Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: LurkerNoMore on August 31, 2015, 05:42:46 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/reckoning-nears-clerk-resisting-same-sex-marriage-ruling-202230268.html#
MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and the clerk will arrive at work Tuesday morning to face her moment of truth.
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis will have to choose whether to issue marriage licenses, defying her Christian conviction, or continue to refuse them, defying a federal judge who could pummel her with fines or order that she be hauled off to jail.
"She's going to have to think and pray about her decision overnight. She certainly understands the consequences either way," Mat Staver, founder of the law firm representing Davis, said on Monday, hours before a court-ordered delay in the case expired. "She'll report to work tomorrow, and face whatever she has to face."
A line of couples, turned away by her office again and again in the two months since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation, plan to meet her at the courthouse door.
Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the landmark decision. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience."
Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. Kagan joined the majority in June when the court legalized gay marriage across the nation.
Meanwhile, a couple that had been turned away went to Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins to ask that she be charged with official misconduct, a misdemeanor defined by state law as a public official who "refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office." The crime is punishable by up to a year in jail.
Watkins cited a conflict of interest and forwarded the complaint to Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, whose office will decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor, generally a county attorney from a surrounding jurisdiction, who would decide whether to file charges.
As the clock wound down for Davis on Monday, the tension intensified between dueling groups of protesters outside her office window on the courthouse lawn.
Hexie Mefford has stood on the lawn waving a flag nearly every day for more than two months. The flag is fashioned after Old Glory, but with a rainbow instead of the red and white bars.
Mike Reynolds, a Christian protesting in Davis' defense, shouted at her that he found the flag offensive: He is an Army veteran, he complained, and they had desecrated the American flag. The two groups roared at each other. The Christians called on the activists to repent; the activists countered that their God loves all.
It was a marked difference from the cordial protests that unfolded there every day since Davis declared she would issue no licenses.
Rachelle Bombe has sat there every day, wearing rainbow colors and carrying signs that demand marriage equality. One particularly hot day, Davis, the woman she was there to protest against, worried Bombe would get overheated and offered her a cold drink. In turn, Bombe said she's checked in on Davis, whose lawyer says she's received death threats and hate mail, to make sure she's holding up despite the difficult circumstances.
"She's a very nice lady, I like her a lot," Bombe said of Davis. "We're on the opposite sides of this, but it's not personal."
On Monday, the Christians stood on the grass and sang "I am a Child of God."
The marriage equality activists chimed in after each refrain: "So are we."
-----
When she loses her job, she can pray for her bills to be paid.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/reckoning-nears-clerk-resisting-same-sex-marriage-ruling-202230268.html#
MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and the clerk will arrive at work Tuesday morning to face her moment of truth.
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis will have to choose whether to issue marriage licenses, defying her Christian conviction, or continue to refuse them, defying a federal judge who could pummel her with fines or order that she be hauled off to jail.
"She's going to have to think and pray about her decision overnight. She certainly understands the consequences either way," Mat Staver, founder of the law firm representing Davis, said on Monday, hours before a court-ordered delay in the case expired. "She'll report to work tomorrow, and face whatever she has to face."
A line of couples, turned away by her office again and again in the two months since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation, plan to meet her at the courthouse door.
Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the landmark decision. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience."
Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. Kagan joined the majority in June when the court legalized gay marriage across the nation.
Meanwhile, a couple that had been turned away went to Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins to ask that she be charged with official misconduct, a misdemeanor defined by state law as a public official who "refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office." The crime is punishable by up to a year in jail.
Watkins cited a conflict of interest and forwarded the complaint to Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, whose office will decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor, generally a county attorney from a surrounding jurisdiction, who would decide whether to file charges.
As the clock wound down for Davis on Monday, the tension intensified between dueling groups of protesters outside her office window on the courthouse lawn.
Hexie Mefford has stood on the lawn waving a flag nearly every day for more than two months. The flag is fashioned after Old Glory, but with a rainbow instead of the red and white bars.
Mike Reynolds, a Christian protesting in Davis' defense, shouted at her that he found the flag offensive: He is an Army veteran, he complained, and they had desecrated the American flag. The two groups roared at each other. The Christians called on the activists to repent; the activists countered that their God loves all.
It was a marked difference from the cordial protests that unfolded there every day since Davis declared she would issue no licenses.
Rachelle Bombe has sat there every day, wearing rainbow colors and carrying signs that demand marriage equality. One particularly hot day, Davis, the woman she was there to protest against, worried Bombe would get overheated and offered her a cold drink. In turn, Bombe said she's checked in on Davis, whose lawyer says she's received death threats and hate mail, to make sure she's holding up despite the difficult circumstances.
"She's a very nice lady, I like her a lot," Bombe said of Davis. "We're on the opposite sides of this, but it's not personal."
On Monday, the Christians stood on the grass and sang "I am a Child of God."
The marriage equality activists chimed in after each refrain: "So are we."
-----
When she loses her job, she can pray for her bills to be paid.
She's an elected official and apparently can't be fired.
This is so typical of fundies who think that their personal religious beliefs somehow trump the civil rights of everyone else
If she is unwilling or incapable of doing the job then she should do the honorable thing and just resign
That would also be consistent with her religious beliefs which would make her an honorable person
I suspect she will see herself as a martyr or some kind of warrior for jesus and she will continue to deny law abiding citizens their civil rights.
I'd rather see her hauled off to jail than fined.
-
Let me preface this with saying this, I think gay people should be able to be married. That said, and I didn't read the article so forgive me if it answers my question, but is she the only person at the courthouse who can issue the marriage license? Can't just go to the next "window" and pick one up?
-
Let me preface this with saying this, I think gay people should be able to be married. That said, and I didn't read the article so forgive me if it answers my question, but is she the only person at the courthouse who can issue the marriage license? Can't just go to the next "window" and pick one up?
Morehead, KY. Total Population is less than 7000.
She's probably the only one.
Small places don't have a lot of options.
-
She's an elected official and apparently can't be fired.
This is so typical of fundies who think that their personal religious beliefs somehow trump the civil rights of everyone else
If she is unwilling or incapable of doing the job then she should do the honorable thing and just resign
That would also be consistent with her religious beliefs which would make her an honorable person
I suspect she will see herself as a martyr or some kind of warrior for jesus and she will continue to deny law abiding citizens their civil rights.
I'd rather see her hauled off to jail than fined.
I was being sarcastic.
-
Good for her....
-
Good for her....
Your bitterness is showing.
-
read...I don't give a shit.
-
read...I don't give a shit.
read... but you approve of her little act of bitterness too.
-
Apparently, she understands licenses must be issued, but just doesn't want her name on the licenses. She is asking for a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs and practices. Sounds like an easy fix. At least that's the way someone explained it to me.
-
Apparently, she understands licenses must be issued, but just doesn't want her name on the licenses. She is asking for a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs and practices. Sounds like an easy fix. At least that's the way someone explained it to me.
Her religion won't let her do the job she is supposed to do. Easy fix? She can quit and find something that her religion allows. That's pretty reasonable for everyone involved. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.
-
Her religion won't let her do the job she is supposed to do. Easy fix? She can quit and find something that her religion allows. That's pretty reasonable for everyone involved. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.
This has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It's actually about the free exercise of religion. They have to try and reasonably accommodate her. If they cannot, then she gets fired. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I don't know their system, but I would imagine they can delegate signing same sex marriage licenses to someone else.
-
Seeing how marriage licenses are issued by the state, there is a clear distinction between civil duties and religious beliefs.
If you take a job involving civil duties and following state laws, it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are. If they are in conflict then that is YOUR problem, not anyone else's. You make a choice to forego your beliefs or job.
They shouldn't have to fire her. She should have the integrity to step down and remove herself.
-
Seeing how marriage licenses are issued by the state, there is a clear distinction between civil duties and religious beliefs.
If you take a job involving civil duties and following state laws, it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are. If they are in conflict then that is YOUR problem, not anyone else's. You make a choice to forego your beliefs or job.
They shouldn't have to fire her. She should have the integrity to step down and remove herself.
Good thing that's now how the law works. They have an obligation to try and reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs and practices. She has apparently been doing this job for 30 years. The law recently changed. The right thing to do is to try and work around her beliefs, while giving people the licenses to which they are entitled.
-
Good thing that's now how the law works. They have an obligation to try and reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs and practices. She has apparently been doing this job for 30 years. The law recently changed. The right thing to do is to try and work around her beliefs, while giving people the licenses to which they are entitled.
Obviously that won't be happening.
-
Obviously that won't be happening.
I don't know if that is obvious or not. Neither do you, unless you read something about her getting fired?
-
I hope they throw her in jail.
-
problem is that she is in a government job. she'll never resign.
but yeah she should quit.
-
Her religion won't let her do the job she is supposed to do. Easy fix? She can quit and find something that her religion allows. That's pretty reasonable for everyone involved. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.
How would you feel about a Moslem lunch lady who said she wouldn't serve pork?
-
How would you feel about a Moslem lunch lady who said she wouldn't serve pork?
She needs to be fired for not doing the job she was hired to do.
-
She needs to be fired for not doing the job she was hired to do.
Aight
-
Aight
*fist bump*
-
Hey fundies, I think I see a solution here.
Doesn't Jesus forgive your sins.
Issue the license and then ask to be forgiven.
Biingo Bango you're on your way back to heaven.
-
Hey fundies, I think I see a solution here.
Doesn't Jesus forgive your sins.
Issue the license and then ask to be forgiven.
Biingo Bango you're on your way back to heaven.
Or she can just take a pay cut of 50% for doing half a job and issuing hetero only licenses. Surely Jeebus will be so proud of her for her service that he will help pay her electric bill and whatever else the other half of her paycheck was going for.
-
I assume she is doing virginity tests on all brides and also making sure neither person has ever committed adultery
She wouldn't want to go to hell by putting her sacred signature on one of those marraige licenses.
If she really has been married 4 times there's probably a damn good chance she committed adultery in her past
BTW - how has this woman been married 4 times. Is the primary industry in that town a school for the blind?
