Once again, the liberal media is proving that there’s no such thing as unbiased news reporting. In the wake of all the cases involving same-sex couples being turned down by county clerks and businesses, it would seem the tables have been drastically turned. This time it’s a gay judge refusing to perform straight weddings. And what are the legal repercussions for such an act? The answer is simple . . . nothing. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the government interference? It’s non-existent, because they’re pretending the problem doesn’t exist.
Read more on NEXT PAGE.
Is she not in jail because as a judge she is above the law she imposes or because she is a lesbian or because she is black or all of the above
My my my
hey you stupid demo craps why is this judge not in jail,you claim she did this to get equal rights for gays how in the hell can you call this equal rights when you put one in jail but not the other
Would not want her too!!!!
Off to jail-no bail set-no hearings-no day in court-guilty until proven innocent…
Has she been thrown in jail? If not why not?
Let’s see if she will spend time in jail
and they screamed for equal rights. That is BS
Arrest her
I understand that Christians do not own marriage solely but the ceremony as it is represented is a religious ceremony and it is not just Christians that have an objection to the ceremony being used by those that by there own admission do not follow their religious beliefs by the strictest sense. Can their be “Christian gay people” absolutely. It is a sin and sinners are we all. The problem comes that they do not intend to stop sinning. As a Christian male I strive every day to live my life in a sin free environment. Some days in succeed. Most I do not. I do not judge the LGBT community for being what they are. I do however judge their actions to be forceful and hateful.the people standing against are not bigiots because they are not doing it out of hate or malice. They just stand for their principals and they differ from those that have other principals and priorities. Is it an easy thing to pack up and move based on your beliefs no but you sometimes have to. Our founding fathers created a new nation based on the beliefs they had. Left everything they had ever known. Is what Kim doing legal yes because she is not issuing them until they remove her name based on her religious beliefs. She did not want to discriminate so she halted until the Kentucky laws were ratified to either match or not the national ruling. The SCOTUS ruling like it or not does not make law. It does bring it up that the legislation needs to investigate and deliberate on the issue and wrote the law. What you have is judges interpreting the law through politically biased lenses and not through the actual law critical definition of the law. There is a reason bills into laws these days are hundreds of pages long to remove the obscurities and ambiguous nature of the laws in the past. The 1st amendment can be interpreted by many in different ways. Same goes for the 14th. We know by the accompanying texts what the forefathers wanted to say but unfortunately they ate ambiguous as they are written.