It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky county clerk to pay the same-sex couple she illegally denied a marriage license to

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2024 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: liberalskeptic

$360,000!

That's an expensive opinion to harbor. LoL

The part im not quite understanding is nobody was making her marry someone of the same sex.

So what her boggle was denying other people a marriage license considering the law is quite frankly beyond me.

Anyhoo let the haters hate, coz its way too late.

And good luck to her finding another job with that sort of antiquated draconian attitude, Maybe the westboro baptist church is hiring.




posted on Jan, 5 2024 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: liberalskeptic

Several instances of Biden ignoring court rulings on the border and student loans.



posted on Jan, 6 2024 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: liberalskeptic

Several instances of Biden ignoring court rulings on the border and student loans.


Might agree. Perhaps you can cite them.



posted on Jan, 6 2024 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: liberalskeptic

$360,000!

That's an expensive opinion to harbor. LoL

The part im not quite understanding is nobody was making her marry someone of the same sex.

So what her boggle was denying other people a marriage license considering the law is quite frankly beyond me.

Anyhoo let the haters hate, coz its way too late.

And good luck to her finding another job with that sort of antiquated draconian attitude, Maybe the westboro baptist church is hiring.



She was not sued for making her marry another girl. She was sued for not doing her Constitutional job as an elected official. She took a paycheck from the County, wronged people submitting valid petitions for her to do her job, and now must pay. She was assessed $100,000 for not doing her job which seems pretty reasonable. The rest, which will grow enormously if she appeals, is to pay the attorneys' fees of her victims.
edit on 6-1-2024 by liberalskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2024 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: grey580

No one has a right to loot, commit arson, assault cops, damage property.



Totally agree. And glad we finally agree the folks who stormed the capitol, assaulted cops, and damaged USG property on January 6, 2021 belong in jail!



posted on Jan, 6 2024 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: liberalskeptic



She was not sued for making her marry another girl.


She was sued for illegally denying a marriage license to people of the same sex.



She was sued for not doing her Constitutional job as an elected official.


The reason being she refused a marriage license down to her misplaced draconian religious convictions.



She took a paycheck from the County, wronged people submitting valid petitions for her to do her job, and now must pay. She was assessed $100,000 for not doing her job which seems pretty reasonable.


Good.



The rest, which will grow enormously if she appeals, is to pay the attorneys' fees of her victims.


That's the way the cookie crumbles and people who play silly games tend to win stupid prizes in this case apparently to the tune of $360,000 court costs and damages.

As to an appeal, does she have any grounds for such or deny the part she played?

I'm thinking probably not to be honest.



posted on Jan, 7 2024 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Please cite them. I honestly want to know.



posted on Jan, 7 2024 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: liberalskeptic
a reply to: DBCowboy

Please cite them. I honestly want to know.



Good Lord!

Use Google.



posted on Jan, 8 2024 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: liberalskeptic
a reply to: DBCowboy

Please cite them. I honestly want to know.



Good Lord!

Use Google.


You're lazy dude. I'm very willing to review court citations but if te best you can do is say "use google," then forget it. You have no credibility.



posted on Jan, 8 2024 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: liberalskeptic
a reply to: DBCowboy

Please cite them. I honestly want to know.



Good Lord!

Use Google.


You're lazy dude. I'm very willing to review court citations but if te best you can do is say "use google," then forget it. You have no credibility.


Actually, I never state something without first looking it up.

So the onus is on you, I'm afraid.




posted on Jan, 9 2024 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: liberalskeptic
a reply to: DBCowboy

Please cite them. I honestly want to know.



Good Lord!

Use Google.


You're lazy dude. I'm very willing to review court citations but if te best you can do is say "use google," then forget it. You have no credibility.


Actually, I never state something without first looking it up.

So the onus is on you, I'm afraid.



If you've looked it up it's pretty easy to cite! You seem to be either lazy or lying.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join