-
I assume she is doing virginity tests on all brides and also making sure neither person has ever committed adultery
She wouldn't want to go to hell by putting her sacred signature on one of those marraige licenses.
If she really has been married 4 times there's probably a damn good chance she committed adultery in her past
BTW - how has this woman been married 4 times. Is the primary industry in that town a school for the blind?
-
I'm not surprised
every single fundie on the planet (all religions) are fucking hypocrites
as a general rule, the more vocal they are about their religious beliefs the bigger the hypocrite they will turn out to be
-
I'm not surprised
every single fundie on the planet (all religions) are fucking hypocrites
as a general rule, the more vocal they are about their religious beliefs the bigger the hypocrite they will turn out to be
-
Lurker, are you making these pictures yourself?
I understand the sentiment and I'm certainly no fan of people like the batshit crazy woman but I can see a few differences between her and Bin Laden
-
Lurker, are you making these pictures yourself?
I understand the sentiment and I'm certainly no fan of people like the batshit crazy woman but I can see a few differences between her and Bin Laden
Naw, they are already all over the internet.
-
she was preggo by hubby #3, while still married to hubby #1... and she slipped in hubby #2 before going with baby daddy.
Then hubby #4 came.
Look, it's her right to be a marital mess, we all live our lives how we wish. But telling others how to marry, when you've been thru this many train wrecks?
-
she was preggo by hubby #3, while still married to hubby #1... and she slipped in hubby #2 before going with baby daddy.
Then hubby #4 came.
Look, it's her right to be a marital mess, we all live our lives how we wish. But telling others how to marry, when you've been thru this many train wrecks?
It seems that if Jesus is willing to forgive Adultery (which he said was punishable by death in that book he wrote 2000 years ago) then he can probably forgive her being forced to do her job of issuing marriage licenses
-
Lurker, are you making these pictures yourself?
I understand the sentiment and I'm certainly no fan of people like the batshit crazy woman but I can see a few differences between her and Bin Laden
Just goes to show how crazy the extreme left and right are.
-
Just goes to show how crazy the extreme left and right are.
there are definitely some nutbags on the extreme left but where do they fit into this topic
Often when people (usually right wingers but not always) try to downplay their nutbags they try to claim people are just as bad on the other side.
Can you clarify they crazy extreme left wing part of this story?
-
there are definitely some nutbags on the extreme left but where do they fit into this topic
Often when people (usually right wingers but not always) try to downplay their nutbags they try to claim people are just as bad on the other side.
Can you clarify they crazy extreme left wing part of this story?
Sure, This elected extreme right wing nut defies the SCOTUS because she is following God's law and some extreme left wing nut made this and actually believes there no difference between them. You disagree?
-
Sure, This elected extreme right wing nut defies the SCOTUS because she is following God's law and some extreme left wing nut made this and actually believes there no difference between them. You disagree?
scroll up about 6 posts on this page
-
scroll up about 6 posts on this page
You disagree that only an extreme left would say they are exactly the same? That's all I'm saying.
-
You disagree that only an extreme left would say they are exactly the same? That's all I'm saying.
kooky statements on a JPEG on a message board is different than actions in real life
Anyone who truly believes that statement is crazy but I seriously doubt if thousands much less millions or tens of millions believe that statement but I can assures you that millions of fundies fully agree with this crazy bitch
-
kooky statements on a JPEG on a message board is different than actions in real life
Anyone who truly believes that statement is crazy but I seriously doubt if thousands much less millions or tens of millions believe that statement but I can assures you that millions of fundies fully agree with this crazy bitch
I'm sure this one does!! ;D
-
One of the main problems with Christian Fundies is that like this elected moron, they cherry pick the biblical rules they want to follow and wear them like a coat of righteousness... pretty sad
-
It seems that if Jesus is willing to forgive Adultery (which he said was punishable by death in that book he wrote 2000 years ago) then he can probably forgive her being forced to do her job of issuing marriage licenses
Good point.
-
She has been ordered to jail.
-
She has been ordered to jail.
Glad to hear it.
-
Judge orders Kentucky clerk to jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay couples
A federal judge ordered a defiant county clerk to jail for contempt Thursday after she insisted that it would violate her conscience to follow court orders to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Rowan County clerk Kim Davis and her deputy clerks were summoned to appear before U.S. District Judge David Bunning after she repeatedly denied them marriage licenses, cited her religious beliefs and "God's authority."
The judge said his only alternative was to jail her because he did not believe she would comply with his order even if she were fined. She was escorted out of his courtroom by a deputy, although not in handcuffs, to be turned over to the custody of federal marshals.
Hundreds of people outside the courthouse chanted and screamed, "Love won! Love won!"
Kim Davis testified about 20 minutes and was very emotional. She described how she became a Christian and said she is unable to believe anything else.
April Miller, one of the women trying to obtain a license, also testified. She said she voted for Kim Davis in the election and that this was only about getting her license, not about trying to change Davis' beliefs.
In front of the federal courthouse, demonstrators shouted at each other, sang hymns and waved signs, which ranged from the violent -- turn to Jesus or burn -- to simple statements of support. A small plane flew over the courthouse, carrying a banner that said: "Stand Firm Kim."
Davis stopped issuing licenses to all couples in June after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage. Despite rulings against her, she's turned away couples again and again.
The couples who originally sued in the case asked Bunning to punish Davis with fines but not jail time.
Davis, an Apostolic Christian, said earlier this week she never imagined this day would come.
"I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's word," her statement said.
Her critics mock this moral stand, noting that Davis is on her fourth husband after being divorced three times.
Davis served as her mother's deputy in the clerk's office for 27 years before she was elected as a Democrat to succeed her mother in November. Davis' own son is on the staff.
As an elected official, she can be removed only if the Legislature impeaches her, which is unlikely in a deeply conservative state.
Judge Bunning is the son of Jim Bunning, the Hall of Fame pitcher for the Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Phillies who served two terms as Kentucky's junior U.S. Senator. Former Republican President George W. Bush nominated David Bunning for a lifetime position as a federal judge in 2001 when he was just 35 years old, halfway through his dad's first term in the Senate.
But Bunning has been anything but a sure thing for conservative causes. In 2007, he was part of a three-judge panel on a federal appeals court that overturned Michigan's ban on partial-birth abortion. The panel ruled the state's law was too broad and would outlaw other legal forms of abortion.
In 2003, Bunning ordered the Boyd County School District to allow the student club Gay-Straight Alliance to meet on campus.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/03/judge-orders-kentucky-clerk-to-jail-for-refusing-to-issue-marriage-licenses-for/?intcmp=hpbt3
-
She has been ordered to jail.
hahahaha
Now let's see how Jeebus arrives to bail her out.
-
Fundies will eventually have to realize that gay people have the same civil rights as everyone else in this country
-
hahahaha
Now let's see how Jeebus arrives to bail her out.
I am not trying to shit on anyone's faith.
Seriously.
But my civil rights and liberties override your faith... period. That's how this country is built.
She gives out marriage licenses to unwed mothers, or others on their 2nd and 3rd, and 4th marriages, so she can give them out to everyone.
-
I am not trying to shit on anyone's faith.
Seriously.
But my civil rights and liberties override your faith... period. That's how this country is built.
She gives out marriage licenses to unwed mothers, or others on their 2nd and 3rd, and 4th marriages, so she can give them out to everyone.
Exactly. Being religious and having faith is fine and dandy, but she wasn't elected to be a religious leader or to give and implement her interpretation of whatever book she follows. Her job is to perform civil duties as that of a government employee who swore an oath to uphold the laws of her state. Laws, by the way, that are bound to our Constitution. It is not her job, duty, place or say so to choose and deny Americans their Constitutional rights.
The fact that she is a hypocrite can't be denied seeing how she has trampled on the “sanctity of marriage” through multiple marriages, multiple divorces and adultery. ::) I guess she conveniently skipped the 7th Commandment. Not surprising considering how religious hypocrites love to pick and choose which parts of their "faith" they apply to themselves and which part they use to suppress others with. Obviously her "faith" wasn't in jeopardy when she was issuing licenses to atheists and non-Christians.
Her job isn't to interpret the duties of the office in relation to her faith. It's to do the damn job. If she can't, then she needs to step down and find some other job that doesn't conflict with her bigot outlook.
-
The question now is what comes next
Is she jailed until the end of her term?
Is she allowed to be removed after being absent from office for a certain period of time
Does she do the honorable thing and resign since she has admitted her personal religious beliefs don't allow her to perform the duties required for the job?
I find this claim interesting
Davis, an Apostolic Christian, said earlier this week she never imagined this day would come.
I would love to know what she did imagine what going to happen
Did she imagine Jesus coming down from the sky to make everything better ?
Did she imagine the courts would say OK you can deny these people their civil rights ?
Seriously, how could she not see this outcome?
-
her son was working for her, in a govt job. He's making a stink, not about the nepotism and possible rules violation of being your son's supervisor, but because he is now doing the same refusal.
shes gonna get paid tho, fox will love her.
-
her son was working for her, in a govt job. He's making a stink, not about the nepotism and possible rules violation of being your son's supervisor, but because he is now doing the same refusal.
shes gonna get paid tho, fox will love her.
He will end up in jail too.
It's going to be one big jailbird family.
Interesting how if some people go against a court order they are animals or criminals. These people do it and they are following their conscience.
-
He will end up in jail too.
It's going to be one big jailbird family.
Interesting how if some people go against a court order they are animals or criminals. These people do it and they are following their conscience.
just like the 'tea partiers' are rationalizing Trump's liberalism because they need heroes...
the repubs also need their palins. Cause there are literally tens of millions of low-education, low-income, low-dental republican voters that completely relate to this unkempt woman, her bastard child, and her proud disuse of hygienic products, along with her marriage beliefs.
Especially virulent are those in their own 4th marriage (just like her), screaming about how others don't respect it. *shudder*
-
Usually, people in jail 'find' religion.
