What a Good Democrat Christian Woman

[EdReed4Prez]

 

[Steeltime]

If the clerk were truly offended at the prospect of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and believed that doing so was an affront to her religion, then she should have quit and found a new job. Sorry, clerk, it's not up to you to decide what the law is.

 

[Troglodyte]

She was targeted.

So are people in sting operations.

This couple had way too much time on their hands but regardless, it's no defense for what she did.

 

[ark steel]

If there is only one bigoted location violating the law in all the country and everyone could avoid it, that violation should still be stopped and there should be consequences be it for diners or county offices.

But his point, which you refuse to acknowledge is that, without these guys looked for someone, specifically, this would have never come up. What if no gay couples had ever asked her for a license. That may have happened and, neither would this story and this woman wouldn't be, potentially, rich.

If, in the normal course of her duties, a gay couple had come in and she refused, you don't have an issue with whether she was targeted or not. Which is what Tim said and you took issue with.

 

[ark steel]

If the clerk were truly offended at the prospect of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and believed that doing so was an affront to her religion, then she should have quit and found a new job. Sorry, clerk, it's not up to you to decide what the law is.

and, again, I think any elected official (or political appointee or government official) who refuses to uphold a specific law due to ideological differences should be jailed. I know a place they can start. Which is the point I was making with RollRed.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

How is she ruined? She's famous and loving it. Candidates are fighting to be seen with her. She'll be a millionaire. Now, if she fires a deputy clerk for issuing licenses on Monday she might need that money. All because she won't do the simple functionary task of certifying that the applicants meet the legal requirements to marry. She never had to say it met her religious requirements at all.

Was she targeted by a couple of angry gays looking to publicly humiliate someone? Yes or no.

If you answer no, why didn't they get married in San Francisco?

It's embarrassing that you keep up this spin and defense. This woman was targeted by 2 gay men (most likely at the push of the ACLU) for political purposes, period. They volunteered when called upon. This was a battled devised on purpose as a part of the larger, never ending war on Christianity.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a leftist, secular-progressive organization. It was run for its first 30 years by an American named Roger Baldwin, who helped found it in 1920. Baldwin supported communism, but later denounced it in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [12]). This organization pursues a leftist agenda that includes censoring prayer and recognition of God in public institutions, such as public schools. Currently, Anthony Romero is the first openly gay CEO to run the organization. Declassified documents and letters link early ACLU leaders with Communist Party.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

But his point, which you refuse to acknowledge is that, without these guys looked for someone, specifically, this would have never come up. What if no gay couples had ever asked her for a license. That may have happened and, neither would this story and this woman wouldn't be, potentially, rich.

If, in the normal course of her duties, a gay couple had come in and she refused, you don't have an issue with whether she was targeted or not. Which is what Tim said and you took issue with.

Both Ed and Vis have plainly missed this point. I don't disagree that she wasn't doing her job. They think I disagree and she should be praised. Not true.

I'm guessing they still don't get the point...

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I'll make the analogy again. If the NRA sends people to find a pacifist police station clerk that refuses to process firearm applications, good. I don't give a flying **** how the process was brought about. I want that public servant to serve the public how the law dictates. She was targeted because she's a ******* idiot.

And the NRA is at war. We know this. They are in a never-ending fight to ensure that people aren't denied their 2nd Amendment Rights.

Now if I could just get people to agree that there is a blatant and obvious war on Christianity and specifically Christian-religious freedom (note that Islam doesn't suffer the same attacks/abuses), then we could all just get along. This was a battle in that war, driven by the ACLU, which has a goal of destroying religious freedoms. Period.

 

[ark steel]

Both Ed and Vis have plainly missed this point. I don't disagree that she wasn't doing her job. They think I disagree and she should be praised. Not true.

I'm guessing they still don't get the point...

I think Ed gets that she was targeted, just doesn't care.

I don't know if Vis gets it or is just being his usual argumentative self.

If someone is bigoted but it never happens to interfere with their job, I don't care. If this woman had never encountered a gay couple applying for a license, no one would have been the wiser and absolutely, no one, would have ever been discriminated against.

