Bingo. She is the one following the law. People keep missing that point. She is following the law. The judge threw out the law. She didn't.
Even if you accept his authority to throw out any law he doesn't like, the fact remains that he cannot impose law. But he is doing just that. He is the outlaw here. Not her.
“People keep missing that point. She is following the law. The judge threw out the law. She didn’t.”
But isn’t her argument a religious objection argument that would seem to apply no matter how the law was changed, for instance if congress changed it, or the KY legislature or a referendum voted it in? If all she wanted was to be able to issue licenses without her name on them, and that would satisfy her religious objection, then that doesn’t seem to me that she thinks all KY marriages or just ‘gay marriages’ are prohibited.
Freegards