Yellow Bullet Forums banner

1 - 20 of 151 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
49,715 Posts
Must be the same judge that set Brady free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,660 Posts
She is pissing and moaning about its against her beliefs.
Sorry, however she is an elected official that has to comply with the laws. I have no problem with her standing behind her beliefs.
However, in this case she should have just resigned from the job. Guess what? Nobody in this country has to believe in ANY god. So, if they don't, she cant force them to.
Her argument carries about the same weight as say, a Muslim butcher works at Kroger or in a meat packing plant and refuses to cut pork or sell it because he would have to touch it. Nobody would force him to work there, but if that's his position he should quit , or be fired.
Same with her. I think its more about her 27 years of employment at 80,000.00 per year and she wont give up the retirement bennies on the taxpayers backs.
You know she has no problem with nepotism. She got hired by her momma after momma was the head honcho for 30 years. Then she replaced her momma. Then she hired one of her kids (her son ) to work as a deputy under her.
I bet she is a bitch to work for and all those under her work in fear of losing their jobs if they don't support her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,488 Posts
I know of a few countries where religion trumps the law. Iran, Iraq, Syria....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,548 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,660 Posts
I know of a few countries where religion trumps the law. Iran, Iraq, Syria....
I didn't think you had to pick a religion in this country to live here.
I thought that is one of the things we claim makes living here a plus.








Actually, I understand what you are saying. She can take her religion elsewhere, then see how well it works out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
She is pissing and moaning about its against her beliefs.
Sorry, however she is an elected official that has to comply with the laws. I have no problem with her standing behind her beliefs.
However, in this case she should have just resigned from the job. Guess what? Nobody in this country has to believe in ANY god. So, if they don't, she cant force them to.
Her argument carries about the same weight as say, a Muslim butcher works at Kroger or in a meat packing plant and refuses to cut pork or sell it because he would have to touch it. Nobody would force him to work there, but if that's his position he should quit , or be fired.
Same with her. I think its more about her 27 years of employment at 80,000.00 per year and she wont give up the retirement bennies on the taxpayers backs.
You know she has no problem with nepotism. She got hired by her momma after momma was the head honcho for 30 years. Then she replaced her momma. Then she hired one of her kids (her son ) to work as a deputy under her.
I bet she is a bitch to work for and all those under her work in fear of losing their jobs if they don't support her.
I guess I somewhat understand your position but when she won the job by election issuing a marriage lic. to a gay, lesbian couple wasn't legal so the game changed for her in the middle so to speak. As far as her being hired by her mother and that may be so but she also has won the election that allowed he to have the job she has now for many years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,660 Posts
I guess I somewhat understand your position but when she won the job by election issuing a marriage lic. to a gay, lesbian couple wasn't legal so the game changed for her in the middle so to speak. As far as her being hired by her mother and that may be so but she also has won the election that allowed he to have the job she has now for many years.
Yes, the game did change.
However, as a public figure working in that particular job, the laws are constantly changing.
She took an oath as an elected official to do her duties. Her responsibility is to perform those duties. If the duties change to include something she is morally opposed to, that is fine. It is at that point she has to make the decision to do her duties, or resign.

She decided to do neither. That is what is getting her in trouble. Shit or get off then pot is the old saying. How long did she think she could just stall and do nothing?

Nobody is requiring her to agree with marrying the ****'s, nor are they making her marry them or have anything to do with the marriage itself. Just give them their license, STFU, and go on with her day. She can bitch to her son all night long about how wrong it is.



Before this ruling, did she refuse to give marriage licenses to atheist and agnostics because they don't follow her religious beliefs?
The truth is she doesn't like *******, and I really don't have any issue with her not liking them. However, she isn't the "decider" . She is just the bitch that has to do the paperwork. She also decided to not give ANYBODY a license! Why? Did she think that would save her from a discrimination lawsuit?
I don't like the new duties of my job, so I will screw everybody over ???


ITS HER FRIGGIN JOB.


if she is refusing to do here job, she needs to step aside, or be recalled, fired, or whatever.
I bet she doesn't give any portion of her salary back to the county for refusing to do that portion of her employment duties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,660 Posts
I'm sticking with her however I understand your point.
Sticking with her, would get your butt in jail too.
I have nothing against her other than she cannot let personal feelings play into the performance of her official duties.

if it is as bad a conflict as she alludes to, than she has to give up one, or the other.


Entirely her choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,264 Posts
She is pissing and moaning about its against her beliefs.
Sorry, however she is an elected official that has to comply with the laws. I have no problem with her standing behind her beliefs.
However, in this case she should have just resigned from the job. Guess what? Nobody in this country has to believe in ANY god. So, if they don't, she cant force them to.
Her argument carries about the same weight as say, a Muslim butcher works at Kroger or in a meat packing plant and refuses to cut pork or sell it because he would have to touch it. Nobody would force him to work there, but if that's his position he should quit , or be fired.
Same with her. I think its more about her 27 years of employment at 80,000.00 per year and she wont give up the retirement bennies on the taxpayers backs.
You know she has no problem with nepotism. She got hired by her momma after momma was the head honcho for 30 years. Then she replaced her momma. Then she hired one of her kids (her son ) to work as a deputy under her.
I bet she is a bitch to work for and all those under her work in fear of losing their jobs if they don't support her.
Correct she is a Elected Official and those who elected her are supporting her, First Second It is the gay peoples belief that they deserve a marriage licence and it is her belief that they do not. Farther WHAT LAW has she broken, Supreme Court rulings are not rule of law, also they cannot make LAW just rule whether it is Constitutional or not.
THis is what happens when you have Activists as Judges who choose to rule based on beliefs instead of rules of Law and the Constitution as they swore an OATH Too.
 

