Mock

I wouldn't compare her to Kim Davis, Kim Davis is a big fat cunt. It doesn't seem that she was inconveniencing anyone really, the other flight attendants didn't seem to have a problem with her request to serve the alcohol for her. Anyone who has been on a flight knows that two attendants come around with the cart, it wouldn't be that big of a deal for her to tend to the passengers who want coke or coffee and the other attendant serve the alcohol. I think the flight attendant who complained just had a hair up their ass.

But with that said, her refusing to serve alcohol which is part of her job is now causing a problem. The airline was willing to accommodate her until someone complained and then that becomes a burden for them. They shouldn't have to be burdened in any way.


"It was at the direction of the airlines that she began coordinating with the other flight attendant on duty so that when a passenger requested alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request," Masri said. "We know that this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident and that it hasn't caused any undue burden on the airline. After all, it was the suggestion of the airline."

"It seemed to be working out until another flight attendant filed a complaint against Stanley on August 2 claiming she was not fulfilling her duties by refusing to serve alcohol, Masri said. The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress."

(09-06-2015, 09:45 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]What is immigration for 200.00 Alex. That creep Bush started it!

Answer: After going on record 22 times saying he could not change immigration law on his own, this sitting President did exactly that by signing executive orders or actions delaying deportation of people who entered the United States illegally.

(09-06-2015, 01:24 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't compare her to Kim Davis, Kim Davis is a big fat cunt. It doesn't seem that she was inconveniencing anyone really, the other flight attendants didn't seem to have a problem with her request to serve the alcohol for her.

I agree, while the two cases are comparable in terms of principles, the two women appear to have very different styles and motivations.

Kim Davis didn't want anyone in her office to issue licenses to gay couples, based on Her personal religious beliefs. She went so far as to deny hetero couples licenses in attempt to position her religious beliefs as being more important than the rights of all tax-paying couples in her district.

Charee Stanley, on the other hand, didn't try to deny her customers alcohol at all. She made arrangements to adhere to Her religious beliefs without denying/condemning the ticket-purchasing customers whom she was hired to tend.

In both cases though, if you sign up to do a job and your beliefs change, or the laws change...such that you can no longer do the job to the satisfaction of your employer, get another job.

(09-06-2015, 01:24 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't compare her to Kim Davis, Kim Davis is a big fat cunt.

say what you really mean Sally! Don't sugar coat it.

God Hates Kim Davis as much as God Hates Fags

I'll say this, the vile Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) nutjobs are more true to the Bible than is Kim Davis. WBC members are pure fundamentalists. Unlike Kim Davis, they don't cherry pick when it comes to denouncing sin (conveniently overlooking or minimizing their own).



WBC is notorious and widely scorned for picketing funerals for service members of victims and mass shootings to draw attention to its "God Hates Fags" argument; they believe that God is punishing America for accommodating homosexuality.

But, WBC doesn't view people guilty of Adultery and/or Divorce as any better than homosexuals -- the WBC haters know their King James version and they're all over Jeremiah 3:20.

"Get this straight: you can NOT repent of a sin you actively live. Kim must leave that man who's not her husband," the organization posted on Twitter.

Asked how it could so viciously attack someone who's fighting for its own anti-gay principles, the group said, "Proud adulterers who divorce/remarry and refuse to call it a sin are no more a WBC member than a proud fag."

WBC is a bunch of dipshits, but the dipshits have a point in regards to the fundamental hypocrisy of Kim Davis, in my opinion.

Ref: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gay-...me-n422721

She did it! She's famous!

Seriously. Believe what you want but do your damn job. Or quit. I can't really believe she is such a devout Christian after finding out she's been married three times.

(09-08-2015, 05:50 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]She did it! She's famous!

You betchya.

She's been made so by some high-profile Christian fundamentalists and anti-gay crusaders who are positioning Kim Davis as their virtual poster child.



Not least among those fame-makers are some of the GOP Presidential Candidates.

Mike Huckabee, for example, will be pulling his head out of his ass long enough to smile for the cameras when he joins a rally in support of Davis today. He's batting a thousand showing everyone just how righteous intolerant fundamentalists/extremists really are. He's rallied around both Josh Duggar and Kim Davis in the last few months. You're on a roll there Mike.

Seriously, while I respect their rights to protest, advocate and speak freely, I don't think Huckabee and his constituency of far right evangelicals have made any net gains for their cause or changed any minds in favor of their views (which include comparing gay rights activists to Nazis). They're on the wrong side of the Constitution, the wrong side of the law, and they've simply seized the opportunity to preach publicly to the same old choir, in my opinion. However, I'd not be a bit surprised if their form of gospel has prompted some rational young and moderate Christians to move further away from their stance.

