SCOTUS orders thrice-divorced KY county clerk to issue marriage license

[BmorePat87]

I know this man, as a former SCOTUS clerk, knows that he is completely full of shit. But apparently none of that matters if it means you can pander to a group for some votes.

[GMDino]

(09-03-2015, 09:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

I know this man, as a former SCOTUS clerk, knows that he is completely full of shit. But apparently none of that matters if it means you can pander to a group for some votes.

[Rotobeast]

The funniest thing is that this chick is just a paper pusher, but she envisions herself in this manner.....

[Bengalzona]

"Turn to the left."

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2015, 09:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

I know this man, as a former SCOTUS clerk, knows that he is completely full of shit. But apparently none of that matters if it means you can pander to a group for some votes.

It is crazy. I just watched the local news and Ms Davis'  Lawyer had the exact same quote.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-03-2015, 06:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If she is elected then recall her.   Or elect a new person next time.  Pretty simple.

In the meantime let her run amok.  Dumb, troll or both.  I love that more and more people are wise to you with every insipid post you make.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-03-2015, 09:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

I know this man, as a former SCOTUS clerk, knows that he is completely full of shit. But apparently none of that matters if it means you can pander to a group for some votes.

But no Republicans actually support this woman.

[BmorePat87]

(09-03-2015, 11:57 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote:
But no Republicans actually support this woman.  

Except Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Scott Walker...

[Belsnickel]

(09-03-2015, 09:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

I know this man, as a former SCOTUS clerk, knows that he is completely full of shit. But apparently none of that matters if it means you can pander to a group for some votes.

A friend of mine expressed my thoughts quite well last evening.

Quote:Regarding the situation in Kentucky....A government official attempting to implement their interpretation of theology in civil law is not a matter of religious liberty. It is the exact opposite of that. The First Amendment serves as a protection against an establishment of religion by government authorities over their citizens, as well as to protect a citizen's free exercise of their faith. As a government official, the clerk has the right to believe that same-sex marriage violates her religious faith, but she does not have the right to use the power of her office to enforce that faith on others.

Let's flip it, and hypothesize a scenario where a Muslim clerk refused to issue a marriage license to an interfaith couple unless the non-Muslim member converted to Islam. Or a practioner [sic] of New Age beliefs refuse to issue a license to a couple because their astrological signs don't align. Most people would justifiably call for that clerk to be removed from their office. The actions of the clerk in Kentucky are the exact same.

If she was a private marriage officiant, or pastor, and refused to marry a same-sex couple, she would be in her rights. If she operated a bakery or a floral shop, and she felt participating in a same-sex wedding violated her religious beliefs, then I would support her (though I know many people, and quite a few courts, disagree with me on that). But as a public official, she took an oath to uphold the laws and constitutions of the U.S. and Kentucky, and SCOTUS has interpreted the 14th Amendment to protect a homosexual couple's right to marriage. If she doesn't agree with it, she should have resigned her position.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-03-2015, 11:57 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote:
But no Republicans actually support this woman.  

Nobody said that.

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2015, 09:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know this man, as a former SCOTUS clerk, knows that he is completely full of shit. But apparently none of that matters if it means you can pander to a group for some votes.

Very bi-partisan of Cruz to support this Democrat. If we could just get more Politicians to step across the aisle.

 BTW, Cruz is a great many things, but dumb is not one of them.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2015, 10:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  BTW, Cruz is a great many things, but dumb is not one of them.

He is claiming that in America elected officials are allowed to define the law based on their own personal religious beliefs.

So I know for a fact that he is either dumb or a liar.

You can choose whichever one you want.

[*bfine32*]

(09-04-2015, 10:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Well I know for a fact that he is either dumb or a liar.

You can choose whichever one you want.

....or a Politician.

[BmorePat87]

(09-04-2015, 10:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  BTW, Cruz is a great many things, but dumb is not one of them.

Which is why I said "as a former SCOTUS clerk" that he was full of shit and pandering for votes. A former AG who clerked for the SCOTUS knows that she wasn't "arrested... for living according to her faith". He also knows that this country is America. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-04-2015, 10:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Which is why I said "as a former SCOTUS clerk" that he was full of shit and pandering for votes. A former AG who clerked for the SCOTUS knows that she wasn't "arrested... for living according to her faith". He also knows that this country is America. 

This assertion of considering him dumb was not directed at you; as I am sure you are aware that he is quite brilliant.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 09:24 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Nobody said that.

Not explicitly by anyone on this thread, true. But there was this one guy who asked a pointed question that, despite the whining of certain members, has proven kind of prophetic:

GodHatesBengals Wrote:I know the pro-police, law and order Republicans will be roundly applauding the legal system for not being lenient on this lawbreaker, right?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-04-2015, 12:03 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Not explicitly by anyone on this thread, true. But there was this one guy who asked a pointed question that, despite the whining of certain members, has proven kind of prophetic:

Actually it proved to be 100% incorrect.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 12:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Actually it proved to be 100% incorrect.  

Then perhaps you could explain why a whole horde of brain dead pro-police, law and order Republicans who are running for President are publicly denouncing this woman's jailing, since it would appear to thinking people that proves it to be 100% correct.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-04-2015, 12:20 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Then perhaps you could explain why a whole horde of brain dead pro-police, law and order Republicans who are running for President are publicly denouncing this woman's jailing, since it would appear to thinking people that proves it to be 100% correct.

It's called pandering to a base.  Don't act like you're naive to the practice, or that it's exclusive to just one side of the spectrum.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-04-2015, 12:20 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Then perhaps you could explain why a whole horde of brain dead pro-police, law and order Republicans who are running for President are publicly denouncing this woman's jailing, since it would appear to thinking people that proves it to be 100% correct.

Oh now it's all Republicans and not just those on this board. 

I do like the brain dead part.  Which ones are you smarter than?  You smarter than Ted Cruz?