I'm a little concerned about the news reports I've heard about the Oath Keepers pledging to give their protection to Kim. This is beginning to feel uncomfortably like a Waco situation in the making. I've got a nagging feeling we'll be reading about Kim Davis's death before the year is over. I dearly hope I am wrong.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are not thinking fair and balanced. Why was the judge not held to the same standard?Party and political affiliation aside.
She did the same thing and no one cared.
B42 already explained it to you two times. Let me try in points:
-The Judge didn't block anyone from being marriage (Davis did)
-The Judge said she wouldn't perform any marriages until marriage equally existed (Davis was okay with hetero marriages; not homosexual)
-The Judge referred those couples that came to her to another Judge so that they could be married (Davis tried to block others)
Looks like this is over, Davis has said that she's no longer going to block deputy clerks from giving licenses (though she's still grumbling about how they don't have the authority).
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Double standard. If you are all for equal rights, then you would see it too, as you are bias, you are blind.IT IS A DOUBLE STANDARD>your argument.
You're literally holding the two of them to two different standards.
You're insisting that passing on people who want to be married to other judges (and judges are not even vital to the process) is equal to not only refusing to do it personally, but preventing others from doing so- and it's that last bit which is illegal, and now that she's no longer doing so there's not a problem.
So, you've got a big double standard here TI. You can't force other people into holding double standards by insisting two different things are the same.
Originally posted by red g jacks
except its not the same thingshe didn't bring the process to a halt, all she did was abstain from participating...
still childish and she should still be fired imo... i'm done with this whole "you can't fire elected officials" thing... this is why democracy sucks.
Your take on it sounds reasonable.
Originally posted by rudester
But on a serious note should she loose her glasses and maybe lose a couple of pounds...maybe find herself a black man with a giant cok to shut her up? I mean seriously girls been married 4 times, she just doesn't want to see two men happy! Has nothing to do with god but to do with her bitterness...
I'm going to say, "No, just no." to this. We can disagree with and dislike someone without going after their appearance and talking about their sex life.
Oh, part of Kim Davis and her support's goals was to draw public support for their cause.
Here is the poll numbers before
The poll also found a near-even split over whether local officials with religious objections should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 47 percent saying that should be the case and 49 percent say they should be exempt.Overall, if there's a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it's more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.
The poll was conducted July 9 to July 13, less than three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled states cannot ban same-sex marriage.
Not far from the tipping point, right?
Most Americans say equality under the law trumps individual religious beliefs - a view that leads to broad support for requiring recalcitrant County Clerk Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.In general, 74 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say that when a conflict arises, the need to treat everyone equally under the law is more important than someone’s religious beliefs. In the specific case at hand, 63 percent say Davis, of Rowan County, Kentucky, should be required to issue marriage licenses despite her religious objections.
39% to 74% is an impressive swing! ... if not in the direction she desired.
Which just goes to show with these social issues- while the advocates can make a difference, it's often the responses to the actions that cause the social opinion to swing.
The interesting point to me is not this, but whether or not the Supreme Court in fact went beyond deciding if the bans were constitutional or not and actually made law by their decision as is being claimed. That will be the most important part of all of this is if the justices overstepped their powers in the scope of their ruling.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
When Trump is in office prepare to have your Obama care cut.Btw why do you like Osama care, I bet you don't even have it.
No, I don't have Obamacare, and I'd prefer if we had actual Universal Healthcare.
Also, hasn't Trump basically suggested a healthcare plan that's more similar than it is different from Obamacare?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol. You're so mad.No, I don't have Obamacare, and I'd prefer if we had actual Universal Healthcare.
Also, hasn't Trump basically suggested a healthcare plan that's more similar than it is different from Obamacare?
Why the hell do you care about Obama care, which BTW NO ONE CAN AFFORD, EXCEPT THE ILLEGALS! 😂
Trump Suggested a single payer system.