Marriage Minded Gays 1. Fundie Christian Court Clerks 0.

[Las Vegas]

I don't know exactly at what point they found out about it.  The point is they knew.  Just like you knew. 

They could find out immediately upon looking after he was arrested.

[Dos Equis]

What the fuck. You guys are talking in circles. What about the moslem flight attendant?

lol   

[The Ugly]

They all believed in God.  

I haven't looked at the statistics lately.  Last time I did it was close to 90 percent.  Even it's 80 percent, we're still talking about  the overwhelming majority of the country.  Which begs the question:  who is more likely to be crazy, the 80 to 90 percent believe, or the 10 to 20 who don't?  

How do you know her divorces are immoral?

And let's assume she is a hypocrite.  She doesn't forfeit her right to ask for an accommodation of her religious beliefs, even if she is a hypocrite.  

1) Debatable. They vacillated a bit, but many were Deists (or Christian Deists), who accepted Jesus's moral teachings, but not his divinity (see Jeffersonian Bible). All were science-minded skeptics - before Evolution - so they left room for a creator. But not a hands-on, personal God.

Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, various quotes from Adams, Madison, and latter-day Franklin, all very critical of Christianity.

2) 80-90%, fine, but 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide (90%-plus in Muslim countries); 1 billion Hindus (93% of Southern Africa, 70%-plus in South Asia); 500 million Buddhists (90%-plus in Thailand/Cambodia).

Point being, if numbers make it true, are they all right? And in America, specifically, you really wanna align yourself with the 80-90%, when only 35% have a college education?

Then there's the science: 46% of Americans believe in creation, which suggests a similar percentage believes in young earth (<10k years). So do we listen to them, or the 99.9% of scientists who believe in evolution? And is truth determined by percentage or total number? If it's percentage, is that based on total population or just the educated folk?

3) Divorce, who says immoral? Bible, pal:

Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:15, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:6, Matthew 19:9, Romans 7:2, Mark 10:12, 1 John 2:3-4, Matthew 19:8, Matthew 19:3-9, 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 7:10-17, Deuteronomy 24:1-22, 1 Corinthians 7:10, Genesis 2:24, Matthew 5:31-32, Hebrews 13:4, Matthew 19:4-6, Malachi 2:16, Exodus 14:14, 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Corinthians 7:11, Mark 10:11, Proverbs 18:1-24, Romans 7:3, Matthew 19:8-9, Malachi 2:14-16, Matthew 19:3-12, Jeremiah 3:8, Proverbs 24:14, 1 Timothy 3:2, Mark 10:11-12, Isaiah 54:4, Mark 10:4, Mark 10:1-12, Jeremiah 3:1, Mark 10:2-12, Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, Matthew 12:25, Matthew 19:3, Matthew 19:1-30, Numbere 30:9, Ephesians 5:1-33, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Matthew 19:1-12, Titus 1:6, 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, Jeremiah 33:3, Proverbs 21:19, 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, Matthew 19:9-10, Matthew 6:1-34, Matthew 5:27-28, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 1:18-20, Isaiah 50:1, Ezra 10:1-16, Exodus 21:7-11, James 2:20-24, Mark 10:2, Malachi 2:15, 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Deuteronomy 24:1-3, Romans 7:4, Nehemiah 13:23-30.

So, yeah, not much, but when you multiply it by three for Ms. Davis ...

Homosexuality, on the other hand, only mentioned seven times. Irony?

[The Ugly]

I go to the beach for a day, and come back to 10 new pages of responding to trolling.  I feel left out.

1) the longest anyone has ever been held in contempt of court was 14 years in a divorce proceeding.  Lawyer husband was hiding millions from his wife. He was ordered to disclose the location of this money.  He refused.  Judge locked him up. 

Longest time a journalist has been jailed in contempt of court for protecting his sources is 226 days.

2) the Founding Fathers were not religious.  This was the time of The Enlightenment, finally saying we don't need religion to explain things.  Many of the Founding Fathers were Diest, which is saying well there may be a god but he is a distant god and doesn't get involved with what is going on here. Diests certainly don't believe the bible is the word of god.

i before e, except after D: Deist. For future reference, not trying to be douchey.

[240 is Back]

I disagree.  There are a number of ways this could have been handled other than locking her up indefinitely. 

conservative judge, conservative county, conservative law.

it's all the libs fault.

