Replies

I understand your point. It’s no different than a municipality listing the time when a dog license can be procured or a recycling center being open.
It’s also a newsrag inserting an editorial statement, the town clerk’s religious beliefs, into a story about a marriage license. Again, an unnecessary piece of information.
Finally, would the marriage license have been granted if the couple were heterosexual? That information is not provided either.
My comment was regarding one aspect of the story, the clerk summoning a deputy to fulfill a task which was required by her position. You addressed a different issue, unrelated to my original response. If said couple were to appear at the proper time to acquire the license, one should presume a reasonable time frame based upon the laws of that state.

My comment was regarding one aspect of the story, the clerk summoning a deputy to fulfill a task which was required by her position.

A task which the deputy has been fulfilling in the past; therefore, completely within the rights of the clerk to do. You make it seem like she simply pulled someone out of the air and said, "I am not doing my job; you do it."

Her actions, and those of the town to create a reasonable accommodation, were completely legal and within the rights of the town to do so.

This is only a story because these mental-diseased women are also attention whores! They are DEMANDING that this clerk bend to their will! Last I checked, the law does not say everyone must agree to your lifestyle and yet, these women think it does.

What the homosexual/lesbian people do not understand is that getting a license does not make people agree to, nor accept, your depravity. People say you can't legislate morality, but apparently people think you should be allowed to legislate IMMORALITY!

If the clerk herself were the only available person at the time of a duly made appointment, then your position would have merit. The issue with that argument, however, is that the lesbian pair decided they had the right to skip the making of an appointment.

With regard to the hypothetical hetero couple, ALL licenses required an appointment with the deputy clerk, according to the article.

My argument is not “unrelated” to your original post. I am pointing out that your argument requires that the appointment requirement be waived or deemed illegal to be valid.