Wonder what she'll discover? ;)
-
http://www.shewired.com/entertainment/2015/09/03/17-genius-tweets-person-who-allegedly-sits-next-kim-davis
-
My question is: who is signing the licenses now that she is in jail, and why couldn't they just have that same person sign them as an accommodation of her religious beliefs? Sad day in America when someone gets sent to jail over something like this. :-\
EXCLUSIVE: Kentucky Clerk: 'This is a fight worth fighting'
By Todd Starnes
Published September 03, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/09/03/kentucky-clerk-am-prepared-to-go-to-jail/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1441287657629.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Sept. 1, 2015: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis listens to a customer following her office's refusal to issue marriage licenses at the Rowan County Courthouse in Morehead, Ky. Although her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied, Davis still refuses to issue marriage licenses.
UPDATE: A federal judge has ordered a defiant Kentucky clerk to jail after she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning told Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis she would be jailed until she complied with his order to issue the licenses. Davis said "thank you" before she was led out of the courtroom by a U.S. marshal. She was not in handcuffs.
Bunning also warned deputy clerks around the state that they could suffer the same fate should they refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Davis has refused to issue marriages licenses for two months since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. She argues that her Christian faith should exempt her from signing the licenses.
I’m very steadfast in what I believe. I don’t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I’m not. It’s easy to talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?
- Kim Davis, clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky
Liberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver, who is representing Davis, called the ruling “outrageous.”
“If this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty,” Staver told me.
He said Davis will be fingerprinted and photographed “just like a criminal.”
“This cannot be tolerated,” he said. “This is ultimately going to spark a huge debate around the country. This is not the kind of country – this is not the America that our founders envisioned.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Kim Davis could become the first Christian in America jailed as a result of the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.
“I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail, I sure am,” Mrs. Davis told me in an exclusive interview. “This has never been a gay or lesbian issue for me. This is about upholding the word of God.”
“This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.”
Davis is the clerk of Rowan County, Ky. – a small patch of earth in the northeastern part of the state. She was elected last November – taking the place of her mother, who held the position for nearly 40 years.
It’s fair to say that issuing marriage licenses was something of a family business – until the day the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
Davis is a devout Apostolic Christian, and she knew that should gay marriage become legal, she could not and would not sign her name on a same-sex marriage certificate.
“I would have to either make a decision to stand or I would have to buckle down and leave,” she said, pondering her choices. “And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word.
So when that day came, she issued an edict: No more marriage licenses would be issued in Rowan County. It was a decision that would bring down the wrath of militant LGBT activists and their supporters.
“They told my husband they were going to burn us down while we slept in our home,” she said. “He’s been told that he would be beaten up and tied up and made to watch them rape me. I have been told that gays should kill me.”
Liberty Counsel, the public interest law firm that represents Davis, says forcing her to issue same-sex marriage licenses violates her religious beliefs. But the courts don’t seem interested in that argument.
A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, an appeals court upheld that decision and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. Should Davis continue to defy the law, she could be fined or sent to jail.
No matter what the court decides, Davis says she will not violate her religious beliefs – and she will not resign her post.
“I’m very steadfast in what I believe,” she told me. “I don’t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I’m not. It’s easy to talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?”
The mainstream media and the activists have been ruthless. They’ve portrayed her as a monster – a right-wing, homophobic hypocrite. She’s been smeared by tabloid-style reports on her checkered past. They’ve written extensively about her failed marriages.
It’s true, she’s been married four times. But what’s missing in the mainstream media coverage is the context. Her life was radically changed by Jesus Christ in 2011, and since then she has become a different person.
“My God in heaven knows every crack, every crevice, every deep place in my heart,” she said. “And he knows the thoughts that are in my mind before I even think them. And he has given me such a beautiful and wonderful grace through all of this.”
She once lived for the devil, but now she lives for God. She’s a sinner saved by grace.
“I had created such a pit of sin for myself with my very own hands,” she told me.
So how does she handle the reporters and talking heads who call her a hypocrite?
“All I can say to them is if they have a sordid past like what I had, they too can receive the cleansing and renewing, and they can start a fresh life and they can be different,” she said. “They don’t have to remain in their sin, there’s hope for tomorrow.”
Davis did not seek the national spotlight. She had no intention of becoming a spokeswoman for religious liberty, and she bristles at the idea that she is a hero of the faith.
“I’m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place,” she said. “I’m no different than any other Christian. It was my appointed time to stand, and their time will come.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/03/kentucky-clerk-am-prepared-to-go-to-jail.html?intcmp=hpbt3
-
http://www.shewired.com/entertainment/2015/09/03/17-genius-tweets-person-who-allegedly-sits-next-kim-davis
Awesome.
-
My question is: who is signing the licenses now that she is in jail, and why couldn't they just have that same person sign them as an accommodation of her religious beliefs? Sad day in America when someone gets sent to jail over something like this. :-\
Yeah, it's really a sad day when you defy the legal system and ignore a judge's orders and then get - surprise!! - jailed for contempt of court.
Sad day indeed, since that never really happens to anyone else.
-
Usually, people in jail 'find' religion.
Wonder what she'll discover? ;)
She's probably sitting there wringing her hands wondering why God is allowing her to sit in jail when she could be enforcing his authority over other people.
Obviously, God is "testing" her and as soon as her faith is proven he will swoop in and save her.
-
My question is: who is signing the licenses now that she is in jail, and why couldn't they just have that same person sign them as an accommodation of her religious beliefs? Sad day in America when someone gets sent to jail over something like this. :-\
if this woman was Islamic and defending an Islamic conviction would you be of the same opinion?
If she was Islamic and asking for a reasonable accommodation, I'd be asking the same question.
-
Yeah, it's really a sad day when you defy the legal system and ignore a judge's orders and then get - surprise!! - jailed for contempt of court.
Sad day indeed, since that never really happens to anyone else.
You're right that this has never happened to anyone else. At least that's what the story says. Sad day indeed.
-
You're right that this has never happened to anyone else. At least that's what the story says. Sad day indeed.
Really? I am sure people go to jail for contempt of court every day.
She doesn't need a reasonable accommodation. She needs to do her job. She was elected to perform civil duties, not religious ones. I don't see anywhere in her history when her "faith" was interfering with her issuing licenses to atheists and non Christians.
-
Really? I am sure people go to jail for contempt of court every day.
She doesn't need a reasonable accommodation. She needs to do her job. She was elected to perform civil duties, not religious ones. I don't see anywhere in her history when her "faith" was interfering with her issuing licenses to atheists and non Christians.
Yes, really. First person to be jailed over this same sex marriage issue.
Yes, they should try and reasonably accommodate her. We'll see how this plays out.
-
Yes, really. First person to be jailed over this same sex marriage issue.
Yes, they should try and reasonably accommodate her. We'll see how this plays out.
She was jailed for contempt of court.
Something that happens EVERY day.
You know this...
Way to delete my completely valid post.
-
She was jailed for contempt of court.
Something that happens EVERY day.
You know this...
Way to delete my completely valid post.
You might have another short stay on the board. Follow the rules and you'll be fine. Violate them and you are gone.
Regarding your "valid post," obviously she was jailed for contempt. The question is why didn't they try and accommodate her. The fix was apparently pretty easy, since the licenses are now being issued.
-
You might have another short stay on the board. Follow the rules and you'll be fine. Violate them and you are gone.
Regarding your "valid post," obviously she was jailed for contempt. The question is why didn't they try and accommodate her. The fix was apparently pretty easy, since the licenses are now being issued.
You've got to be joking.
When have you ever cared about the rules on this board....other than selectively of course.
-
You might have another short stay on the board. Follow the rules and you'll be fine. Violate them and you are gone.
Regarding your "valid post," obviously she was jailed for contempt. The question is why didn't they try and accommodate her. The fix was apparently pretty easy, since the licenses are now being issued.
Short stay on the board? Hah... Dude, please... I left on my own because most of the people who comment are so close minded it's like talking to a wall. You didn't do anything, so let's get that straight.
What rule did I break then? Please enlighten me as to what rule the post broke.
There is no accommodating criminals... She didn't do as the court ordered. She goes to jail.
That's how it works.
-
You might have another short stay on the board. Follow the rules and you'll be fine. Violate them and you are gone.
Regarding your "valid post," obviously she was jailed for contempt. The question is why didn't they try and accommodate her. The fix was apparently pretty easy, since the licenses are now being issued.
They did accommodate her.
They told her to do her job or face fines or jail.
The judge did the right thing by not wasting time with fines which would have done nothing
-
Short stay on the board? Hah... Dude, please... I left on my own... you didn't do anything, so let's get that straight.
What rule did I break then? Please enlighten me as to what rule the post broke.
There is no accommodating criminals... She didn't do as the court ordered. She goes to jail.
That's how it works.
::) Whatever. You're smart enough to follow the rules.
Yes she is in jail. Whether she has a valid religious freedom claim remains to be seen.
-
::) Whatever. You're smart enough to follow the rules.
Yes she is in jail. Whether she has a valid religious freedom claim remains to be seen.
As I said Mr. Rolley Eyes... what rule did my previous post break?
If you can't tell me, then how am I to not break the aforementioned rule again?
She has no claim as there is a separation of church and state. If she can not separate her job from her religious views, then she should not have that position.
-
the fundamental issue at stake here is whither an individuals conscience prevails over the law of the land and if it does at what stage does law become irrelevant
I agree in part. What we have seen all over the place is this whole sexual orientation lobby trying to steamroll people. In Hawaii, they didn't even want to give pastors religious exemptions from performing gay weddings. That's how extreme they are.
-
I agree in part. What we have seen all over the place is this whole sexual orientation lobby trying to steamroll people. In Hawaii, they didn't even want to give pastors religious exemptions from performing gay weddings. That's how extreme they are.
That is ridiculous of course... They are pastors and can choose to not marry who they want.
Anyone can choose to not marry someone. I can legally marry people, but I turn them down all of the time because I don't have time or whatever.
What you can't do is deny someone the legal right to get married.
They are obviously two different things and if people can not see that, then those people on either side of the issue are idiots.
