Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry, but this isn't about those judges refusing to do all marriages. This is about a bigoted lesbian judge refusing to marry heterosexuals in order to communicate a message. Why must you continue to attempt to hijack the thread?
Wrong, she refused to do all marriages, they are refusing to do all marriages. The EXACT SAME THING.
Seems that you think it's ok if your guys refuse to do weddings because gays can get married, but not ok for her to refuse to do weddings because gays can't.
But it's not the same side. The fact that you can't figure that out is telling.
It is EXACTLY the same. One side refused because they don't like that gays can get married, the other side refused because gays couldn't.
NEITHER is required to do ANY marriages at all. It is OPTIONAL for both.
It is EXACTLY the same. One side refused because they don't like that gays can get married, the other side refused because gays couldn't.
NEITHER is required to do ANY marriages at all. It is OPTIONAL for both.
Vizio, let's try one more time: the laws that might apply are about discriminating against one of the named classes of people who have historically suffered institutional discrimination by the small-minded and vicious, not about anybody who might want something you are capable of doing but refuse.
There ....,. is..... a...... good..... reason.... for...... those..... laws. It's about righting a long-standing wrong.
1. She explained why she didn't perform marriage ceremonies (the optional aspect has already been covered) and then referred them to another judge who was willing to perform the marriage.
2. She did not tell state employees under her control that they were prohibited from performing marriage ceremonies.
3. No one sued her.
4. No court told her she needed to perform marriage ceremonies.
5. No appellate court told her she needed to perform marriage ceremonies.
6. The Supreme Court of the United States did not deny her writ trying to negate points 4 and 5.
1. She explained why she didn't perform marriage ceremonies (the optional aspect has already been covered) and then referred them to another judge who was willing to perform the marriage.
The county clerk did the same thing. She was sent to jail. The baker tried to do the same thing. They got fined huge amounts of money.
Quote:
2. She did not tell state employees under her control that they were prohibited from performing marriage ceremonies.
Did she have any subordinates that could do marriages? This isn't really a valid point.
Quote:
3. No one sued her.
That's because no one cared. Christians don't pretend to be offended and sue at the drop of a hat.
Quote:
4. No court told her she needed to perform marriage ceremonies.
So you're saying no one cares what a bigoted lesbian judge does?
Quote:
5. No appellate court told her she needed to perform marriage ceremonies.
Again....no one cares what a bigoted lesbian judge does to discriminate against heteros.
Quote:
6. The Supreme Court of the United States did not deny her writ trying to negate points 4 and 5.
Do you need some more reasons?
I think you've made it clear. There is a double standard.
You can lead a person to the truth. But if they lack the perceptual and cognitive abilities to recognize and understand that truth, there's not much you can do except hope they don't hurt themselves or others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.