Kentucky could have 2 marriage licenses

[Disgruntled_American]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

Anyone supporting mentally ll actions such as Homosexuality is to NEVER be taken seriously so.

Anyone calling homosexuals mentally ill is NEVER to be taken seriously so.....

 

[Katzndogz]

Kim Davis is not asked to sign any documents indicating her personal approval of smoking or obesity.

Hasn't the form been changed to remove the necessity of a clerk's signature?

Signing a form does not mean you approve of it, that's your job (at least in the case of Kim Davis). And I don't have any problem with them changing the form but Kim Davis was ordering ALL her people not to sign it which was wrong.

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Kim Davis is not asked to sign any documents indicating her personal approval of smoking or obesity.

Hasn't the form been changed to remove the necessity of a clerk's signature?

Signing a form does not mean you approve of it, that's your job (at least in the case of Kim Davis). And I don't have any problem with them changing the form but Kim Davis was ordering ALL her people not to sign it which was wrong.

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

 

[TNHarley]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

Anyone supporting mentally ll actions such as Homosexuality is to NEVER be taken seriously so.

I never said that. So..

 

[jillian]

Kentucky could have 2 marriage licenses

Oh I can hear the mentally ill homosexual crowd whining now! Whining because there is 2,whining because there is no longer a clerk name it so they can harass someone about it. What makes no sense to is ANY couple can use EITHER form so exactly WHAT does this solve?

no, idiota. they CAN'T have two marriage certificates. that's the whole point of the supreme court's decision.

you imbeciles really need to give this up.

 

[Katzndogz]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

Is all disagreement with the government treason, or does there need to be an actual enemy to give support to?

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

I think throwing around the word "traitor" is silly though. In no way is she a traitor for her beliefs. I personally think she is a whackjob but definitely not a traitor.

 

[jillian]

Kim Davis is not asked to sign any documents indicating her personal approval of smoking or obesity.

Hasn't the form been changed to remove the necessity of a clerk's signature?

Signing a form does not mean you approve of it, that's your job (at least in the case of Kim Davis). And I don't have any problem with them changing the form but Kim Davis was ordering ALL her people not to sign it which was wrong.

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

 

[jillian]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

I think throwing around the word "traitor" is silly though. In no way is she a traitor for her beliefs. I personally think she is a whackjob but definitely not a traitor.

she's not a traitor. she's just a common criminal.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Kim Davis is not asked to sign any documents indicating her personal approval of smoking or obesity.

Hasn't the form been changed to remove the necessity of a clerk's signature?

Signing a form does not mean you approve of it, that's your job (at least in the case of Kim Davis). And I don't have any problem with them changing the form but Kim Davis was ordering ALL her people not to sign it which was wrong.

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

 

[Preacher]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

Anyone supporting mentally ll actions such as Homosexuality is to NEVER be taken seriously so.

Anyone calling homosexuals mentally ill is NEVER to be taken seriously so.....

Going by what the medical community considered it before they VOTED to change it based on NO NEW EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY

 

[TNHarley]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

I think throwing around the word "traitor" is silly though. In no way is she a traitor for her beliefs. I personally think she is a whackjob but definitely not a traitor.

she's not a traitor. she's just a common criminal.

She took an oath to uphold the Constitution. She didn't do that. She could have resigned and kept her dignity and integrity. Instead, she trashed that and shit on the Constitution AND her oath. Traitor.

 

[mdk]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

Anyone supporting mentally ll actions such as Homosexuality is to NEVER be taken seriously so.

You are the last person to be judging the mental state of others.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

I think throwing around the word "traitor" is silly though. In no way is she a traitor for her beliefs. I personally think she is a whackjob but definitely not a traitor.

she's not a traitor. she's just a common criminal.

I don't think she engaged in criminal behavior (to me) but when she ordered her staff to not sign it, she was at the very least negligent in her duties and improperly was forcing her religious views on the entire office.