-
As I said Mr. Rolley Eyes... what rule did my previous post break?
If you can't tell me, then how am I to not break the aforementioned rule again?
She has no claim as there is a separation of church and state. If she can not separate her job from her religious views, then she should not have that position.
As I said Mr. Playing Dumb, you're a smart guy. :)
As I said earlier, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It's about the free exercise of religion. Employees have their religious practices accommodated all the time in the workplace. I don't see this situation as much different, unless a reasonable accommodation wasn't available.
-
That is ridiculous of course... They are pastors and can choose to not marry who they want.
Anyone can choose to not marry someone. I can legally marry people, but I turn them down all of the time because I don't have time or whatever.
What you can't do is deny someone the legal right to get married.
They are obviously two different things and if people can not see that, then those people on either side of the issue are idiots.
Of course it's ridiculous, but that's the mindset we are dealing with. There is a segment of the population who really don't believe in the First Amendment.
I agree people cannot be denied the right to get married.
-
As I said Mr. Playing Dumb, you're a smart guy. :)
As I said earlier, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It's about the free exercise of religion. Employees have their religious practices accommodated all the time in the workplace. I don't see this situation as much different, unless a reasonable accommodation wasn't available.
So you're saying you aren't going to tell me what rule I broke then?
Ok.
-
So you're saying you aren't going to tell me what rule I broke then?
Ok.
::)
-
I agree in part. What we have seen all over the place is this whole sexual orientation lobby trying to steamroll people. In Hawaii, they didn't even want to give pastors religious exemptions from performing gay weddings. That's how extreme they are.
getting others to pay the price of ones own conscience when challenged to uphold it suggests an inherent lack of conscience
-
::)
::)
-
getting others to pay the price of ones own conscience when challenged to uphold it suggests an inherent lack of conscience
Other people shouldn't be paying the price. Licenses should be issued. She shouldn't have to sign them, unless there is no one else who can do it. And apparently, there are others who can sign them, because that is reportedly exactly what is being done now that she is in jail.
And how many gay couples are we talking about anyway?
-
Other people shouldn't be paying the price. Licenses should be issued. She shouldn't have to sign them, unless there is no one else who can do it. And apparently, there are others who can sign them, because that is reportedly exactly what is being done now that she is in jail.
And how many gay couples are we talking about anyway?
First, if she tells her office to not do it, then they do not... because they still have to listen to her.
and
Secondly, it doesn't matter if it's ONE gay couple... that's one couple whose rights are being denied by her.
What does it matter if it's one or one-thousand? That has zero relevance what-so-ever.
-
First, if she tells her office to not do it, then they do not... because they still have to listen to her.
and
Secondly, it doesn't matter if it's ONE gay couple... that's one couple whose rights are being denied by her.
What does it matter if it's one or one-thousand? That has zero relevance what-so-ever.
Yes, if she refuses to sign them and tells her office not to sign them, that is a problem. Is that what happened?
Yes, the number of gay couples matter. If 90 percent of the licenses involved gay couples, then a reasonable accommodation is much more difficult. If it's 10 percent, the accommodation is much easier.
-
Yes, if she refuses to sign them and tells her office not to sign them, that is a problem. Is that what happened?
Yes, the number of gay couples matter. If 90 percent of the licenses involved gay couples, then a reasonable accommodation is much more difficult. If it's 10 percent, the accommodation is much easier.
No... because she was telling everyone to not give out ANY licenses.
She was telling people that because she didn't get her way, that no one gets ANY licenses.
Are you following the story? It doesn't seem like you are really following it and are just commenting based on what you "believe" may have happened.
So it's not just about gay couples... it's about all couples.
She was telling people that because she didn't get her way, that she won't do her job AT ALL.
-
No... because she was telling everyone to not give out ANY licenses.
She was telling people that because she didn't get her way, that no one gets ANY licenses.
Are you following the story? It doesn't seem like you are really following it and are just commenting based on what you "believe" may have happened.
So it's not just about gay couples... it's about all couples.
She was telling people that because she didn't get her way, that she won't do her job AT ALL.
I haven't read much about it. Read one story. Talked to someone who was following it. The way it was explained to me is she was asking for an accommodation.
But if she was refusing to allow anyone to issue licenses then I don't agree with that.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/
(CNN)Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was given a second chance: She didn't have to issue same-sex marriage licenses herself; she merely had to agree not to interfere with five deputy clerks who had told the federal judge they'd issue them in her stead.
But Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses. Davis was not in the courtroom for the second session. She was in a hallway outside.
"We cannot represent to the court that she would allow licenses to be issued," attorney Mat Staver said.
Staver later told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper" that Davis would issue licenses if her name and title were not on them.
"Because that in her understanding and mind is authorizing something that is contrary to her Christian values and convictions," he said. "That's where the conscience rub is."
Earlier Thursday, Bunning remanded Davis into the custody of U.S. marshals for refusing to heed a U.S. Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage, saying she would remain in jail until she complies with the ruling.
Bunning then asked Davis' six deputy clerks whether they would issue the licenses, and despite some of them holding the same religious beliefs as Davis, five told Bunning they would issue the licenses.
During Davis' hearing, April Miller told the court that the clerk had denied her a marriage license three times, and when Davis took the stand to deliver her at-times emotional testimony, she explained that she could not issue the licenses because of her religious beliefs.
"You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul," she told the judge, according to CNN affiliate WYMT-TV.
American Civil liberties Union attorneys argued in a motion filed Monday that Davis "continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform."
They said they didn't want her to be jailed as punishment, but rather, the attorneys asked the court to "impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous" to make her comply with the court order.
Bunning, however, apparently felt she deserved jail time, but he also told Davis she could end her incarceration by complying with the Supreme Court order and telling her deputy clerks to do the same.
He said he didn't believe fining Davis would convince her to comply with the high court ruling, especially considering that Davis had testified earlier that her supporters are raising funds for her and calling her office to offer financial support,
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/
(CNN)Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was given a second chance: She didn't have to issue same-sex marriage licenses herself; she merely had to agree not to interfere with five deputy clerks who had told the federal judge they'd issue them in her stead.
But Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses. Davis was not in the courtroom for the second session. She was in a hallway outside.
"We cannot represent to the court that she would allow licenses to be issued," attorney Mat Staver said.
Staver later told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper" that Davis would issue licenses if her name and title were not on them.
"Because that in her understanding and mind is authorizing something that is contrary to her Christian values and convictions," he said. "That's where the conscience rub is."
Earlier Thursday, Bunning remanded Davis into the custody of U.S. marshals for refusing to heed a U.S. Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage, saying she would remain in jail until she complies with the ruling.
Bunning then asked Davis' six deputy clerks whether they would issue the licenses, and despite some of them holding the same religious beliefs as Davis, five told Bunning they would issue the licenses.
During Davis' hearing, April Miller told the court that the clerk had denied her a marriage license three times, and when Davis took the stand to deliver her at-times emotional testimony, she explained that she could not issue the licenses because of her religious beliefs.
"You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul," she told the judge, according to CNN affiliate WYMT-TV.
American Civil liberties Union attorneys argued in a motion filed Monday that Davis "continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform."
They said they didn't want her to be jailed as punishment, but rather, the attorneys asked the court to "impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous" to make her comply with the court order.
Bunning, however, apparently felt she deserved jail time, but he also told Davis she could end her incarceration by complying with the Supreme Court order and telling her deputy clerks to do the same.
He said he didn't believe fining Davis would convince her to comply with the high court ruling, especially considering that Davis had testified earlier that her supporters are raising funds for her and calling her office to offer financial support,
Ok. Thanks for the article. If she did not have to issue licenses herself, and was not allowing her deputies to issue licenses, then she needs to just quit.
-
It appears this person did not authorize others in her office to sign these licenses (from what has been revealed, one of them was her son). Moreover, it is also unclear if licenses not authorized by her will be valid.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1414703712572303275.jpg)
U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning (GWB appointee who opposes gay marriage) stated: “In this country, we live in a society of laws. The court cannot condone the disobedience of a lawfully issued order.” This must be quite hard for paranoid religious extremists to accept.
-
In the next election for her post, let's all get behind an even more fundamentalist christian, who can deny her a fifth marriage license because they think divorce is against god's will.
-
So you're saying you aren't going to tell me what rule I broke then?
Ok.
Yeah, WTF is up with that
If the claim is that you broke a rule and Bum is actually concerned about "the rules" then what in the world would be the issue with simply stating what rule you broke
My guess is that you broke no rule or you did something that people do every day on this board and Bum just deleted your post for some personal reason and doesn't want to face the scrutiny of his decision or more likely can't justify it at all
-
We now throw people in jail for exercising their freedom of religion.....ok folks ok. You libs need to realize that the day is coming that you will all eventually end up with a government not much different then in Soviet Russia. You've been warned time and again.....honestly you people are the real enemies and should be treated accordingly. You continue to trample on the Constitution. In this case a work around should have been executed, instead we get what we get. Trump and the immigrant backlash are just the first stage of what many in this country are feeling. No minority however loud should be able to trample Constitutional rights. The Supremes made law, where no authority exists to do so.....when you assbags find yourself in a cattle car don't cry to us.
-
We now throw people in jail for exercising their freedom of religion.....ok folks ok. You libs need to realize that the day is coming that you will all eventually end up with a government not much different then in Soviet Russia. You've been warned time and again.....honestly you people are the real enemies and should be treated accordingly. You continue to trample on the Constitution. In this case a work around should have been executed, instead we get what we get. Trump and the immigrant backlash are just the first stage of what many in this country are feeling. No minority however loud should be able to trample Constitutional rights. The Supremes made law, where no authority exists to do so.....when you assbags find yourself in a cattle car don't cry to us.
We are talking about civil liberties and freedom of PEOPLE... One that no one should be able to deny to ANYONE.
That woman made a choice... She chose not to fulfill her duties.
She has to accept the consequences. This isn't about Lib / Conservative.
This is about what is legal vs. not... She is not LEGALLY allowed to deny people marriage licenses based on her religion.
PERIOD.