[240 is Back]

Actually part of the reason we lock people up is prevent them from committing more crime.  Same thing could have been accomplished without locking this woman up.

Hmmm...

So we should take the crack dealers' crack, and let him go... cause hey, we have his crack now, he cannot sell it!

[240 is Back]

I think locking her up was appropriate.. considering all the circumstances..

the outcome of things is usually what it should be.

Tebow ain't starting QB because he's not accurate.  not because there's a big conspiracy.

Palin ain't in politics because she's stupid as shit.  Not because the media is mean to her.

This woman is in jail for breaking conservative law in conservative county...  not because libruls.

[The Ugly]

the outcome of things is usually what it should be.

Tebow ain't starting QB because he's not accurate.  not because there's a big conspiracy.

Palin ain't in politics because she's stupid as shit.  Not because the media is mean to her.

This woman is in jail for breaking conservative law in conservative county...  not because libruls.

Conspiracy? Who's saying that?

[240 is Back]

Conspiracy? Who's saying that?

some people claim the NFL teams conspire against tebow because of his beliefs, not because of his poor mechanics, random inacuracy, 47.8% completion rate career, or piss poor decision making after the snap.

[The Ugly]

some people claim the NFL teams conspire against tebow because of his beliefs, not because of his poor mechanics, random inacuracy, 47.8% completion rate career, or piss poor decision making after the snap.

No one cares about his beliefs, as long as he can win for them. Shit, they most likely share his beliefs. That's just silly.

[chadstallion]

Under Obergefell the Supreme Court has found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Now, you may disagree with that, but it is the decision that the Court reached. Any state law that is contrary to that decision is null and void, just like any state law that limited other constitutionally-guaranteed rights or which went against Federal laws. See, inter alia, the Supremacy clause.


Right, and? The United States is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.


If you do not like our existing system of government, argue to have it changed.


Red herring. Nobody suggested that the Supreme Court is infallible. In fact, plenty of the Court's past decisions prove that it isn't, a point that you make further down by citing Dred Scott v. Sandford. There's others too, such as Plessey v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn and Korematsu v. U.S. to name a few more. But it is the final court of appeal.


Again, you seem to have a problem with the structure of our Government. That's your right, of course and you're free to argue that it should be changed. But until it is changed, this is the system that we have in place and you are not free to ignore it.


Dred Scott was a horrible case and was, thankfully, effectively overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to overturn a decision of the Court, then have Congress draft an Amendment and propose it to the States, or get the States to organize a constitutional convention. Both processes are outlined in the Constitution, so take a pick.


Faulty generalization: not all principles are equal or equally valid, and whether standing by one's principles regardless of the consequences is heroic greatly depends on the principle and what one has to do to stand by it. As you correctly pointed out in another post, we don't consider suicide bombers heroic, despite the fact that one could argue that they are "standing by their principles regardless of the consequences." While I don't think that Davis' actions even come close to the level of suicide bombers, the problem is the principle that she can force her religious beliefs on others and the fact is that her actions are illegal.



Except it's not - as an elected official she cannot be fired.


I didn't either, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.


I, on the other hand, think that people should not blindly be applauded for taking a stand based on some principle without, first, examining the principle in question.

excellent on all points.
probably will be thought of as stupid and irrelevant
after all, it disagrees with his informed (!) opinion.

[LurkerNoMore]

She's still in jail.

God was too busy celebrating Labor Day to be bothered enough to swoop in and free her.

[headhuntersix]

Should have been impeached and fired..not jailed without bail...mass murder suspects have gotten bail. The liberal hypocrisy with this is ridiculous.

[240 is Back]

Should have been impeached and fired..not jailed without bail...mass murder suspects have gotten bail. The liberal hypocrisy with this is ridiculous.

She's from a highly conservative county.   NO WAY those with the power would impeach her & lose re-election.

[TuHolmes]

Should have been impeached and fired..not jailed without bail...mass murder suspects have gotten bail. The liberal hypocrisy with this is ridiculous.

You really don't understand how the judicial system works do you?

[headhuntersix]

She was jailed without bail...for what? I don't think you do.....sanctuary cities...violation of Fed Law yet cheered by lib douchbags. Prop 8..voted and passed by Cali voters yet liberal officials much like this woman still issued marraige licenses...all in violation of Cali law but cheered by the Left. There are two examples....you people are out of control.