It is more important to me that no discrimination actually happen rather than whether there is some potential that someplace, somewhere, someone might be discriminated against.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

If someone is bigoted but it never happens to interfere with their job, I don't care. If this woman had never encountered a gay couple applying for a license, no one would have been the wiser and absolutely, no one, would have ever been discriminated against.

It is more important to me that no discrimination actually happen rather than whether there is some potential that someplace, somewhere, someone might be discriminated against.

Agreed. I go further. My issue is the double standard of it all, and it is out there.

I've said before, I'll say again - I am one of the few people who wants true equality. I don't care if you're gay. I don't care if you're a Muslim. I don't care if you're a redneck. I don't care if you're a billionaire. I was raised to believe everyone is equal, period.

• When our laws treat groups unfairly or unequally, I have issue (religious freedom is now less important than gay rights).
• When the media treats groups differently, I have issue (they will vehemently attack a Christian Pizzeria, leading to death threats. They refuse to discuss or air stories of Muslim bakeries refusing service to gays).
• When one group has to have its rights stripped so as to somehow uplift some other group, I take issue (gay rights, reverse discrimination, affirmative action).
• When we afford special waivers to some groups, but not others, I take issue (I have to have proof of citizenship to vote, illegal immigrants may not; I have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, illegal immigrants do not)

It is the double standard of it all. My uncle is gay. I hope he can marry here, and I hope he can be happy. The only thing I wish for for my friends and family is that each find happiness. But one person's happiness should never come at the expense of another's, and one person's rights shouldn't be granted by stripping the rights of someone else away.

 

[Vis]

But his point, which you refuse to acknowledge is that, without these guys looked for someone, specifically, this would have never come up. What if no gay couples had ever asked her for a license. That may have happened and, neither would this story and this woman wouldn't be, potentially, rich.

If, in the normal course of her duties, a gay couple had come in and she refused, you don't have an issue with whether she was targeted or not. Which is what Tim said and you took issue with.

Let me ask you this: How did the gay couple find her? Did they(1) go to every county in every state one by one or (2) did she make news by turning down some locals or (3) did she advertise her position on the issue? Unless it was (1), she wasn't targeted.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Both Ed and Vis have plainly missed this point. I don't disagree that she wasn't doing her job. They think I disagree and she should be praised. Not true.

I'm guessing they still don't get the point...

I absolutely get that she was targeted. Gay people of some means went around to make sure that gay people of less means wouldn't be discriminated against. It's the same as the guys that video tape DUI stops. Yes, they are intentionally looking for people IN GOVERNMENT doing their job in a way that doesn't comply with the law.

 

[Vis]

Agreed. I go further. My issue is the double standard of it all, and it is out there.

I've said before, I'll say again - I am one of the few people who wants true equality. I don't care if you're gay. I don't care if you're a Muslim. I don't care if you're a redneck. I don't care if you're a billionaire. I was raised to believe everyone is equal, period.

• When our laws treat groups unfairly or unequally, I have issue (religious freedom is now less important than gay rights).
• When the media treats groups differently, I have issue (they will vehemently attack a Christian Pizzeria, leading to death threats. They refuse to discuss or air stories of Muslim bakeries refusing service to gays).
• When one group has to have its rights stripped so as to somehow uplift some other group, I take issue (gay rights, reverse discrimination, affirmative action).
• When we afford special waivers to some groups, but not others, I take issue (I have to have proof of citizenship to vote, illegal immigrants may not; I have to be a citizen to get a drivers license, illegal immigrants do not)

It is the double standard of it all. My uncle is gay. I hope he can marry here, and I hope he can be happy. The only thing I wish for for my friends and family is that each find happiness. But one person's happiness should never come at the expense of another's, and one person's rights shouldn't be granted by stripping the rights of someone else away.

What rights has Davis lost? When gay marriage wasn't legal, it wasn't her right to stop it, it was the state of the law. Now that's it's legal, whence comes her "right" to try to stop it? Her right is to not enter a gay marriage on her 5th or subsequent marriages.

 

[IndySteel]

I wonder what Huckabee's poll numbers have been since he was on tv with her. That dumbass.