If you don't see that as a blow FOR freedom, then you don't get it and never will.
-
We now throw people in jail for exercising their freedom of religion.....ok folks ok. You libs need to realize that the day is coming that you will all eventually end up with a government not much different then in Soviet Russia. You've been warned time and again.....honestly you people are the real enemies and should be treated accordingly. You continue to trample on the Constitution. In this case a work around should have been executed, instead we get what we get. Trump and the immigrant backlash are just the first stage of what many in this country are feeling. No minority however loud should be able to trample Constitutional rights. The Supremes made law, where no authority exists to do so.....when you assbags find yourself in a cattle car don't cry to us.
If the constitution says it's ok for a religious government worker to not do their job, we need to change the constitution
-
I listened to FOX radio tonight...
she refused a deal to get her out. She was arrested not because she refused, but because she refused to let OTHERS do the job either? Prevented work of a govt official (not herself).
Her son isn't getting arrested, even tho he is refusing, because he didn't have the job title to prevent anyone. They're just letting him do other things, and having other workers take the gay marriage certificates.
She wanted the spotlight, she wanted to go to jail. She refused to let others do their job. That's way different.
-
We now throw people in jail for exercising their freedom of religion.....ok folks ok. You libs need to realize that the day is coming that you will all eventually end up with a government not much different then in Soviet Russia. You've been warned time and again.....honestly you people are the real enemies and should be treated accordingly. You continue to trample on the Constitution. In this case a work around should have been executed, instead we get what we get. Trump and the immigrant backlash are just the first stage of what many in this country are feeling. No minority however loud should be able to trample Constitutional rights. The Supremes made law, where no authority exists to do so.....when you assbags find yourself in a cattle car don't cry to us.
relax
what you've imagined in this post is not what happened at all.
-
We now throw people in jail for exercising their freedom of religion.
No one is forcing her to select another religion. She can practice what ever religion she wants, but as a government official she cannot force her religious beliefs on people she is suppose to serve.
Would it be ok in your world view for some government administrator of an alcohol licensing department to not allow his subordinates to grant liquor licenses because it is against his religious beliefs?
What if someone more fundamental had that position? Would it be ok for the county clerk to not allow her department to grant marriage licenses to mixed race couples because it goes against her religious beliefs? Mixed religion couples? Previously divorced couples?
-
No one is forcing her to select another religion. She can practice what ever religion she wants, but as a government official she cannot force her religious beliefs on people she is suppose to serve.
Would it be ok in your world view for some government administrator of an alcohol licensing department to not allow his subordinates to grant liquor licenses because it is against his religious beliefs?
What if someone more fundamental had that position? Would it be ok for the county clerk to not allow her department to grant marriage licenses to mixed race couples because it goes against her religious beliefs? Mixed religion couples? Previously divorced couples?
great point. Wait til the anti-Semitic bridge toll collector decides not to let Jewish people pay at his booth. Wait til the Indian cop decides not to enforce law in neighborhoods where ancestors were mean to him. Wait til white firefighters decide they won't put out fires in black neighborhoods. Wait til the muslim doctor lets a getbigger die on the operating table because he decides he doesn't want to treat christians.
She's in jail because she prevented OTHERS from doing their job - huge distinction there!
-
Why is she in jail, why didn't they just fire her dumbass?
-
great point. Wait til the anti-Semitic bridge toll collector decides not to let Jewish people pay at his booth. Wait til the Indian cop decides not to enforce law in neighborhoods where ancestors were mean to him. Wait til white firefighters decide they won't put out fires in black neighborhoods. Wait til the muslim doctor lets a getbigger die on the operating table because he decides he doesn't want to treat christians.
She's in jail because she prevented OTHERS from doing their job - huge distinction there!
Kind of throws her entire claim of personal religious objection out the window too
Now she's revealed for being another religious bigot and nothing more
-
Why is she in jail, why didn't they just fire her dumbass?
She's an elected official.
She can not just "be fired".
They would have to have the local government have a special election to get rid of her... Even then, she could possibly win re-election.
-
She's an elected official.
She can not just "be fired".
They would have to have the local government have a special election to get rid of her... Even then, she could possibly win re-election.
The world would be so much easier if people just were not dicks to each other. :-\
-
The world would be so much easier if people just were not dicks to each other. :-\
100% truth.
Unfortunately many people want to tell other people how to live their lives.
-
HAHAHAHAHA.
Deleting someone's post on here for no reason and no explanation is no more different than that this dumb ass was doing in her job.
As I said, hypocrisy is like a bear trap that some people keep getting their foot caught in.
-
We now throw people in jail for exercising their freedom of religion.....ok folks ok. You libs need to realize that the day is coming that you will all eventually end up with a government not much different then in Soviet Russia. You've been warned time and again.....honestly you people are the real enemies and should be treated accordingly. You continue to trample on the Constitution. In this case a work around should have been executed, instead we get what we get. Trump and the immigrant backlash are just the first stage of what many in this country are feeling. No minority however loud should be able to trample Constitutional rights. The Supremes made law, where no authority exists to do so.....when you assbags find yourself in a cattle car don't cry to us.
Oh for God's sake shut up. The only "trampling of the Constitution" that has been done was by this dumb bitch herself. The constitutional right allows gays to marry. Denying them a license is "trampling their Constitutional rights".
Bottom line is they do NOT have to accommodate her and her insipid beliefs. Her religious beliefs have ZERO impact on whether she can do the CIVIL DUTIES that she was elected to do. Defending this dumb twat only shows the bigotry of oneself along with hers.
-
Oh for God's sake shut up. The only "trampling of the Constitution" that has been done was by this dumb bitch herself. The constitutional right allows gays to marry. Denying them a license is "trampling their Constitutional rights".
yeah, the headline of the story didn't tell the whole story.
-
F'n Democrat.
-
a few of the repubs in the race - including fiorina - said she has to do her job legally, even if she disagrees.
you agree to this when you accept public office, and even if they find it personally disgusting, it's an agreement they make.
-
No shit. She shouldn't have run if she couldn't fulfill her duties, the backwoods inbred.
-
Trump just told morning joe it's the law of the land. She should take a pass and let another person in the office do the license. She cannot block them from doing their job.
Bold position. Now all the getbig trumpies can change positions and feel good about it
-
Trump just told morning joe it's the law of the land. She should take a pass and let another person in the office do the license. She cannot block them from doing their job.
Bold position. Now all the getbig trumpies can change positions and feel good about it
Wait, she was elected. Can't fire her, I get that. But does this mean she can be impeached?
-
No shit. She shouldn't have run if she couldn't fulfill her duties, the backwoods inbred.
Tell 'em Bubba.
-
F'n Democrat.
Wait. She's a Democrat?
-
Wait. She's a Democrat?
Yep.
Born again, married again (and again, and again, and again), Fundie Dem.
-
Wait. She's a Democrat?
Yep and the judge that threw her in jail was a Republican
I wonder if the judge acted like a pissy little child and refused to tell her what she did wrong and why she was being thrown in jail.
I heard that she asked him why she was being thrown in jail and the judge said "you know what you did...I don't have to tell you"
pretty pathetic isn't it?
You'd have thought he would have at least had the balls to explain his reasoning and judgement
-
Wait. She's a Democrat?
Yeah. It's been stated in most articles related to the story.
You didn't really think Repubs had a patent on the multiple marriage thing did you?
-
Yep and the judge that threw her in jail was a Republican
I wonder if the judge acted like a pissy little child and refused to tell her what she did wrong and why she was being thrown in jail.
I heard that she asked him why she was being thrown in jail and the judge said "you know what you did...I don't have to tell you"
pretty pathetic isn't it?
You'd have thought he would have at least had the balls to explain his reasoning and judgement
Is this hypothetical Republican judge scenario an attempt to distract from the actual retard Democrat here?
-
Is this hypothetical Republican judge scenario an attempt to distract from the actual retard Democrat here?
no
it's a reference to our monitor who likes to delete posts without giving any reason and then refusing to explain when asked
you'd think someone who actually cared about enforcing the rules of this board would have no problem explaining exactly what rule was broken
-
no
it's a reference to our monitor who likes to delete posts without giving any reason and then refusing to explain when asked
you'd think someone who actually cared about enforcing the rules of this board would have no problem explaining exactly what rule was broken
Ah, ok. There are things here, it seems. I shall go.
-
Wait. She's a Democrat?
Wait. You didn't read the articles posted?
-
Yep.
Born again, married again (and again, and again, and again), Fundie Dem.
Typical. :)
-
Wait. You didn't read the articles posted?
All of them? Nah.
-
Wait. You didn't read the articles posted?
Bum only reads the specifc parts of certain articles that allow him to retain his preconceived beliefs
-
Is this hypothetical Republican judge scenario an attempt to distract from the actual retard Democrat here?
Naw. This isn't really a political matter. It's a religious matter. She's not sitting in jail because of her political beliefs. She's sitting in there because of her religious beliefs. (And because she actually chose to go to jail)
-
I wonder if the judge acted like a pissy little child and refused to tell her what she did wrong and why she was being thrown in jail.
The Judge acted exactly how you would expect a Judge to act when someone refuses to follow a lawful court order.
I heard that she asked him why she was being thrown in jail and the judge said "you know what you did...I don't have to tell you"
What a bunch of bullshit you're spewing. The Judge explicitly told her what to do, and explicitly told her that if she continued to refuse to comply, she'd be jailed for contempt of court. She refused, and so she's in jail for contempt. This is what happens when you refuse to follow an explicit and unambiguous order of the Court.
You'd have thought he would have at least had the balls to explain his reasoning and judgement
He explained his reasoning very clearly in the decision where he quite explicitly ordered her to follow the law. She refused and she continued to refused. That's textbook contempt (18 USC 401 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401)) and the Judge was within his legal authority.
