cannot go against God's word. Sorry, but she's a hypocrite. "

That is actually textbook Saul Alinsky tactics. Not sure if you're aware of that. But it is.

Posted by: Severely Conservative at September 03, 2015 08:19 PM (p6UPL)

334 Ah, I see it wasn't even you you were quoting someone else.

Whoever it was.

It amounts to, since no one is perfect, let's tear down all virtue by calling it hypocrisy. "Make them play their own rules" in other words. You're not allowed to have standards unless you're perfect.

Posted by: Severely Conservative at September 03, 2015 08:28 PM (p6UPL)

335 So any federal official can flaunt the law but a person of faith can not decline to obey a law that she doesn't think is lawful? When the Christians turn away then all the (what ever you want to call them, how about lawyers) will suddenly find they have to scratch for a living instead of (whatever you call what they do). The current Muslim population is unsustainable without Christian farmers. The current federal bureaucracy is unsustainable without Christians workers and ethics. And I don't mean the middle east Christians that hate Jews. They're as Christian as Obama. I'm thinking Jesus covered this with his parables about the Pharisees.

Posted by: Don'tGetIt at September 03, 2015 08:42 PM (PGh+Q)

336 JackStraw:

My personal beliefs are irrelevant. Have you actually listened to the oral arguments against gay marriage? I have. When you pull the religious justifications out of it and actually listen to the secular rationale for opposing gay marriage, it's a joke.

It's about history. Which the court rightly says is irrelevant because if history was anything to rely on, we'd still have slavery. And then they fall back to some ridiculous concern that straights won't want to get married because gay people will make it uncool or something. That's it. There's no rational basis to deny it. Forget strict scrutiny. There's no rational reason to deny gays the right to marry.

It's not my belief. That's the best lawyers your side can come up with's beliefs. They couldn't come up with a rational basis to ban gay marriage that didn't come down to some supposed supernatural deity's alleged edict.

That some idiot court clerk would choose this hill to die on is is pathetic. Anyone who thinks this genie is ever going back in the bottle is delusional. You know it and I know it. Gay marriage is here (and queer and you should get used to it.).

This woman put her own damn self in jail. She wasn't put in jail for something she had done in the past. She was put in jail for ongoing contempt of court. For something she was going to keep doing. She had three choices: Do her job, quit her job, or face the consequences. She chose door number 3. Too bad for her that door had bars. She's an idiot.

Posted by: seattle slough at September 03, 2015 08:44 PM (mCz8+)

337 Do you never tire of playing the provincial rube, SS?

Posted by: Grump928(C) at September 03, 2015 08:50 PM (rwI+c)

338 >>Anyone who thinks this genie is ever going back in the bottle is delusional. You know it and I know it. Gay marriage is here (and queer and you should get used to it.).

What a fine example of tolerance!

Posted by: Lizzy at September 03, 2015 08:50 PM (NOIQH)

339 The ONLY issue SS ever discusses here is gay marriage. I'm inclined to think we should be he and the other person (whose name escapes me now) who only ever discusses gay marriage from the pro side in a little room together for a very long time. I'm not sure who the 3rd party in that happy little "No Exit" scenario would be.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 08:55 PM (OSs/l)

340 Meant the other person who only discusses gay marriage from the anti side....

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 08:56 PM (OSs/l)

341 Gay marriage is here (and queer)

Thanks for that insightful observation./sarc.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 09:01 PM (OSs/l)

342 Gays are just like everybody else and don't cause work place problems and aren't attention whores as a group. Remember to tell yourself that till you believe it or some queer judge will throw you in prison for contempt. The US is better than China because the US uses aborted baby parts and not convict parts. (As far as we know. Maybe a new undercover video for that next week.)

Posted by: who is kidding who? at September 03, 2015 09:05 PM (PGh+Q)

343 "...Anyone who thinks this genie is ever going back in the bottle is delusional...."

All this morality may or may not be true but when there is a shortage of babies from the viewpoint of Rulers gay lifestyles and abortion is put down with the full force of the law. That's why Putin is so anti-gay. Also "first time tragedy, second time farce" rule should be about to raise it's head. Hint. Read up on the brown shirts. I don't know how it will be turned into a farce but I know it will. :-)

Posted by: read history at September 03, 2015 09:16 PM (PGh+Q)

344 Not going to read all the comments, but the flight attendant scenario is wrong in one significant way: she joined Big Airlines while serving alcohol was part of the job. The Kentucky clerk began her job when marriage was what it had been for millennia, only to have the definition change during her tenure.

The lack of accommodation for traditionalists and gay marriage at the same time has wrought this mess. An equally ham-handed approach to dealing with opposition to the new decree is showing similar results.

