Update on the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license issue:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...avis-says-judge
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...avis-says-judge
KY taxpayers foot the bill ($225,000) for Clerk Kim Davis legal fees
- Thread starter fw707
- Start date
hunter243sgk
New member
Yea i saw that yesterday. Thats fuc$$ up!! I didnt see what the lawsuit was actually for did you?
hunter243sgk
New member
Nevermind i see we are paying for the gay a$$ legal expense. That is real fuc$$ up. I didnt tell them to sue her.
Yeah but that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the $18 million in our taxes that the Ark Encounter in N. KY is getting.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kentucky.com/news/state/article162508368.html
And they just transferred ownership (as a for profit company) of the Ark project (for $10) to the non-profit company Answers In Genesis.
That means they will owe absolutely zero $$ in city, state, or federal tax money on a $48 million parcel of land.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kentucky.com/news/state/article162508368.html
And they just transferred ownership (as a for profit company) of the Ark project (for $10) to the non-profit company Answers In Genesis.
That means they will owe absolutely zero $$ in city, state, or federal tax money on a $48 million parcel of land.
Quote:The city has already added two police officers, six part-time firefighters, two police cruisers, a new but already used fire truck and a tornado warning system that would be placed at Ark Encounter, Skinner said.
Noah did not need any off that security.
On a serious note.. it is an amusement park, not qualified for religious tax exemptions...
Noah did not need any off that security.
On a serious note.. it is an amusement park, not qualified for religious tax exemptions...
yes, i read the story, and have been following along since it's start.. She works in the office that hands out lic. She is opposed to it. The LGBTQ and on have been suing.
The Gays feel they have the right to force their values and beliefs on others. The constitution and Government has always given exceptions for objections based on beliefs.
It's what has gotten the No God crowd as far as they have gotten and allowed them to win in court to try and pruge the country of any references any where they can find it.
With that in mind, just remember that if the Gay groups keep doing this and make it the norm, then when things swing the other way the No God group will be tossed aside and told to shove it.
This woman has a right to say, i am not doing that. These people suing could get it from somewhere else and someone else. They were trying to force her to do it, just to pick the fight.
The Gays feel they have the right to force their values and beliefs on others. The constitution and Government has always given exceptions for objections based on beliefs.
It's what has gotten the No God crowd as far as they have gotten and allowed them to win in court to try and pruge the country of any references any where they can find it.
With that in mind, just remember that if the Gay groups keep doing this and make it the norm, then when things swing the other way the No God group will be tossed aside and told to shove it.
This woman has a right to say, i am not doing that. These people suing could get it from somewhere else and someone else. They were trying to force her to do it, just to pick the fight.
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZyes, i read the story, and have been following along since it's start.. She works in the office that hands out lic. She is opposed to it. The LGBTQ and on have been suing.
The Gays feel they have the right to force their values and beliefs on others. The constitution and Government has always given exceptions for objections based on beliefs.
It's what has gotten the No God crowd as far as they have gotten and allowed them to win in court to try and pruge the country of any references any where they can find it.
With that in mind, just remember that if the Gay groups keep doing this and make it the norm, then when things swing the other way the No God group will be tossed aside and told to shove it.
This woman has a right to say, i am not doing that. These people suing could get it from somewhere else and someone else. They were trying to force her to do it, just to pick the fight.
You made it way too complicated.
1. Elected official refuses to perform service of their office
2. Gets sued for refusal
3. Plaintiffs win
4. Taxpayers of state responsible for plaintiffs' legal fees.
Seems pretty simple.
*
The Gays feel they have the right to force their values and beliefs on others. The constitution and Government has always given exceptions for objections based on beliefs.
It's what has gotten the No God crowd as far as they have gotten and allowed them to win in court to try and pruge the country of any references any where they can find it.
With that in mind, just remember that if the Gay groups keep doing this and make it the norm, then when things swing the other way the No God group will be tossed aside and told to shove it.