-
Naw. This isn't really a political matter. It's a religious matter. She's not sitting in jail because of her political beliefs. She's sitting in there because of her religious beliefs. (And because she actually chose to go to jail)
Not sure if that's sarcasm or not
She's sitting in jail for contempt of court which is something that happens all the time
Given all the fundies who think she is fully justified in using her own personal religious beliefs to deny other citiizens their civil rights I have to assume they would fully support person who personal religious beliefs require them to be a pacifist refusing to give out gun licenses/concealed carry permits etc.. on the grounds that it violates his/her personal religious beliefs. I suspect these same fundies would lose their shit over that.
-
The Judge acted exactly how you would expect a Judge to act when someone refuses to follow a lawful court order.
What a bunch of bullshit you're spewing. The Judge explicitly told her what to do, and explicitly told her that if she continued to refuse to comply, she'd be jailed for contempt of court. She refused, and so she's in jail for contempt. This is what happens when you refuse to follow an explicit and unambiguous order of the Court.
He explained his reasoning very clearly in the decision where he quite explicitly ordered her to follow the law. She refused and she continued to refused. That's textbook contempt (18 USC 401 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401)) and the Judge was within his legal authority.
you missed the explanation (further down) of the "message" in that post
-
Naw. This isn't really a political matter. It's a religious matter. She's not sitting in jail because of her political beliefs. She's sitting in there because of her religious beliefs. (And because she actually chose to go to jail)
No, she's not sitting in jail because of her religious beliefs; but you are right that she chose to go to there because she refused to follow a clear, unambiguous and legal order of a United States Federal Court. This is textbook contempt.
-
Not sure if that's sarcasm or not
She's sitting in jail for contempt of court which is something that happens all the time
Given all the fundies who think she is fully justified in using her own personal religious beliefs to deny other citiizens their civil rights I have to assume they would fully support person who personal religious beliefs require them to be a pacifist refusing to give out gun licenses/concealed carry permits etc.. on the grounds that it violates his/her personal religious beliefs. I suspect these same fundies would lose their shit over that.
Exactly.
-
No, she's not sitting in jail because of her religious beliefs; but you are right that she chose to go to there because she refused to follow a clear, unambiguous and legal order of a United States Federal Court. This is textbook contempt.
Exactly. We established this pages ago. The fact that her religious beliefs were the basis for her ignoring a court order is irrelevant to the contempt of court charge she got served with.
I was being sarcastic. Unless you read the thread from page 1, you may not have realized I was being sarcastic here.
-
Yes, if she refuses to sign them and tells her office not to sign them, that is a problem. Is that what happened?
How typical of you to chime in on a topic you are ill-informed about... She refused to allow her office to issue any licenses because the license form includes her name, in her official capacity.
Yes, the number of gay couples matter. If 90 percent of the licenses involved gay couples, then a reasonable accommodation is much more difficult. If it's 10 percent, the accommodation is much easier.
Except that's not how reasonable accommodation works... It doesn't matter there's one couple or a million. The only salient point about "reasonable accomodation" of religious beliefs is that under Title VII employers are required to "reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer." Even if we set aside the fact that the employer is the State and other legal issues are involved, having the legislature convene to authorize new language on the forms and having the forms printed and distributed almost certainly qualifies as "undue hardship" per Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (432 U.S. 63, 1977).
-
Exactly. We established this pages ago. The fact that her religious beliefs were the basis for her ignoring a court order is irrelevant to the contempt of court charge she got served with.
I was being sarcastic. Unless you read the thread from page 1, you may not have realized I was being sarcastic here.
I only skimmed the first four pages actually - I'm on vacation on a beach, getting a healthy tan, so I'm only casually going through the thread.
-
They offered her reasonable accommodations.
"During a hearing Thursday, U.S. District Judge David Bunning had offered to release Davis if she promised not to interfere with her employees issuing licenses, but she refused, citing her Christian beliefs."
Obviously she was just hell bent on being a troublemaker.
-
They offered her reasonable accommodations.
"During a hearing Thursday, U.S. District Judge David Bunning had offered to release Davis if she promised not to interfere with her employees issuing licenses, but she refused, citing her Christian beliefs."
Obviously she was just hell bent on being a troublemaker.
this is actually the part that galls me the most
We now know this has nothing to do with her personal religious beliefs and everything to do with her personal prejudice
-
this is actually the part that galls me the most
We now know this has nothing to do with her personal religious beliefs and everything to do with her personal prejudice
If it were personal beliefs, then she wouldn't be issuing them to atheists, non Christians, non virgins, people who have been divorced, etc..
She - and the idiots supporting her and making excuses for her - are just bigots and hypocrites.
-
How typical of you to chime in on a topic you are ill-informed about... She refused to allow her office to issue any licenses because the license form includes her name, in her official capacity.
Except that's not how reasonable accommodation works... It doesn't matter there's one couple or a million. The only salient point about "reasonable accomodation" of religious beliefs is that under Title VII employers are required to "reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer." Even if we set aside the fact that the employer is the State and other legal issues are involved, having the legislature convene to authorize new language on the forms and having the forms printed and distributed almost certainly qualifies as "undue hardship" per Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (432 U.S. 63, 1977).
How typical of you to chime in without knowing what the heck you're talking about.
Yes, the number of couples matters. That's all part of the reasonableness analysis. And as I already indicated in this thread, she was offered a reasonable accommodation IMO and rejected it.
-
How typical of you to chime in without knowing what the heck you're talking about.
Yes, the number of couples matters. That's all part of the reasonableness analysis. And as I already indicated in this thread, she was offered a reasonable accommodation IMO and rejected it.
100% wrong
She has no grounds to deny any single person their civil rights
The fact that refuesed to allow others to issue licenses proves that her objection has nothing to do with her personal religious beliefs and everything do to with her personal prejudice
-
How typical of you to chime in without knowing what the heck you're talking about.
Except I do know and I included an explanation and links to back it up.
Yes, the number of couples matters. That's all part of the reasonableness analysis. And as I already indicated in this thread, she was offered a reasonable accommodation IMO and rejected it.
No - the number of couples really doesn't matter. Read Title VII, which specifically says what reasonable accomodation means and what qualifies, and then read the TWA v. Hardison decision.
-
How typical of you to chime in without knowing what the heck you're talking about.
Yes, the number of couples matters. That's all part of the reasonableness analysis. And as I already indicated in this thread, she was offered a reasonable accommodation IMO and rejected it.
I don't see how you are saying it is ok anyone their civil rights.
So it's ok if we take rights away from one black person, but as long as we don't take it away from 1000, then that's fine?
-
Except I do know and I included an explanation and links to back it up.
No - the number of couples really doesn't matter. Read Title VII, which specifically says what reasonable accomodation means and what qualifies, and then read the TWA v. Hardison decision.
No, you don't. Did you see my comments changing my viewpoint after reading the article saying she was offered a reasonable accommodation?
-
I don't see how you are saying it is ok anyone their civil rights.
So it's ok if we take rights away from one black person, but as long as we don't take it away from 1000, then that's fine?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in terms of a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs, you have to look at exactly what her job involves, what needs to be done to accommodate her, the costs involved, etc. Part of that analysis includes looking at the number of gay people asking for marriage licenses. If we're only talking about a comparative handful, then accommodating her is much easier.
None of that analysis involves denying people the right to receive marriage licenses. It's simply about whose signature goes on the document. The fact they offered her the opportunity to let someone else sign the licenses was a reasonable accommodation IMO.
-
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in terms of a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs, you have to look at exactly what her job involves, what needs to be done to accommodate her, the costs involved, etc. Part of that analysis includes looking at the number of gay people asking for marriage licenses. If we're only talking about a comparative handful, then accommodating her is much easier.
None of that analysis involves denying people the right to receive marriage licenses. It's simply about whose signature goes on the document. The fact they offered her the opportunity to let someone else sign the licenses was a reasonable accommodation IMO.
So you're saying she is not allowed to deny people their rights... as long as we are in agreement, then I'm fine.
-
So you're saying she is not allowed to deny people their rights... as long as we are in agreement, then I'm fine.
I've never said people who are entitled to marriage licenses should be denied those licenses. What I've been saying is it's possible to give everyone their licenses and reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs. It doesn't have to be either/or. They offered her a reasonable accommodation.
-
I've never said people who are entitled to marriage licenses should be denied those licenses. What I've been saying is it's possible to give everyone their licenses and reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs. It doesn't have to be either/or. They offered her a reasonable accommodation.
She does not believe it was reasonable.
That is the point we are saying.
-
No, you don't. Did you see my comments changing my viewpoint after reading the article saying she was offered a reasonable accommodation?
Whether you changed your viewpoint or not on whether she was offered reasonable accommodation is irrelevant. The problem I'm highlighting is different: that you insist - even in your cited post just now - that the number of couples that would be denied a license matters in a reasonable accommodation analysis. You are wrong. If you'd take the ten minutes to read the case I cited and the relevant portions of Title VII, you'd see that. But, you are ill-informed and happy to remain that way... well, I guess that, too, says something about you.
She does not believe it was reasonable.
Whether she believes it was reasonable is - like whether God wants to keep gays from getting married - simply not relevant. I think that you agree with that, no? In fact, the accommodation that she apparently wanted flies in the face of the plain language of Title VII.
-
Whether she believes it was reasonable is - like whether God wants to keep gays from getting married - simply not relevant. I think that you agree with that, no?
Certainly I do agree.
I believe you do the job (Give out licenses who are legally allowed to be married) and that is your job, or you do not give them out, hence you are not doing your job and are simply taking up space wasting tax payer dollars.
-
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in terms of a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs, you have to look at exactly what her job involves, what needs to be done to accommodate her, the costs involved, etc. Part of that analysis includes looking at the number of gay people asking for marriage licenses. If we're only talking about a comparative handful, then accommodating her is much easier.
None of that analysis involves denying people the right to receive marriage licenses. It's simply about whose signature goes on the document. The fact they offered her the opportunity to let someone else sign the licenses was a reasonable accommodation IMO.
Has absolutely ZERO to do with this issue and what we are discussing here. Doesn't matter if the couples are gay or not. She has been refusing licenses to straight couples as well.
---
Davis has refused licenses for all couples ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that marriage is a constitutional right. She argues that signing off on the forms violates her religious liberties and convictions as an Apostolic Christian.