Walker and Jindahl and Cruz are among those crying, "attack on religious (Christian) freedoms!" too. I think it hurts their credibility/appeal outside of their conservative niches and helps make them completely un-electable.

Trump (and Bush, who is essentially saying the same thing as Trump again) mostly got this one right, in my view. Kim Davis should follow the law, whether she likes the law or not. She could have agreed to accommodations which would have allowed the county office and other clerks therein to issue marriage licenses to gays, without her personal involvement. She refused that option. Where I disagree with Trump and Bush is in their assertion that it's too bad Davis is in jail. She put herself there and she's right where she belongs, as far as I'm concerned.

Fortunately, not all the GOP candidates are confused about the separation of church and state and void of common sense. John Kasich, Chris Christie, and Carly Fiorina also get it. They're all religious folks, and they believe that Kim Davis should do her governmental job without using personal religious intolerance as a tool with which to deny citizens their equal rights under the law.

She has won; U.S. District Court judge frees her.

She's been allowed to leave jail after a few days, like almost everyone arrested for contempt of court, pappy.

But, she was banned by the appeals judge today from interfering with other clerks issuing marriage licenses to gays (and hetero couples) and she has conceded, so long has her name is taken off the licenses.

"If (Davis' deputies) can issue licenses under someone else's authority ... Kim Davis would not stand in the way of that," one of her attorneys, Roger Gannam, told CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday.

I hope the governor just takes her damned named off the licenses asap, if possible. If the state does that and deputy clerks have authority to sign the licenses, then consider it a willing accommodation and get back to business, including issuing marriage licenses to all qualified couples, under the law. If she interferes, impeach her.

Looks like the governor can't (or won't) remove the county clerk's name from the licenses or absolve her of that duty, if I understand his press release.

We'll see what happens to Mrs. Davis. I don't blame the governor for not wanting to set precedent or spend hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars to accommodate Kim Davis. That's not "reasonable" accommodation, in my book.


Statement from Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear

"There are obviously strong feelings on both sides of this issue, but the United States Supreme Court has spoken and same-sex marriage is now legal in Kentucky and the rest of the United States. Regardless of whatever their personal feelings might be, 117 of our 120 county clerks are following the law and carrying out their duty to issue marriage licenses regardless of gender. Same-sex couples are now being married in Kentucky and such marriages from other states are now being recognized under Kentucky law.

"The future of the Rowan County Clerk is now in the hands of the courts. The legislature has placed the authority to issue marriage licenses squarely on county clerks by statute, and I have no legal authority to relieve her of her statutory duty by executive order or to remove her from office.

"The General Assembly will convene in four months and can make any statutory changes it deems necessary at that time. I see no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money calling a special session of the General Assembly when 117 of 120 county clerks are doing their jobs."

(09-05-2015, 01:33 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]She's saying all the licenses that have been issued since she's been incarcerated are invalid because they don't have her signature. I read they're unsigned (which is odd...you'd think one of her deputies that aren't supporting her could sign) but the county still says they're valid--even absent a signature.

If I read correctly she has a son who is one of the deputies...he's the only one who is also refusing to issue the licenses.

She is the anti-Rosa Parks.

I know in Florida a marriage license doesn't require the clerk of court signature. Mine is signed by a deputy clerk.

That's why my question was why the deputy clerk couldn't just issue it in the first place. Nowhere on my marriage certificate is the court of circuit court's signature, unlike my warranty deeds to both of my homes that have her stamp and signature.

(09-08-2015, 03:41 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]That's why my question was why the deputy clerk couldn't just issue it in the first place. Nowhere on my marriage certificate is the court of circuit court's signature, unlike my warranty deeds to both of my homes that have her stamp and signature.

I think it's probably the same in Kentucky; that the licenses have the county clerk's name printed on them but any deputy clerk can legally sign them.

Kim Davis wants to have her named removed on grounds that it amounts to her endorsing gay marriage, even if she doesn't personally sign them.

The ones that were issued while she was jailed had her name removed. So instead of the licenses saying they were issued on a certain date "in the office of Kim Davis, Rowan County County Clerk," they read, "in the office of Rowan County, Rowan County County Clerk."

The licenses did include the name of deputy clerk Brian Mason in a spot designated for the "recorder's name."

"They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk's office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on," Davis' attorney Mat Staver said Friday after meeting with Davis in the Carter County jail in Grayson.

But, Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins had previously dismissed that argument, saying deputy clerks can issue valid marriage licenses without their boss's approval.

I hope those licenses issued last Friday are valid; I tend to believe the County Attorney over Davis' attorney.

Ref: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/40255...rylink=cpy

I'll donate a case of white out if it will make her feel better.

I think the County Attorney is right, her signature isn't required on marriage licenses in order for it to be valid. I'm not even sure it would make it invalid just because her name and title is printed on the document. Eat it, you fat bitch.