 

[ark steel]

Let me ask you this: How did the gay couple find her? Did they(1) go to every county in every state one by one or (2) did she make news by turning down some locals or (3) did she advertise her position on the issue? Unless it was (1), she wasn't targeted.

Tim's premise is that she was targeted. I'm not arguing whether that is true or not. If the couple is from San Francisco, it would seem, more like 1. I don't know. If you want to argue that point (and I know you do), take it up with Tim.

 

[ark steel]

I wonder what Huckabee's poll numbers have been since he was on tv with her. That dumbass.

I hope they go as low as possible and I don't care why.

 

[ark steel]

I absolutely get that she was targeted. Gay people of some means went around to make sure that gay people of less means wouldn't be discriminated against. It's the same as the guys that video tape DUI stops. Yes, they are intentionally looking for people IN GOVERNMENT doing their job in a way that doesn't comply with the law.

I don't think it is the same as dui stops. If some gay couple had applied for a license and been denied, I'd say it was the same. The likelihood is that it would eventually happen, but, up to that point it hadn't.

How much better would have been if that couple of means had spent that money fighting for someone who had actually been discriminated against rather than finding a place of potential discrimination? What about the money the government spent putting her in jail, etc. If there had been an instance of actual discrimination here, the money would not have been wasted. Now it has. It may have been that no one here, ever would have been discriminated against.

 

[oneforthebus]

I think she was targeted and she also made herself a target, with the backing of big time right wing Christian lobbying groups. Let's be honest on both sides. She's being used as a test case.

The reality is though there is nowhere to go beyond the Supreme Court who has already ruled on this. My only real issue is whether she should be jailed. She should definitely be impeached as she is unable or unwilling to comply with the law and do her job.

 

[oneforthebus]

The other issue i have is whether she is being discriminated against. Does this mean gay marriage opponents are barred based on their religion from holding this particular office? Should accommodations be made for her so she can keep her job, much like accommodations were originally made for the Muslim flight attendant who did not want to serve alcohol?? Should she be excused from having to issue the licenses herself? But again, it appears she not only wants to avoid issuing them herself, she wants to prevent others from issuing them as well.

 

[ark steel]

But again, it appears she not only wants to avoid issuing them herself, she wants to prevent others from issuing them as well.

Right.

If she doesn't want to sign them and she is the only one who can, there is an issue.
If she doesn't want to sign them and she intimidates or bullies others under her supervision to follow suit, there is an issue.
If everyone who can sign doesn't want to, there is an issue.
If there is one person there who will sign, there may be an issue, but seems like everyone would get what they want. She would, probably, lose the next election.

 

[Vis]

Right.

If she doesn't want to sign them and she is the only one who can, there is an issue.
If she doesn't want to sign them and she intimidates or bullies others under her supervision to follow suit, there is an issue.
If everyone who can sign doesn't want to, there is an issue.
If there is one person there who will sign, there may be an issue, but seems like everyone would get what they want. She would, probably, lose the next election.

And get a reality TV show

 

[Superman]

Right.

If she doesn't want to sign them and she is the only one who can, there is an issue.
If she doesn't want to sign them and she intimidates or bullies others under her supervision to follow suit, there is an issue.
If everyone who can sign doesn't want to, there is an issue.
If there is one person there who will sign, there may be an issue, but seems like everyone would get what they want. She would, probably, lose the next election.

is this about the sheriff who won't issue CCWs?

 

[EdReed4Prez]

is this about the sheriff who won't issue CCWs?

Did this sheriff look like this?

 

[Superman]

Did this sheriff look like this?

like Biden in a wig.

http://libertynews.com/2015/09/the-...ed-official-who-refuses-to-issue-ccw-permits/

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Right.

If she doesn't want to sign them and she is the only one who can, there is an issue.
If she doesn't want to sign them and she intimidates or bullies others under her supervision to follow suit, there is an issue.
If everyone who can sign doesn't want to, there is an issue.
If there is one person there who will sign, there may be an issue, but seems like everyone would get what they want. She would, probably, lose the next election.

Living near KY I would say she would probably win the next election.