---
-
She does not believe it was reasonable.
That is the point we are saying.
Actually that wasn't the point. Go back and read the comments. People were saying she should be fired period, not because she refused a reasonable accommodation.
-
Whether you changed your viewpoint or not on whether she was offered reasonable accommodation is irrelevant. The problem I'm highlighting is different: that you insist - even in your cited post just now - that the number of couples that would be denied a license matters in a reasonable accommodation analysis. You are wrong. If you'd take the ten minutes to read the case I cited and the relevant portions of Title VII, you'd see that. But, you are ill-informed and happy to remain that way... well, I guess that, too, says something about you.
Whether she believes it was reasonable is - like whether God wants to keep gays from getting married - simply not relevant. I think that you agree with that, no? In fact, the accommodation that she apparently wanted flies in the face of the plain language of Title VII.
Actually, I'm right. I frankly don't care whether you have a different viewpoint. Yes, the number couples involved matters. If it is two couples over the course of year, then accommodating her is much simpler. It would likely not cost her employer anything. If a significant number of licenses involved gay couples and her employer had to hire an additional employee to accommodate her, then that would not be reasonable. So, once again, you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
She's not really asking for an accommodation. She's asking that she and her entire office be allowed not to follow a court order. That's wrong.
-
She should not have a job that she has clearly stated she will not do no matter what.
-
Has absolutely ZERO to do with this issue and what we are discussing here. Doesn't matter if the couples are gay or not. She has been refusing licenses to straight couples as well.
---
Davis has refused licenses for all couples ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that marriage is a constitutional right. She argues that signing off on the forms violates her religious liberties and convictions as an Apostolic Christian.
---
Of course that's not reasonable.
-
Actually, I'm right. I frankly don't care whether you have a different viewpoint. Yes, the number couples involved matters. If it is two couples over the course of year, then accommodating her is much simpler. It would likely not cost her employer anything. If a significant number of licenses involved gay couples and her employer had to hire an additional employee to accommodate her, then that would not be reasonable. So, once again, you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
She's not really asking for an accommodation. She's asking that she and her entire office be allowed not to follow a court order. That's wrong.
Why does it have to be gay couples?
-
Why does it have to be gay couples?
That's why she's doing this.
-
Actually that wasn't the point. Go back and read the comments. People were saying she should be fired period, not because she refused a reasonable accommodation.
Sadly, she can't be fired - although she ought to be because she's refusing to do her job and follow the law. If she had any integrity, she'd resign her office. But she has no integrity which is why she refuses to do her job knowing that she can't be fired from her cushy job. She really ought to be removed by the legislature, although there's practically no chance of that happening, because they are likely to miss the forest for the trees, by thinking this has something to do with freedom of religion as opposed to the rule of law.
Actually, I'm right.
You forgot to click your heel three times Dorothy.
I frankly don't care whether you have a different viewpoint. Yes, the number couples involved matters. If it is two couples over the course of year, then accommodating her is much simpler. It would likely not cost her employer anything. If a significant number of licenses involved gay couples and her employer had to hire an additional employee to accommodate her, then that would not be reasonable. So, once again, you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
It's not that I have a different viewpoint. It's not even that the text of Title VII is crystal clear. It's that there's actual case law that addresses what "reasonable accomodation" means and how to go about deciding whether a particular request is reasonable. And under the existing case law, whether you like that fact or not, the number of couples affected by her decision is not relevant.
She's not really asking for an accommodation. She's asking that she and her entire office be allowed not to follow a court order. That's wrong.
No, you have it all wrong. She asked, as a Title VII accomodation, to have her name stricken from the forms (according to link (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html) her lawyer said that she "would agree to record licenses issued by the clerk’s office, rather than in the name of the clerk, herself.") but that would require convening the legislature, changing the law and then designing, printing and distributing new forms to all the clerks. The accomodation she requested would take a whole lot of time and a whole lot of money and that makes it prima facie unreasonable under Title VII and existing case law.
But, of course... you're right. Despite having admitted to not knowing a lot about the case, despite refusing to read case law that's on point and refutes statements you made and despite generally having a penchant for talking out of an orifice other than your mouth.
-
That's why she's doing this.
I am not asking why SHE is doing this. I am asking why does any analysis of finding a "reasonable accommodation" for her have to only analyze gay couples? She has turned down ALL couples since June. So if reasonable accommodations are to have someone else sign the homo couple's license, then who is going to sign the hetero licenses? Because she isn't doing that either.
Is she just going to stick to signing the licenses of transgenders like she did back in Feb?
-
Sadly, she can't be fired - although she ought to be. If she had any integrity, she'd resign her office. But she has no integrity which is why she refuses to do her job. She really ought to be removed by the legislature, although there's practically no chance of that happening, because they are likely to miss the forest for the trees, by thinking this has something to do with freedom of religion as opposed to the rule of law.
You forgot to click your heel three times Dorothy.
It's not that I have a different viewpoint. It's not even that the text of Title VII is crystal clear. It's that there's actual case law that addresses what "reasonable accomodation" means and how to go about deciding whether a particular request is reasonable. And under the existing case law, whether you like that fact or not, the number of couples affected by her decision is not relevant.
No, you have it all wrong. She asked, as a Title VII accomodation, to have her name stricken from the forms (her lawyer said that she "would agree to record licenses issued by the clerk’s office, rather than in the name of the clerk, herself." [link (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html)]) but that would require convening the legistature, changing the law and then designing, printing and distributing new forms to all the clerks. The accomodation she requested would take a whole lot of time and a whole lot of money and that makes it prima facie unreasonable under Title VII and existing case law.
But, of course... you're right. Despite having admitted to not knowing a lot about the case, despite refusing to read case law that's on point and refutes statements you made and despite generally having a penchant for talking out of an orifice other than your mouth.
Yes, keyboard/Google warrior, I am right. You just confirmed it. The fact she is asking that new forms be distributed, following legislative action, does not sound reasonable. Why? Because of the expense involved. Why is there great expense involved? In part because of the number of the number of couples seeking licenses.
Yes the fact legislative action may be required sounds unreasonable, but that is only part of the analysis. The cost is part of the analysis. That's why the number of couples seeking licenses matters.
-
I am not asking why SHE is doing this. I am asking why does any analysis of finding a "reasonable accommodation" for her have to only analyze gay couples? She has turned down ALL couples since June. So if reasonable accommodations are to have someone else sign the homo couple's license, then who is going to sign the hetero licenses? Because she isn't doing that either.
Is she just going to stick to signing the licenses of transgenders like she did back in Feb?
She has turned down all couples solely because gay couples are able to get licenses. This is all about gay couples.
-
Sadly, she can't be fired - although she ought to be because she's refusing to do her job and follow the law. If she had any integrity, she'd resign her office. But she has no integrity which is why she refuses to do her job knowing that she can't be fired from her cushy job. She really ought to be removed by the legislature, although there's practically no chance of that happening, because they are likely to miss the forest for the trees, by thinking this has something to do with freedom of religion as opposed to the rule of law.
You forgot to click your heel three times Dorothy.
It's not that I have a different viewpoint. It's not even that the text of Title VII is crystal clear. It's that there's actual case law that addresses what "reasonable accomodation" means and how to go about deciding whether a particular request is reasonable. And under the existing case law, whether you like that fact or not, the number of couples affected by her decision is not relevant.
No, you have it all wrong. She asked, as a Title VII accomodation, to have her name stricken from the forms (according to link (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html) her lawyer said that she "would agree to record licenses issued by the clerk’s office, rather than in the name of the clerk, herself.") but that would require convening the legislature, changing the law and then designing, printing and distributing new forms to all the clerks. The accomodation she requested would take a whole lot of time and a whole lot of money and that makes it prima facie unreasonable under Title VII and existing case law.
But, of course... you're right. Despite having admitted to not knowing a lot about the case, despite refusing to read case law that's on point and refutes statements you made and despite generally having a penchant for talking out of an orifice other than your mouth.
LOL
-
Yes, keyboard/Google warrior, I am right. You just confirmed it. The fact she is asking that new forms be distributed, following legislative action, does not sound reasonable. Why? Because of the expense involved. Why is there great expense involved? In part because of the number of the number of couples seeking licenses.
The cost isn't because they need to print a whole bunch of forms - the number of forms they have to print isn't relevant, because they're already printing them now, so it's essentially a sunk cost. The issue that they need to convene the legislature, which is expensive in itself, to pass a law that changes the information, and then have the State printing office, or whatever printer they use, generate and distribute the new forms which is time consuming.
Yes the fact legislative action may be required sounds unreasonable, but that is only part of the analysis. The cost is part of the analysis. That's why the number of couples seeking licenses matters.
You can keep repeating it, but that won't change facts.
P.S.: I also notice that you seem (a) unable to answer or address any of the points I make and (b) keep shifting, like a weasel, to keep from getting pinned down. And while I'm afraid I have no solution for (a) short of "get a brain that has at least 5 working neurons" I can help with (b) by giving you a hint: apply more bacon grease to make yourself more slippery.
-
She has turned down all couples solely because gay couples are able to get licenses. This is all about gay couples.
It's actually all about her
-
The cost isn't because they need to print a whole bunch of forms - the number of forms they have to print isn't relevant, because they're already printing them now, so it's essentially a sunk cost. The issue that they need to convene the legislature, which is expensive in itself, to pass a law that changes the information, and then have the State printing office, or whatever printer they use, generate and distribute the new forms which is time consuming.
You can keep repeating it, but that won't change facts.
P.S.: I also notice that you seem (a) unable to answer or address any of the points I make and (b) keep shifting, like a weasel, to keep from getting pinned down. And while I'm afraid I have no solution for (a) short of "get a brain that has at least 5 working neurons" I can help with (b) by giving you a hint: apply more bacon grease to make yourself more slippery.
