User Profile: HarryPotter

HarryPotter

Member Since: January 23, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] August 27, 2015 at 2:45pm

    This is her job. If she refuses to do her job, she needs to be fired. Plain and simple. This should not still be happening, this couple has had the legal right to marry for several weeks now. Fire the hypocrite.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] August 27, 2015 at 8:58am

    For:
    I’m not a liberal, I’m not an atheist, and by definition if the Supreme Court declares something unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. Perhaps you should read up on the responsibility of the different branches of government. I have already been over everything in your last posts, and have no desire to continue explaining it to you.

  • [1] August 27, 2015 at 12:51am

    For:
    You are only getting crazier here. My pointing out that your analogy makes no sense is not a lie. I have not heard anyone else, ever, say that bans on gay marriage were not exactly that. I’m still not sure what you seem to think they were. There was a time when slavery was constitutional, but thankfully we now have an amendment banning it. You also clearly didn’t read or didn’t inderstand my last post which explained why those bans were unconstitutional. Please read back through it. And this woman works for the government, not a private business. When she is at work, she represents the US government. She needs to do her job, or quit and find a new one.

  • [4] August 27, 2015 at 12:25am

    For:
    I hope you realize that the analogy you tried to write makes absolutely no sense. I can’t even tell what your meaning was there. No one else, liberal or conservative denies that the laws and amendments passed to keep gay couples from marrying were bans on gay marriage. I have no idea why you do. But they were unconstitutional (and ruled so in the scotus decision) because marriage is a civil right (declared so by the scotus many times) and it is unconstitutional to vote away the rights of citizens. Plain and simple.

    And currently, this woman is not issuing any marriage licenses, so yes, the job she was hired to do, she is not doing. She was hired to issue these licenses to all couples who legally apply. That has always been her job. That has not changed. More couples can legally apply now, that is true. Her job has not changed, and if she won’t do it, she needs to be fired or removed.

  • [3] August 26, 2015 at 9:20pm

    For:
    Issuing marriage licenses certainly was part of her job. And I think you mean the marriage bans before this were unconstitutional. If you need me to explain why for the millionth time, I’ll be happy to explain it to you

  • [5] August 26, 2015 at 8:53pm

    How does that hypocrite still have a job? Anywhere else, you decide to stop doing your job you don’t last long.

    Responses (14) +
  • [2] August 19, 2015 at 10:36pm

    So, do they think that by changing back the words in that form that gay couples will not raise children anymore? If so, I have a bridge to sell them….

  • [12] August 19, 2015 at 11:14am

    To answer the authors questions:
    “First, whose Constitutional rights are more important, those of the Kentucky clerk or those belonging to the same-sex couple?”
    Both are equally important, but the clerks rights do not include being able to refuse to do her job. She has the right to find a different job where she is not required to issue marriage licenses.
    “Secondly, should the state of Kentucky be required to follow the U.S. Supreme Court decision since the court clearly overstepped its judicial boundaries by creating law rather than merely interpreting law?”
    This is not what happened at all. This case merely overturned a lower court ruling, and ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
    The couple has a legal right to get married, but they cannot go into a church and demand to be married by a priest. The clerk has a right to her beliefs, but she does not have the right to refuse to do her job duties. I hope this clears it up for you.

  • August 19, 2015 at 11:00am

    Apparently the best way to make money nowadays is to be a discrimibating dirtbag who breaks the law, gets sued, and then cons a bunch of saps into giving him money. Well, gotta give him props for knowing how to work the system.

    Responses (7) +
  • [24] August 18, 2015 at 3:43pm

    I love this. These clerks are breaking the law, refusing to do their jobs, but this author is trying to make them the victims. LOL.

    If you are can’t or won’t do your job, you either need to resign or expect to be fired. Plain and simple.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 18, 2015 at 12:22pm

    By your rationale here, the Supreme Court also changed the definition of marriage 50 years ago by overturning bans on interracial marriage.

  • [3] August 18, 2015 at 12:20pm

    Seriously, how does this woman still have a job? If I said that I wasn’t going to do my work anymore, I would be fired pretty quickly.

    And FYI, the Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a civil right in several separate cases, and it is against the 14th amendment for states to make laws which deprive citizens of their rights. Marriage is between any two consenting adults.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] August 17, 2015 at 5:20pm

    Monk:
    I’m a man who is partnered with, and has sex with another man. I do not have HIV, nor AIDS and I am not dead.

    Boom. Proven wrong.

  • [50] August 14, 2015 at 9:53am

    You’re losing your religion because they aren’t allowed to refuse to do their jobs? Wow. Let me help you with this, judges and prison workers are employed by the government, and are agents of the government. There is this wonderful thing called separation of church and state, one of the principles this nation was founded upon. That means agents of the government, or people employed by the government cannot force their beliefs into others. That is why judges and prison workers cannot use their beliefs to either deny someone a legal marriage license, or try to covert prisoners. That would be a violation of the first amendment, forcing your religion onto others. If you want to live in a place where the government does force religion onto the people, try Iran.

    Also, I’m sure that 50 years ago some (similarly misguided) Christians felt their religion was under attack, or that they were losing their religion when judges had to marry interracial couples, and businesses had to serve black customers equally. Thankfully, that is a non-issue for nearly everyone today. And so it will be with this.

    In reply to the contribution Christians: We're Losing Our Religion

    Responses (6) +
  • [2] August 13, 2015 at 8:55pm

    Cruz:
    So you’re saying that because the Supreme Court ruled like that before, none of their rulings are valid, and we should completely ignore the Constitution? Or does that only work when they don’t make rulings that match your anti-gay beliefs? Try reading the Constitution, this is exactly what they are supposed to do, this ruling is the definition of why there is a judicial branch, it is unconstitutional to vote away other citizens rights.

    Oh, and have fun wasting your vote on Cruz. LOL

  • [4] August 13, 2015 at 4:58pm

    Blest:
    The Supreme Court didn’t define anything, all they did was rule state amendments unconstitutional. As is their duty, as those laws/amendments were blatantly unconstitutional. People whined about how marriage had been changed when interracial marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court 50 years ago too. They also claimed that those relationships weren’t marriage. But the bigots of yesteryear have faded from memory, as will the bigots of today.

  • [118] August 13, 2015 at 3:00pm

    One of my favorite quotes:

    “To determine if a toy is for boys or girls: Is this toy operated with genitals?
    If yes, this toy is not for children.
    If no, the toy is for boys and girls.”

    It’s really that simple.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] August 13, 2015 at 1:40pm

    Blest:
    LOL. Typical you. Resort to insults when you have no rational argument. Issuing these licenses is part of her job. It’s that simple.

    And the people went against the Constitution with that illegal vote to begin with. FYI

  • [7] August 13, 2015 at 12:58pm

    Jblaze:
    I find it amusing that you chastise me for not understanding the Bible, and then display your ignorance of it with posts like that. First, this clerk has had 4 marriages. Sure, one might be legit, but four? The Bible has a lot to say on divorce, and absolutely nothing on gay marriage. Funny that. There are a couple obscure verses on male-male sex, but the Bible is just as clear that shaving is a sin, a woman’s head must be covered, and that she is not allowed to speak at all in church.

    Of course, this is all meaningless when considering the main issue. Issuing marriage licenses is part of her job. Period. She needs to do that, or get a new job. She can go be a major hypocrite in another position.

  • [4] August 13, 2015 at 11:57am

    No, she has to give gay couples real marriage licenses. The oath she took said she would perform her job duties, and that included issuing said licenses. The Supreme Court has judicial power, the power to determine what is constitutional. And they determined that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional.

    Anything else you need cleared up for you?

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love