Posted by: red speck at September 03, 2015 09:18 PM (9Xu0X)

345 Posted by: red speck at September 03, 2015 09:18 PM (9Xu0X)

But in today's USA, sharia trumps the Constitution, don't ya know!

Posted by: Hrothgar at September 03, 2015 09:24 PM (ftVQq)

346 Gays have the God given right to marry and always have. They just didn't have the legal right to sign up for government marriage subsidy. What gays don't seem to understand is that Christians, which gays are persecuting, are the only large group in the world that wouldn't kill them out of hand just because they are inconvenient. Just like babies are aborted for convenience. My money is that the gays are going to find that out and will blame the Christians for not protecting them. Similar to blaming white farmers for starvation and hardship in Zimbabwe. Don't know what you got till it's gone.

Posted by: gays right to marry at September 03, 2015 09:27 PM (PGh+Q)

347 The judge was rather arrogant on this. It should have been handled otherwise.

The problem is that this clerk has been punished for her faith. And that is the crux of the matter. It could have easily been handled with elegance, but the judge was less than wise in his judgement.

From a historical perspective, bad things happen when you start messing with people's beliefs.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at September 03, 2015 09:28 PM (RP6O/)

348 Lawyers and judges are gay. Our society is full of conflict of interest. Last blood moon in this cycle this month. When everyone finds out their pension is gone. Including the federal bureaucracy. Sacrificial lambs and scapegoats must be found. Ain't going to be pretty. Gays will probably be sacrificed. Need Christians to rebuild.

"Another," said the voice, " give me another head." That Hideous Strength

Posted by: conflict of interest at September 03, 2015 09:38 PM (PGh+Q)

349 Don't know what you got till it's gone.

Great, now I got that song stuck in my head.

Posted by: puddleglum at September 03, 2015 09:40 PM (NGd+i)

350 I was just thinking how when people used to say gay marriage is illegal, I would correct them and point out that nobody gets thrown in prison over a gay wedding, it's just not recognized by the state.

Well there goes that, we finally have a gay marriage prisoner. The Left always comes full circle to become the evil they accuse us of.

Posted by: mugiwara at September 03, 2015 09:41 PM (UFZRg)

351 As someone of "Conservative Treehouse puts it, "This the day the Federal Government began arresting Christians for the exercise of their faith:

http://tinyurl.com/px5omcp

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 03, 2015 09:50 PM (OSs/l)

352 This is just a strike against Christianity and other major religions.

It has little to do with rights.

The gays are upset because many people think what they're doing is contra-nature and science.

My dog used to love to hump furniture, but he never advocated marrying the sofa.

Posted by: Graham Cracker at September 03, 2015 09:57 PM (SJ184)

353 Where are the libtards who are so assiduous to follow the law when it comes to immigration?

Posted by: M@rk at September 03, 2015 10:21 PM (PshM0)

354 The judge wanted to throw that Kentucky clerk off a building, but had to settle for throwing her in jail.

Posted by: Eromero at September 03, 2015 10:23 PM (go5uR)

355 What's the big deal...

Did SCOTUS declare that traditional and gay marriage are equal?

Posted by: Burnt Toast at September 03, 2015 10:38 PM (NaeCR)

356 I pray I'm alive long enough to see a real live ghey v. muzzie mash-up. Just to see who blinks first.
Posted by: rickb223 at September 03, 2015 05:34 PM (EdhH3)

You already missed it. http://tinyurl.com/qyxcrr4

Posted by: holygoat at September 03, 2015 10:46 PM (af9rv)

357 What BS..accommodation for a person, who happens to be Muslim, not to serve alcohol in a job they know is part of the job description?
What the hell is wrong with you?

Posted by: gonzotx at September 03, 2015 10:54 PM (eV1YV)

358 1st Bill of Rights -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Well, the wOrk around is simple, Congress didn't create this "law"... It was 'created' by a bunch of Judges...

I guess the Constitutional originalist take home is "Judges aren't supposed to make law..." or something.

But there is it, "Judges can make law", right there in the Constitution it says so -- Judges can make law, and Executive branch enforce Judicial law...

Let me see, it's in here somewhere.... somewhere... I just know it is... The Constitution is a living thing you know... Living things move around a lot... At least until they are parted out by Planned Parenthood...

Posted by: Seipherd at September 03, 2015 11:08 PM (oEZig)

359 OK, have you heard about the 17 yr old boy being charged with sexual exploitation of a minor. Who's the minor? Himself, along with his girlfriend.

He and the girlfriend were doing the nasty and sent naked pics of themselves to each other. He can legally have sex with her, just can't legally possess nude pics. That is, he can legally see her naked in person, just can't have a picture of her. Genius.

And he also can't have nude pictures of himself.