 

[jillian]

Kim Davis is not asked to sign any documents indicating her personal approval of smoking or obesity.

Hasn't the form been changed to remove the necessity of a clerk's signature?

Signing a form does not mean you approve of it, that's your job (at least in the case of Kim Davis). And I don't have any problem with them changing the form but Kim Davis was ordering ALL her people not to sign it which was wrong.

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Signing a form does not mean you approve of it, that's your job (at least in the case of Kim Davis). And I don't have any problem with them changing the form but Kim Davis was ordering ALL her people not to sign it which was wrong.

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

And I already said that there needs to be someone there at all times the office is open to sign them. Yes, she has a religious freedom argument, but if say she and the rest of the staff all felt the same then most of them would need to go.

Why is it when someone disagrees with ONE part of something you guys always label people right and left? Here's a hint, people can disagree with what you say and not be right or left on the issue.

 

[jillian]

Kim Davis is/was a fuckin traitor. So are the people that support her traitorous actions.

I think throwing around the word "traitor" is silly though. In no way is she a traitor for her beliefs. I personally think she is a whackjob but definitely not a traitor.

she's not a traitor. she's just a common criminal.

I don't think she engaged in criminal behavior (to me) but when she ordered her staff to not sign it, she was at the very least negligent in her duties and improperly was forcing her religious views on the entire office.

her criminal behavior was in disobeying the lawful order of the court. that's contempt of court and carries with it fines and jail sentences.....

again, if her entire office shared her bigotry and it's pretend religious justification, they would ALL be in violation of the Court's Order. that's why you can't give her a pass.

if you can't touch pork, you shouldn't work in a pork store. if you can't dispense medication, you can't be a pharmacist.

that's pretty much all she wrote.

 

[TNHarley]

Signing a form does not mean you approve of it, that's your job (at least in the case of Kim Davis). And I don't have any problem with them changing the form but Kim Davis was ordering ALL her people not to sign it which was wrong.

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

I wish EVERYONE that violated the COTUS in the Judicial, legislative and Executive branch went to jail. Sadly, they dont. Looked like political theater IMO.

 

[jillian]

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

And I already said that there needs to be someone there at all times the office is open to sign them. Yes, she has a religious freedom argument, but if say she and the rest of the staff all felt the same then most of them would need to go.

Why is it when someone disagrees with ONE part of something you guys always label people right and left? Here's a hint, people can disagree with what you say and not be right or left on the issue.

and who is that person if all of the staffers are pretend religious bigots?

 

[jillian]

If the requirement of a signature has been removed, no one signs the form.

And that is up to the state of course. I was commented what she was doing before though during this whole thing by ordering all her people to NOT sign it. That is where she overstepped her "religious freedom" bounds. You cannot force your religion on others like that.

was she kept from her church on sundays?
was she denied a job because of her religion?

no. she just had to do her job.

she never had a religious argument. that was the whole point of the supreme court decision.

i'm not sure why the simple language of the decision is so confusing to the right.

Well first of all, I'm not "the right". Secondly, I don't care if she does claim religious freedom "IF" there is someone else there to sign it. It became a problem when she ordered all her staff to not sign it and it became a problem when she was the only one there. If she cannot do her job then there needs to be someone there that can and she cannot be alone then.

you sound right. because anyone who's not on the right knows that there is no religious freedom argument for bigotry. it's the same argument the white supremacists made about de-segregation and now it's what they try to use to justify discrimination against gays.

the Court ordered her to issue the licenses. it's that simple. I don't think she had the right to tell her staff not to sign them. but what if everyone on staff felt like she does?

she had no right to do what she did. she violated the direct order of the supreme court. then she went to jail for it. she's a common bigot who shouldn't be martyred.

I wish EVERYONE that violated the COTUS in the Judicial, legislative and Executive branch went to jail. Sadly, they dont. Looked like political theater IMO.

that isn't the penalty for doing something *you* (or *I*) believe is unconstitutional. the court makes those decisions.