Friday, September 4, 2015

Ed Brayton's Gaystapo celebrate jailing of Christian clerk

In case you thought that the jailing of Kim Davis was about the law, rather than about the criminalization of Christianity, Ed Brayton has a message for you:
Why are you praying? You prayed that the Supreme Court wouldn’t legalize gay marriage and they did. You prayed that the judge wouldn’t order her to issue the licenses and he did. You prayed that he wouldn’t find her in contempt and he did. You prayed that she wouldn’t go to jail and she is. Either God isn’t listening, doesn’t exist, or she thinks you’re full of shit.
So what is gay marriage all about? Is is about equality and compassion, or is it about the criminalization of Christianity?

This should clear up any confusion you might have had. 

20 comments:

  1. "So what is gay marriage all about? Is is about equality and compassion, or is it about the criminalization of Christianity?

    This should clear up any confusion you might have had. "


    Yes, it absolutely does. She is not being jailed because she is Christian. She is being jailed because she refused a court order. As is the consequence for anyone who refuses to obey a court order, regardless of the reason for it. Thank you for clearing this up for me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The woman's in jail. One less Christian sucking free air.

    Time to pop the champagne, Billy. A real victory for the gaystapo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are we talking about the woman who placed her hand on a bible and swore an oath to uphold the constitution and laws enacted under it? Doesn't God say something about bearing false witness? Or are Christians exempt from that commandment?

      Delete
    2. She certainly upholds the law--there is no law in Kentucky granting her the authority to marry gays.

      The Obgerfell ruling is unconstitutional--as Justices Roberts and Scalia and Alito and Thomas have affirmed.

      Chief Justice Roberts:

      "The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent."

      Davis is under no obligation whatsoever to enforce an act of will disguised as a judicial ruling. She is under an obligation to enforce the law, and the law in Kentucky does not provide for gay marriage.

      The Obgerfell ruling is illegitimate, and ethical officials are under an obligation to disobey it, according to their oath.

      Delete
    3. Billy:

      MLK:

      "An unjust law is no law at all." It is from Aquinas, and it is an affirmation that we are under obligation to disobey and resist unjust laws.

      Chief Justice Roberts, again:

      "The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent."

      MLK quoted Aquinas in his letter from the Birmingham jail.

      Davis can do the same.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also notice that you conveniently forgot to mention that the judge proposed a solution that would see the clerk keep her job, and not require her to issue a single marriage license to a gay couple. All she had to agree to was to not interfere with the deputy clerks issuing the licenses. All but one deputy clerk told the judge that they could do this in good conscience. But the clerk refused to agree to this.

    I also found it amusing that the one deputy clerk who said that he couldn't issue a license to a same sex couple was the clerk's son. Hmmm? Nepotism? I wonder which one of her four husbands was his father.

    You have yet to comment on the hypocrisy of a thrice divorced woman deciding who should be allowed to be married. So far she has broken four vows taken in the name of God; three wedding vows and an oath of office. It is pretty sad that an atheist like myself leads a more Christian life than this woman who professes to be Christian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would Davis obey a court order to enforce a ruling that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declared 'not [a] legal judgement with no basis in the Constitution or precedent'.

      Davis is legally only required to obey legal judgements with a basis in the Constitution.

      It is Davis, not the judge, who is following the law.

      Delete
    2. [You have yet to comment on the hypocrisy of a thrice divorced woman deciding who should be allowed to be married. So far she has broken four vows taken in the name of God; three wedding vows and an oath of office.]

      Slut-shaming really enhances your argument.

      [It is pretty sad that an atheist like myself leads a more Christian life than this woman who professes to be Christian.]

      Don't bet on it, asshole. Christianity is about accepting Christ and His salvation, not about bragging about your own uprightness. Pharisee asshole.

      Delete
    3. [I also notice that you conveniently forgot to mention that the judge proposed a solution that would see the clerk keep her job]

      She retains her job, asshole. She's an elected official, and you gaystapo types can't fire and elected official. I'm sure she's more popular with the voters now.

      As for the judge's solution, Ms. Davis politely told him what he can do with it: (my translation)--wrap it up tight and shove it up his ass.

      Delete
    4. The Chief Justice only gets one vote. The court voted 5-4 that the.
      "fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Wiki).

      That makes it a legal judgement with a basis in the constitution. It is really sad when a Canadian has to explain your own legal system to you.

      Delete
    5. It's legality makes it a legal judgement, and it has no legality.

      It has no force of law, and Davis wasn't a party to the suit anyway.

      It is an illegitimate ruling, and it needs to be disobeyed.
      \
      That was Lincoln's decision on Dred Scott, and it's our decision on Obgerfell.

      Delete
    6. "Slut-shaming really enhances your argument."

      Who was slut-shaming. I merely pointed out that she has a history of breaking her vows to God. That sort of throws the moral defender out the window.

      "Don't bet on it, asshole. Christianity is about accepting Christ and His salvation, not about bragging about your own uprightness. Pharisee asshole."

      Thank you for the kind words. I hope that you and your family have a nice labour day weekend.

      Delete
    7. "
      It's legality makes it a legal judgement, and it has no legality.

      It has no force of law, and Davis wasn't a party to the suit anyway.

      It is an illegitimate ruling, and it needs to be disobeyed.
      \
      That was Lincoln's decision on Dred Scott, and it's our decision on Obgerfell."


      I hate to break the news to you, but it has the force of law behind it. And I have some more bad news for you. You are no Lincoln.

      Delete
    8. [You are no Lincoln.]

      I'm a Republican who detests unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions, and I'm willing to fight.

      Close enough.

      Delete
    9. "[You are no Lincoln]. I'm a Republican who detests unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions, and I'm willing to fight.
      Close enough"


      But at least Lincoln was a lawyer. Five of the Supreme Court judges, who know far more about the constitution than you or I ever will, disagree with you. But keep on fighting.

      In my mind, the biggest problem with the U.S. Today is not the Republicans or the Democrats. It is the constitution. Or, more accurately, the belief that it is a perfect document and that the founding fathers could see all possible eventualities. They were human the same as you and I. Some got involved for all of the right reasons and some got involved out of self interest. In short, no different than many politicians today.

      Secondly, is this strange need for Americans to be either Republican or Democrat. We have that to a lesser extent in Canada (and growing), but all it leads to is divisiveness. Obama could come up with the best policy ever, but people like you would oppose it no matter what.

      Delete
    10. Billy:

      You find Canadian policy so amenable because you are a libtard and Canadian policy fits your agenda. If it didn't, you'd do what libtards do when they don't like policies--you'd riot, set off bombs, lie, cheat, steal.

      Delete
    11. You really are incapable of a rational discussion, aren't you? I feel sorry for you. You are missing out of one of the pleasures in life and filling the gap with anger and bigotry. But, that is your right.

      Delete
    12. Actually, I'm not bad at rational discussion, as your answers have demonstrated.

      Delete
    13. I'm sure that you think this is a witty retort. If that is all you have going for you, who am I to take away your dreams.

      Delete