And, under NC law he can be charged as an adult in this, exploiting his own self, who is also a minor for the purposes of the trial. So the law considers him both an adult and a minor at the same time.

How's that for tyranny?

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at September 03, 2015 11:18 PM (dvuhZ)

360 All you have to do to understand the Global left is to repeat this phrase to yourself.

Islam Uber Alles. (Forgive me for missing the accent marks)

Posted by: Hikaru at September 03, 2015 11:26 PM (FrHC0)

361 Does anyone know what county clerk failed to follow the teachings of The Bible, when Kim Davis came up for her second, third, and fourth marriage licenses? I sure hope they don't have to answer to God for that moral failure.

Posted by: Multitude at September 03, 2015 11:31 PM (c7WnJ)

362 @358/Seipherd: I'm glad you mention the Bill of Rights. When this county clerk created her own religious interpretation - specifically one that took a Christian theological teaching, but gutted all the stuff about how divorce and second, third, fourth marriage is wrong, but went crazy about the gay stuff (which actually is more ambiguous and complicated than the language against divorce and subsequent marriages). When Kim took this religious view, and when as a manager, she imposed it upon the government of her clerk's office, demanding five employees follow her Religion, and when Kim took that Religion and imposed it upon the citizens of her county...

what part of "establishing a religion" are we missing here?

Posted by: Multitude at September 03, 2015 11:37 PM (c7WnJ)

363 Obama follows none of our immigration laws. Is he above the law? Colorado does not adhere to Federal drug laws. Many cities do not enforce ICE laws.

Either everyone follows the law or This lady can decide what laws she wants to follow.

Personally, I believe no one is above the law and if there exists bad laws - change the laws.
BTW - I still remember the horror of Waco. It was government worthy of Stalin.

Posted by: JudyNM at September 04, 2015 09:04 AM (ce/M6)

364 Issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples was not part of the job when Ms. Davis became clerk. The duties were redefined by an unelected body of justices over 1,000 miles away who usurped the power of the legislature by magically discovering "rights" in the Constitution that had been missed over the last 235 years, "rights" that contradicted real rights that had been recognized in our country for the entirety of its existence.

Posted by: unfatmatt at September 04, 2015 10:15 AM (ofDwz)

365 It leaves me with one question:

Are the dudes who got married still cousins?

Because rural Kentucky, of course.

Posted by: PaperworkNinja at September 04, 2015 10:47 AM (J991N)

366 JudyNM,

"Personally, I believe no one is above the law and if there exists bad laws - change the laws. "

Kentucky DID change the laws. The voters overwhelmingly voted to pass a law (75% in favor) banning gay marriage.

Posted by: unfatmatt at September 04, 2015 11:07 AM (ofDwz)

367 Another thing I would like to point out is that there will ALWAYS be a "reasonable" excuse for the Left to carry out their wetdreams of tyranny. Today, it's "Oh, nobody is above the law~" and tomorrow, it will be something else made to sound "reasonable" to conservatives. There will *always* be some excuse. ALWAYS.

There *must* be a point when you stand up to their fascist daydreams and say, "Nice try, Alinsky, but no. Start cleaning *your* house first before you start with that 'b-b-but muh lawz' crap. You can start with your boyfriend in the White House first. Or Hillary. Either one, I'm not picky." You won't have to wait very long to hear their sorry excuses for why they don't have to follow the very laws they insist everyone else has to follow.

As we've witnessed in recent history, if it wasn't for double standards, leftists wouldn't have any.

Posted by: Saber Alter at September 04, 2015 06:29 PM (eawKK)

368
If you are a clerk at walmart and you are under 21 they bring in another
clerk to handle the alcohol sale, the under 21 clerk cannot touch the
alcohol at all.

How come Walmart can figure out how to accommodate such a thing and the government can't?

------

Under Pennsylvania's insane Dram laws, an 18 year old can pour and serve alcohol, but one still has to be 21 to consume it.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at September 04, 2015 08:59 PM (EARfr)

369 ...which is irrelevant to you comment, because under those same laws, only an approved beer distributor can sell cases and kegs of beer, and only a State Store can sell the hard stuff and wine. A Walmart "may" be able to sell 12 packs of beer, depending on the locality.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at September 04, 2015 09:02 PM (EARfr)

370 I have maintained that there haven't been any "marriage protection" laws because, prior to the 1970's or '60's, the idea of a gay "marriage" did not exist. Not because of homophobia or whatever...it was assumed by just about everyone that a marriage was between a man and woman. I think that if the founders had any inkling, at all, that SSM woild be a thing, they would have built a DOMA into the Constitution.

But that's just me.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at September 04, 2015 09:12 PM (EARfr)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0631 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0242 seconds, 379 records returned.
Page size 225 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.