·
Mother Hen
Joined
·
51,602 Posts
Sticking with her, would get your butt in jail too.
I have nothing against her other than she cannot let personal feelings play into the performance of her official duties.

if it is as bad a conflict as she alludes to, than she has to give up one, or the other.


Entirely her choice.
I have to agree with this and it is basically what I said in another thread. If she cannot fulfill her duties, then she should resign. This is not a debate about her religious beliefs or homosexuality. This is a debate about her failure to complete the duties of the office she holds and to uphold the law. She is exactly where she deserves to be for being a dumbass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,264 Posts
Hat to tell you But Kentucky Law prohibits Same Sex Marriage and if that Law has not been amended she violated no law and she did her job.
Her is some of the Marriage law. These laws are current
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205

.005 Definition of marriage.
402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the
civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for
life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent
upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.
Look at the effective date
402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
(a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of
competent jurisdiction;
(b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has
not been divorced;
(c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or
society;
(d) Between members of the same sex;
(e) Between more than two (2) persons; and
(f) 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 3. of this paragraph, when at the
time of the marriage, the person is under sixteen (16) years of age;
2. Except as provided in subparagraph 3. of this paragraph, when at the
time of marriage, the person is under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16)
years of age, if the marriage is without the consent of:
a. The father or the mother of the person under eighteen (18) but over
sixteen (16), if the parents are married, the parents are not legally
separated, no legal guardian has been appointed for the person
under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), and no court order has
been issued granting custody of the person under eighteen (18) but
over sixteen (16) to a party other than the father or mother;
b. Both the father and the mother, if both be living and the parents are
divorced or legally separated, and a court order of joint custody to
the parents of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16)
has been issued and is in effect;
c. The surviving parent, if the parents were divorced or legally
separated, and a court order of joint custody to the parents of the
person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) was issued prior
to the death of either the father or mother, which order remains in
effect;
d. The custodial parent, as established by a court order which has not
been superseded, where the parents are divorced or legally
separated and joint custody of the person under eighteen (18) but
over sixteen (16) has not been ordered; or
e. Another person having lawful custodial charge of the person under
eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), but
3. In case of pregnancy the male and female, or either of them, specified in
subparagraph 1. or 2. of this paragraph, may apply to a District Judge for
permission to marry, which application may be granted, in the form of a
written court order, in the discretion of the judge. There shall be a fee of
five dollars ($5) for hearing each such application.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,660 Posts
Correct she is a Elected Official and those who elected her are supporting her, First Second It is the gay peoples belief that they deserve a marriage licence and it is her belief that they do not. Farther WHAT LAW has she broken, Supreme Court rulings are not rule of law, also they cannot make LAW just rule whether it is Constitutional or not.
THis is what happens when you have Activists as Judges who choose to rule based on beliefs instead of rules of Law and the Constitution as they swore an OATH Too.
I understand what you have stated.
The problem is, the supreme court ruled the ******* and carpet muchers now have a right to request AND receive marriage licenses.
Her personal decision to go against what the supreme courts ruling was, is what has her ass in the frying pan.
She doesn't have to agree with them getting married, she isn't marrying any of them, and she isn't being required to have one iota to do with the actual marriage.
Thus, its not her call. And then, on top of that she made the decision to NOT allow her deputies under her to issue them either.
Plus, she is fuc'n up because she also shut off the straight folks ability to get a license too. So, now she is punishing straight people for something they use to be able to do, but now she wont take care of them either?

WTF ?
Suppose she just said, F-it,,,,, I'm closing the clerks office indefinitely, not doing my duties because the supreme courts decision pissed me off, but I damn sure will show up every payday to collect the taxpayers money??

She is loony, and is actually pushing the cactus up her own crotch, and is whining about how wrong it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,264 Posts
Sticking with her, would get your butt in jail too.
I have nothing against her other than she cannot let personal feelings play into the performance of her official duties.

if it is as bad a conflict as she alludes to, than she has to give up one, or the other.


Entirely her choice.
She did not prevent them from getting a marriage licence, she informed them she would not issue it but they could go to any other county in the state to get one. Also when did marriage become a right. You claim that she let her feeling get in the way the same could be said about those who wanted the marriage license also as they chose not to go get the license somewhere else but to fight Her for it Guessing you didn't see the hoopla they went through in Her office protesting her. When the could have driven down the road apiece and gotten one from some other county office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,264 Posts
I understand what you have stated.
The problem is, the supreme court ruled the ******* and carpet muchers now have a right to request AND receive marriage licenses.
Her personal decision to go against what the supreme courts ruling was, is what has her ass in the frying pan.
She doesn't have to agree with them getting married, she isn't marrying any of them, and she isn't being required to have one iota to do with the actual marriage.
Thus, its not her call. And then, on top of that she made the decision to NOT allow her deputies under her to issue them either.
Plus, she is fuc'n up because she also shut off the straight folks ability to get a license too. So, now she is punishing straight people for something they use to be able to do, but now she wont take care of them either?

WTF ?
Suppose she just said, F-it,,,,, I'm closing the clerks office indefinitely, not doing my duties because the supreme courts decision pissed me off, but I damn sure will show up every payday to collect the taxpayers money??

She is loony, and is actually pushing the cactus up her own crotch, and is whining about how wrong it is.
The Supreme Court ruled that they could get married , What law did she violate Look at Kentucky Law it is clear and has been revised since the Supreme Court Ruling. Therefore She did not violate any LAW just a Ruling and She also did not prevent them from getting married she gave them the option to go to another county to get a license.
You can support lawlessness if you want but she is upholding State Law, She may be violating some Supreme court Ruling but that is based in Feelings and not facts and again not law.
 
1 - 20 of 151 Posts
Top