[TuHolmes]

She was jailed without bail...for what? I don't think you do.....sanctuary cities...violation of Fed Law yet cheered by lib douchbags. Prop 8..voted and passed by Cali voters yet liberal officials much like this woman still issued marraige licenses...all in violation of Cali law but cheered by the Left. There are two examples....you people are out of control.

What are you talking about?

She was jailed for CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Title 18 of the US Code.

I used to think you were sensible... Now, not so much.

Your first issue, Sanctuary cities is not applicable as it's not a cities job to go out and search for illegal immigrants. That's a federal job.

Secondly, I can give you the difference in Prop 8, but similarly to interracial laws, it was just wrong and as such, is NOW overturned... because, you know... laws.

[headhuntersix]

No bail......how about a fine? Gimme a break. As for prop 8 cali law was overturned by judges not the people and the point was that the Left cheered the folks just like this woman who continued to issue licenses...but I don't know "liberal douchbaggery" its ok. This woman should never have been jailed....it should never have gotten this far. Cities like San Fran have a duty to comply with Federal law....if they don't they are in violation...but the point again was they are cheered by the left while this woman is vilified. You people don't care about the rule of law, you just want to further the cause.

[headhuntersix]

Apparently she's now been ordered released...fire or move her and lets move on.

[TuHolmes]

No bail......how about a fine? Gimme a break. As for prop 8 cali law was overturned by judges not the people and the point was that the Left cheered the folks just like this woman who continued to issue licenses...but I don't know "liberal douchbaggery" its ok. This woman should never have been jailed....it should never have gotten this far. Cities like San Fran have a duty to comply with Federal law....if they don't they are in violation...but the point again was they are cheered by the left while this woman is vilified. You people don't care about the rule of law, you just want to further the cause.

You are insane.

This isn't about any cause except the rule of law.

People are jailed for contempt ALL OF THE TIME.

Why do you care about this case? Because you "hate fags"?

[240 is Back]

She was jailed without bail...for what? I don't think you do.....sanctuary cities...violation of Fed Law yet cheered by lib douchbags. Prop 8..voted and passed by Cali voters yet liberal officials much like this woman still issued marraige licenses...all in violation of Cali law but cheered by the Left. There are two examples....you people are out of control.

this is where getbig gets bad....

this instantly goes from "why did this conservative judge, in conservative county, decide to lock her up"
INTO
"libs suck, look at all they get away with..."

Liberals actually have little to do with this case.   Bush-appointed John Roberts led the SCOTUS to this ruling.  Conservative state, county, and judge locked her up.  And more than half of the repubs running actually agree she broke law and should not have stood in the way of the licences.

Tough to blame liberals here... it's cherry picking of marriage standards by a woman with multiple affairs and marriages, preventing others in a govt office from doing the job they swore to do, acc'g to the Constitution.  Shit man, sometimes it's just people being people, not libs ruining the world.

[240 is Back]

the only presidential candidates pandering to her willful ignorance of the law are those who are desperate.

I love cruz, but he's pandering at a sickening level, blaming obama for what SCOTUS says.

[240 is Back]

Ted Cruz travels to Kentucky to support Kim Davis


Source: Washington Post

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) will travel to Kentucky Tuesday to show his support for a clerk who was ordered to jail after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Cruz will hold a news conference outside the Carter County Detention Center, where clerk Kim Davis has been held in federal custody since last week. Cruz will not be the only 2016 Republican hopeful appearing outside the Grayson, Ky., complex; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will hold what he is billing on Twitter as an #ImWithKimLibertyRally Tuesday afternoon.

"It is important to Sen. Cruz for Kim Davis to know that he supports her and will do everything in his power to ensure her situation is resolved and that no other Americans who strive to live out their faith fall victim to religious persecution by the government," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in a statement.

"The First Amendment — the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and expression — is foundational to all other freedoms and Sen. Cruz is committed to defending it," the statement said.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/ted-cruz-travels-to-kentucky-to-support-kim-davis/

[LurkerNoMore]

Should have been impeached and fired..not jailed without bail...mass murder suspects have gotten bail. The liberal hypocrisy with this is ridiculous.

How much is bail for contempt of court?
Please look it up and report back what you find.

Which liberal judge and in what liberal county did this hypocrisy occur?
Please look it up and report back what you find.

[LurkerNoMore]

The judge ordered her released.  That's good news.

Now if she interferes with the law again, it will be criminal contempt.