Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Sep 3, 2015.
Reading Cruz's book, A Time for Truth. Finally, a Reaganesque statesman. :thumbs:
The Republican establishment is in bed with the Democrats and here this little Democrat clerk stands up for decency. I would split my ticket for her if she would care to move to the Indianapolis suburbs. Why don't g@ys go to friendly liberal clerks?
Because they live in towns with the nasty, unfriendly conservative clerks and don't think their tax dollars demand that they be treated in such a manner.:thumbs:
You sound just like white folks talking about black folks during the 50s and 60s and integration.
And save all the immutable mumbo jumbo.
So glad that you brought up integration...
What would you have thought about a clerk issuing a marriage license to an interracial couple when such marriages were illegal?
Would you have said that the clerk should obey the law and refuse to issue the license - or follow his/her convictions and issue the license?
Let's apply apples to apples. In doing so, your question should properly read: What would you have thought about a clerk NOT issuing a marriage license to an interracial couple when such marriages were made legal, since we are comparing apples to apples.
I'd say STILL, she needs to do her job or resign.
Your question isn't in line with the current situation. My reworded question is.
In other words, rather than being a man and answering a difficult question, you just changed the question to something you found more palatable and answered your own question.
In other words, the question he asked wasn't consistent with the current situation. I made it consistent.
You don't get to lie and shape the narrative with me so save your sniping for the folks who are afraid of your barking.:smilewinkgrin:
The question is comparable...
In both situations the clerk would not be following the law but instead would be following their conscience.
So how about answering the question that I posed?
No your question was NOT comparable. And one has to wonder why you didn't just ask it in a comparable way. But with the example you gave, I KNOW why you didn't ask it in a comparable way.:laugh:
That's not comparable. So why don't you try asking a question that is comparable to the situation at hand instead of trying to manipulate the conversation so that you can make a point?
I'm not barking at you, but I agree with him. The law is a masterful display of moral decay of any virtue attributed to marriage & it should be apposed by everyone who claims to put God first in their lives. By resigning, Ms. Davis would fold to "Sin" & I personally have the greatest respect for her devotion to Christ over and above her duty to any Federal Judge & a Supreme Court mandate.
Further, we as a country are heading into a immoral (thug) government that I personally consider unlawful. As children, my generation used to sing daily in school, "My Country Tis Of Thee" .... it goes on....sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Well we aint singing now....not when our liberties are one by one being stripped from us! Whats left is kinda crap packaged to fool the weak-minded & reward the atheist. I am not buying it!!!
Your refusal to answer the question is actually an answer in itself.
And is not unnoticed by others.
And with THIS I do not disagree.
I understand what she may think she's trying to do. But she's no doubt issued marriage licenses to all sorts of sinners in the past. Why is she suddenly getting convictions with the homosexuals?
If she can't do the job she was hired to do, she needs to resign.
I don't disagree. But that has nothing to do with the oath she swore to do her job that she NOW refuses to do.
She needs to resign. She's made her point.
This becomes less about God and more about her every day.
Your continuance in trying to manipulate the question speaks volumes and should tell everyone all they need to know about your motifs.
I posed the question.
It is you that is manipulating it.
A similar question would be to ask if he would enforce runaway slave laws, since they were the "law of the land".
You posed a question that was PURPOSELY inconsistent with the given situation because you thought it would help make your point.
You're not dealing with a dummy. Ask a question that's representative of the given situation and then it will be relevant. Otherwise this is just another very weak attempt by you to manipulate and steer a conversation.
Has God spoken to us about slavery? Yep.
Last I checked, ain't nothing in the Bible about marriage licenses for SS couples.
But if I were in a position where I was told I had to enforce runaway slave laws and I believed that to be in contradiction to what God's word says, then I'd say I can't do this job under these terms and resign.
It's called DEBATE.