I love watching gbaji embarass himself. Let's go over the list. I'll probably have to Smash this
Fact: She was elected county clerk for Rowan county, KY.
Fact: One of her duties as county clerk is to sign marriage licenses, thus making them legal licenses.
Fact: In the state of KY, only marriage licenses containing the signature of the elected county clerk are legal and valid. So far you're right, but then again you're just repeating what I've been telling you the last few days so it's not like you're travelling in new circles. So we prove that the only way you can possibly be right is to agree with me.
Fact: When she was elected, *** couples could not legally obtain marriage licenses in KY. And? When I signed up for the military we were still allowed to wear the old jungle camo along with the newer digital camo, but now we're not. Law's change, and we have to change with them. While a fact, an irrelevant one that you should be embarrassed to even suggest.
Fact: She holds a religious belief that marriage should only exist between couples consisting of one male and one female. Another irrelevant fact. She, "as an elected county clerk for Rowan County, KY," is not allowed to impose her beliefs over the laws of the land. You know, that pesky first amendment? Yeah, that.
Fact: After being elected, the laws were changed such that *** couples could legally obtain marriage licenses in KY. Fact: You already wrote this, you dingus. Repeating yourself doesn't make a "fact" more factual.
Fact: She objected to being required to sign marriages which she held a religious objection to. Tough? The law changed. Another irrelevant repeated "fact" just fluffing your wanting big government to make decisions for you.
Fact: She proposed that the law be changed to allow for her deputies to be able to sign the licenses instead of her. She can, but Fact: Until those laws change she still has to enforce the will of the people and not impose her own.
Fact: This request was denied on the grounds that it would take too much time/effort to change. Then she
still has to do her job.
Fact: A *** couple attempted to obtain a marriage license in her county. Oh no! Someone tried to do something they were legally entitled to do so! Imagine if they tried to drink from the same water fountain! You actually thought
this was a bullet point that helped you! HILARIOUS!
Fact: She refused to sign the license on religious grounds. True, and she was wrong as proven by myself and, you know, the law. Are you trying to switch sides? Is that why you're wall of texting this? To confuse people? Because none of this has helped you in the least yet.
Fact: The couple in question could have simply gone to another county clerks office to get a license, or in fact, any other location in the state. See now,
that is an opinion. The fact is that they were
not legally obligated to do so, but
she was legally obligated to issue the license. McDonalds can't tell you to go somewhere else to get a burger, no matter how vegan the manager is.
Fact: The couple chose not to, instead choosing to sue. When someone commits a crime the party who the crime was committed against is legally allowed to sue.
Fact: The local and state governments, could have made the change to the legal requirements for licenses, but chose not to. Seeing as how it was
something they were legally entitled the local and state governments were not obligated to do so, and our Holy Warrior Mother still has no legal recourse.
Fact: They chose instead to go down the path of a long and presumably expensive judicial process. Sucks for Kentucky's tax payers that their corrupt representatives would rather impose their will on the people instead of enforce the laws and cost them money. But,
again legally entitled.
Fact: This process ultimately resulted in a judge ruling that she must sign the licenses. No sh
it! Really? It's like those blasphemous g
ays were, I don't know, were legally right all along!
Fact: She still refused to do so, on religious grounds. Are you just repeating what we've been telling you all this time? Or do you think fluffing makes it look like you know what you're talking about? Again, no sh
it, and she was --
Fact: The judge had her arrested on contempt charges. Continuation: -- wrong.
Fact: She still refused to sign the licenses, and was placed in jail. Repetition repetition repetition ...
Fact: The judge ordered her deputies to sign the licenses instead. ... fluff fluff fluff ...
Fact: 5 out of 6 deputies complied with that order and signed the licenses. And she claims they are void without her approval and refuses to cede authority.
Fact: Those signed licenses are still in violation of the law, and may not be valid until the state makes the very changes she asked for at the start. Yes, they're in violation of the law because she's breaking the law to impose her will. Actually, the state could also issue an injunction where the deputies signatures are valid and disallow/fire the current clerk in favor of someone who will respect the laws of this country.
Enough facts for you? Unless you've got more material to prove me right, that looks like plenty. You don't need my permission to embarrass yourself though, so if you've got more shlick, go for it.
gbaji wrote:
Both of which fall squarely in the "religious persecution" area IMO.
And as I've proved for several days now, as well as the law, your opinion is as wrong as Mrs "Sexual Immorality is Okay as Long as I Do It" Davis'. "It's religious persecution to not let me religiously persecute people" still remains, for the most part, illegal.
gbaji wrote:
Again, they chose a course of action designed to require a person to have to chose between following the dictates of their faith
-- their faith that's been proven without a shadow of a doubt that she's not exactly too keen of following, mind. Remember, she's been remarried three times, a very clear violation of what the Bible says a pious person would do,
and is in clear violation of one of the ten commandments. Notice how being g
ay
isn't one of the big ten yet adultry is?
gbaji wrote:
or losing their job, when there was another course of action available to them which could have avoided that dilemma.
Sure, your opinion of what they
could have done isn't wrong, but the catch that disproves your whole point is that they were legally in the right and she was legally wrong. So while they
could have gone elsewhere, it would have been a matter of courtesy and were in no way obligated, she still has no say in the matter since the first amendment demands that she not act in a manner that places her faith above the will of the people. If you'd have stayed tuned for the whole episode of Law & Order, you'd have realized that "because God said so" didn't work for Michael from Burn Notice.
Anyway, thanks for proving me right again. I know you had to gamble and ultimately out yourself as an America hating commie, but it's the small sacrifices that make people like me look good. Also, don't think that your subtle willingness to break the filter for certain words but not others went unnoticed.
Oh, and it should also be noted how funny it is that you called what I said opinions, and then proceeded to write out exactly what I said and called it facts.
Edited, Sep 10th 2015 12:41pm by lolgaxe