This woman has a right to say, i am not doing that. These people suing could get it from somewhere else and someone else. They were trying to force her to do it, just to pick the fight.
You made it way too complicated.
1. Elected official refuses to perform service of their office
2. Gets sued for refusal
3. Plaintiffs win
4. Taxpayers of state responsible for plaintiffs' legal fees.
Seems pretty simple.
*
life isn't simple. Liberals like to force those that object to their life style to accept it.
You are saying that we should draft objectors, and make them serve in the military as well.
You are saying that if a court finds that a group can put up the 10 commandments in the city center, you have to just accept that?
Your saying that people should be able to sue a taxi company that has a driver that doesn't want to drive drunk people.
no one should have to do something they morally object to.
You bias is clear and obvious.
You are saying that we should draft objectors, and make them serve in the military as well.
You are saying that if a court finds that a group can put up the 10 commandments in the city center, you have to just accept that?
Your saying that people should be able to sue a taxi company that has a driver that doesn't want to drive drunk people.
no one should have to do something they morally object to.
You bias is clear and obvious.
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZlife isn't simple. Liberals like to force those that object to their life style to accept it.
You are saying that we should draft objectors, and make them serve in the military as well.
You are saying that if a court finds that a group can put up the 10 commandments in the city center, you have to just accept that?
Your saying that people should be able to sue a taxi company that has a driver that doesn't want to drive drunk people.
no one should have to do something they morally object to.
You bias is clear and obvious.
You're getting complicated again.
And I can't speak for any liberals.
*
You are saying that we should draft objectors, and make them serve in the military as well.
You are saying that if a court finds that a group can put up the 10 commandments in the city center, you have to just accept that?
Your saying that people should be able to sue a taxi company that has a driver that doesn't want to drive drunk people.
no one should have to do something they morally object to.
You bias is clear and obvious.
You're getting complicated again.
And I can't speak for any liberals.
*
Originally Posted By: fw707
You're getting complicated again.
If letting people follow their beliefs is complicated, then there isn't much that isn't complicated in that world.
Originally Posted By: fw707
I can't speak for any liberals.
Then don't let your bias align you with liberal and you won't be speaking for their views. (that's simple)
You're getting complicated again.
If letting people follow their beliefs is complicated, then there isn't much that isn't complicated in that world.
Originally Posted By: fw707
I can't speak for any liberals.
Then don't let your bias align you with liberal and you won't be speaking for their views. (that's simple)
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZOriginally Posted By: fw707
You're getting complicated again.
If letting people follow their beliefs is complicated, then there isn't much that isn't complicated in that world.
Originally Posted By: fw707
I can't speak for any liberals.
Then don't let your bias align you with liberal and you won't be speaking for their views. (that's simple)
The only views I speak for are mine.
I guess a lot of folks have sand in their cracks over the loss, but it's over and done-
at least for now.
If you'll go back to the title of thread you'll see it was started because the taxpayers of the state are responsible for the payment of the legal fees to the ACLU attorneys who represented the plaintiffs, because Davis refused to obey the law.
That is a done deal.
(Go back and read my 1,2,3,4 explanation again if you need to.)
Who should be responsible for the $225,000?
*
You're getting complicated again.
If letting people follow their beliefs is complicated, then there isn't much that isn't complicated in that world.
Originally Posted By: fw707
I can't speak for any liberals.
Then don't let your bias align you with liberal and you won't be speaking for their views. (that's simple)
The only views I speak for are mine.
I guess a lot of folks have sand in their cracks over the loss, but it's over and done-
at least for now.
If you'll go back to the title of thread you'll see it was started because the taxpayers of the state are responsible for the payment of the legal fees to the ACLU attorneys who represented the plaintiffs, because Davis refused to obey the law.
That is a done deal.
(Go back and read my 1,2,3,4 explanation again if you need to.)
Who should be responsible for the $225,000?
*