scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
I have not asserted.
Here is a direct quote from you asserting that she is refusing to endorse gay marriage:
She refuses to endorse ss marriages.The Bible teaches that homosexual (ss) conduct is bad and also teaches tohate what is bad.
You absolutely did make that assertion, your denial of that fact is 100% untrue. Now that we have established the facts, why do you think you should escape the consequences of your actions?
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Do not get angry with me viv, but that is an assertion.
It's an incorrect assertion, one you are making. Why do you feel you should escape the consequences of your actions?
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
They cannot force her to endorse gay marriages, but they can enforce a Court Order.
No one is asking her to endorse gay marriage. You are using the word "endorse" incorrectly.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
I do not. When did religion push government to do their job and put gays in jail in the US for their "crimes?"
One case that comes to mind is when Focus on the Family, a right wing-nut religious group, filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas where sodomy was illegal, urging the Supreme Court to allow sodomy and homosexual behavior to be criminalized.
JW would never try to prevent gays from getting married or to have them jailed or executed.
Irrelevant.
It is a circuitous tactic to get her for contempt, but not for refusing to endorse gay marriages-they couldn't, so they used the catch-all device.
It's not circuitous at all. She is refusing to obey a lawful order of the court, something that she sought and swore to do as a condition of her job. Nor is she jailed for refusing to endorse gay marriage. Not one person is being asked to endorse gay marriage. She simply needs to, issue, sign and file marriage paperwork if properly submitted and executed. No endorsement is necessary, despite your attempts to pretend endorse means something it doesn't.
Honesty and education... you should try those. You would be wrong far less often.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Well, you're still wrong and uninformed and seem to have no plans to change either of those things. There is exactly zero point in talking to you as it's an absolute waste of time, energy and information.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
I mean if you did not want to disclose it.
Why would I want to disclose anything?
Also, looking things up on the internet does not mean you have all of the facts.
Very true and utterly irrelevant to the facts (which you've not bothered to look up).
And when viv says something is a fact does not make it a fact
Also very true and utterly irrelevant to the facts (which I provided you).
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Viv, are you an attorney?
Great question!
You can PM me.
I've no reason to PM you.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Fisherperson, you not being sure about the validity of her argument is irrelevant. She is not upholding the law or her oath. That is fact. She IS only doing her job when she feels like it. You not being sure, remaining uninformed, trying to muddy the waters have nothing to do with the facts.
The fact is she swore to uphold the law. Another fact is that she is not. Yet another fact is that judges cannot do whatever they want. One more fact is that you are uninformed and wrong in every single thing you have said. A final fact is that she in no way has to endorse a marriage to sign it, despite your attempt to try to redefine words to suits your lack of knowledge.
As far as knowing whether or not her claim is invalid, she has lost every challenge and no more are left. She lost, her claim is invalid. Every single person who actually understands the issues grasped that. That you didn't, freely admit that you are uninformed on the matter and have made no attempt to bother to learn the facts makes your laughing little more than personification of the phrase "ignorance is bliss". And trust me, you were never arguing to win. Heck, you don't even have an argument. You've nothing but being uninformed and happy about that.
In essence, you're why we can't have nice things.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
She does. The license requires her signature
Her signature is not an endorsement, but merely acknowledgement that it meets the requirements of the law and that the license will be filed if turned in properly signed.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
When did she agree to endorse gay marriages?
She doesn't have to endorse gay marriages. She simply has to make sure paperwork is in order and file it for marriage as she agreed to.
I can see her argument if she claims " I agreed to do my job and I also agreed to do my job when laws change. But I never agreed to do my job when it violates my religion. You are saying that I did so derivatively, but I disagree."
Her argument is invalid. Laws change over time and as a deputy clerk for years, she would know that and be aware that laws would absolutely change during her time in office. Her oath said she agreed to uphold the laws, not uphold the laws except when she felt like it.
Why should everybody else be legally forced to accommodate, but not in her case?
If lot of other people get Reasonable Accommodations- even public officials, then why shouldn't she.
Because "reasonable accomodation" doesn't mean "don't have to do a core component of your job after you've sworn an oath to do so".
I know some elected officials that get special accommodations so they can practice their religion at work, or not work so they can practice their religion.
None of those are "not doing a core function of your job that you swore to do".
Some JW are clerks of the Court (not all officers of the Court are elected) In the US attorneys are officers of the Court.
So what?
Judges can do whatever they like. I have heard judges say: "The law ties my hands." and then do whatever they like anyway, erring deliberately.
Reality differs from your statements.
Sixty one federal judges have been impeached or investigated in the United States. Several were removed. That's not counting at all state and local judges. Also, judges had limited power and authority based on their position and region. They cannot "do whatever they want", no matter how many times or how much you think that to be true.
It simply is not reality.
You think you know so much? Go try a judge. "The Court erred. SO WHAT! The heck with you."
I do know so much, and your suggestion has exactly nothing to do with your incorrect claim and lack of knowledge.