Obviously the cost of convening the legislature is unreasonable, as I already acknowledged. The cost of printing forms is part of the analysis, if she was asking for new forms to be printed without her name. You really don't know what you're talking about. lol
I am trying, unsuccessfully, to educate you. I know you are stubborn and you have your friend Google to help you, but there is still hope for you. Keep reading. :)
-
Obviously the cost of convening the legislature is unreasonable, as I already acknowledged. The cost of printing forms is part of the analysis, if she was asking for new forms to be printed without her name. You really don't know what you're talking about. lol
But they're already printing forms anyways... are you seriously suggesting that the cost of printed forms that don't have her name is more expensive than the cost of printed forms that do? And second, if the cost of convening the legislature is unreasonable, then why even worry about whether other costs are, in fact, unreasonable?
I am trying, unsuccessfully, to educate you.
Alas, as of now, I don't need to know how to be an abrasive dimwit. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't learn to be one anyways, but, rest assured, that if I ever needed to try to be one, you would be the first person I'd call.
I know you are stubborn and you have your friend Google to help you, but there is still hope for you. Keep reading. :)
You keep hinting that I copy the information that I post from Google. Do you have any evidence to support that contention or are you, again, talking out of your ass?
-
hearing repubs pander on this issue is disgusting. it's okay for elected officials to break laws they disagree with, huh?
-
She has turned down all couples
(http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-49ddee7ca4694541f7896a6fa0b4d826?convert_to_webp=true)
-
But they're already printing forms anyways... are you seriously suggesting that the cost of printed forms that don't have her name is more expensive than the cost of printed forms that do? And second, if the cost of convening the legislature is unreasonable, then why even worry about whether other costs are, in fact, unreasonable?
Alas, as of now, I don't need to know how to be an abrasive dimwit. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't learn to be one anyways, but, rest assured, that if I ever needed to try to be one, you would be the first person I'd call.
You keep hinting that I copy the information that I post from Google. Do you have any evidence to support that contention or are you, again, talking out of your ass?
If they have to print new forms that don't include her name, then the cost of those forms is part of the reasonableness analysis. I'm not suggesting the cost of printing forms exceeds the cost of convening the legislature. Obviously there is no comparison. This all relates to your contention that the number of gay couples is irrelevant. Go back and review my comments on that subject, although given your inability to understand this very simple concept, I'm not sure it would matter.
Who called you an abrasive dimwit? If anything, I'd call you Morton Downy, Jr.
I'm not hinting at anything. You are a keyboard/Google warrior, as I previously stated. It's ok though. I'm not judging you. :)
-
She refused to do her duty and authorize marriage licenses to those who could legally obtain them, based on her religious belief. She instructed others in her office not to do so. When asked by the judge if she promised not to interfere with her employees issuing licenses, she refused, citing her Christian beliefs. She defied a lawfully issued court order (not by a crazy lib activist judge but by a GWB appointee who opposes gay marriage). She is in jail for contempt of court. Simple (but maybe not simple enough for paranoid religious extremists who cry "christian persecution").
-
If they have to print new forms that don't include her name, then the cost of those forms is part of the reasonableness analysis. I'm not suggesting the cost of printing forms exceeds the cost of convening the legislature. Obviously there is no comparison. This all relates to your contention that the number of gay couples is irrelevant. Go back and review my comments on that subject, although given your inability to understand this very simple concept, I'm not sure it would matter.
Who called you an abrasive dimwit? If anything, I'd call you Morton Downy, Jr.
I'm not hinting at anything. You are a keyboard/Google warrior, as I previously stated. It's ok though. I'm not judging you. :)
A Google warrior... LOL. You're just upset that you have the intellectual capacity of a shrimp.
-
A Google warrior... LOL. You're just upset that you have the intellectual capacity of a shrimp.
I guess that's better than having the brain power of a rock. Or the temperament of a five-year-old who had his ice cream cone taken away.
And that's "keyboard/Google warrior." Get it right. :)
-
I guess that's better than having the brain power of a rock. Or the temperament of a five-year-old who had his ice cream cone taken away.
I'll defer to your obvious expertise when it comes to the brain power of rocks and the temperament of five year olds.
And that's "keyboard/Google warrior." Get it right. :)
Seeing how I teach computer science and write code for a living, I don't take offense to "keyboard warrior." Also, it helps me have great lumbrical muscle definition!
-
I'll defer to your obvious expertise when it comes to the brain power of rocks and the temperament of five year olds.
Seeing how I teach computer science and write code for a living, I don't take offense to "keyboard warrior." Also, it helps me have great lumbrical muscle definition!
Well duh. You're part of the daycare center that I help moderate, so of course I have some expertise.
I'm glad you are not offended. No one should be offended by comments made by an internet stranger.
-
Well duh. You're part of the daycare center that I help moderate, so of course I have some expertise.
Well, what with the requirements for moderatin' being so dang high and all... ;D
-
Well, what with the requirements for moderatin' being so dang high and all... ;D
You know it. Had to submit my CV. Several rounds of interviews. Credit check. :)
-
She has turned down all couples solely because gay couples are able to get licenses. This is all about gay couples.
No it isn't. This is all about her. Just like Straw stated.
If it were all about gay couples, how do you explain the transgender marriage license she signed and issued BEFORE gay marriage became legally in her state?
-
She refused to do her duty and authorize marriage licenses to those who could legally obtain them, based on her religious belief. She instructed others in her office not to do so. When asked by the judge if she promised not to interfere with her employees issuing licenses, she refused, citing her Christian beliefs. She defied a lawfully issued court order (not by a crazy lib activist judge but by a GWB appointee who opposes gay marriage). She is in jail for contempt of court. Simple (but maybe not simple enough for paranoid religious extremists who cry "christian persecution").
-
I guess that's better than having the brain power of a rock. Or the temperament of a five-year-old who had his ice cream cone taken away.
And that's "keyboard/Google warrior." Get it right. :)
says the most childish person on this board
tell us all again what rule Al broke so that the rest of us will be sure not to also break it too
-
Good for her. If shes willing to pay the price professionally, god bless her.
-
Good for her. If shes willing to pay the price professionally, god bless her.
Yes, good for her. And good for the future whomever, who denies your second amendment and disarms you. Or the next, who strips you of your freedom to worship.
God bless them, too, yes?
-
Yes, good for her. And good for the future whomever, who denies your second amendment, and disarms you. Or the next, who strips you of your freedom to worship.
God bless them, too, yes?
Imagine the uproar if she were denying gun licenses because killing other people with guns were against her religious views. They would be gathering wood to burn her at the stake already.
-
Imagine the uproar if she were denying gun licenses because killing other people with guns were against her religious views. They would be gathering wood to burn her at the stake already.
This is very true.
-
Imagine the uproar if she were denying gun licenses because killing other people with guns were against her religious views. They would be gathering wood to burn her at the stake already.
It's wrong when either side does it, but partisan hypocrites never acknowledge their own bullshit. Politics as usual, always.
-
Had to LOL at this one.
-
ouch
or dress her
-
Yes, good for her. And good for the future whomever, who denies your second amendment and disarms you. Or the next, who strips you of your freedom to worship.
God bless them, too, yes?
Don't understand the point of your comment. The supreme court granted Faggs the authority to get married for about 30 seconds ago-- In a 5-4 decision which contradicts referendums in 20+ states across this country. It is not remotely debatable that the OVERWHELMING majority of people in the United States do not approve of gay marriage. If this woman wants to stand by her principles and religious beliefs regardless of the consequences, then she should be applauded as a HERO.
In short, your response is moronic.
Hope this helps.
-
Imagine the uproar if she were denying gun licenses because killing other people with guns were against her religious views. They would be gathering wood to burn her at the stake already.
She'd probably smell like bacon cooking, the fat whore.
-
Don't understand the point of your comment. The supreme court granted Faggs the authority to get married for about 30 seconds ago-- In a 5-4 decision which contradicts referendums in 20+ states across this country. It is not remotely debatable that the OVERWHELMING majority of people in the United States do not approve of gay marriage. If this woman wants to stand by her principles and religious beliefs regardless of the consequences, then she should be applauded as a HERO.
In short, your response is moronic.
Hope this helps.
Tough shit. Deal with it.
Don't give a rats ass if this help you or not.
-
Don't understand the point of your comment. The supreme court granted Faggs the authority to get married for about 30 seconds ago-- In a 5-4 decision which contradicts referendums in 20+ states across this country. It is not remotely debatable that the OVERWHELMING majority of people in the United States do not approve of gay marriage. If this woman wants to stand by her principles and religious beliefs regardless of the consequences, then she should be applauded as a HERO.
In short, your response is moronic.
Hope this helps.
No, no help. But thanks.
No point in debating, let's just summarize: When SC decides it's unconstitutional to discriminate, it doesn't really matter what % of the population supports a ban. It's federal law now, which supersedes anything Kentucky decides, as I'm sure you're aware.
But this goofball isn't challenging the legality, she's defying it on moral grounds: "To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience."
You think this is heroic, fine. Common sense suggests that, if her values interfere with her ability to fulfill the duties of a clerk, she should probably step down. She's no political martyr; she's just (illegally) imposing her personal bullshit on others, violating civil rights in the process.
And if her cause were something less right-leaning, I'm sure conservatives would be crying foul. Like they do when an illegal 'sanctuary city' is established.
-
In a 5-4 decision which contradicts referendums in 20+ states across this country. It is not remotely debatable that the OVERWHELMING majority of people in the United States do not approve of gay marriage.
In 1967 the Supreme Court overturned all anti-miscegenation laws in the US, although the vast majority of Americans supported such laws.
(https://rs21testblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/samesex_interracial_marriage.jpg)
-
In 1967 the Supreme Court overturned all anti-miscegenation laws in the US, although the vast majority of Americans supported such laws.
(https://rs21testblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/samesex_interracial_marriage.jpg)
and of course the fact is that the majority of Americans actually do support gay marriage
so when Georgie claims "It is not remotely debatable that the OVERWHELMING majority of people in the United States do not approve of gay marriage." one has to wonder if he's suffered a severe head injury recently, is just profoundly ignorant or is just a fucking liar
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
-
Don't understand the point of your comment. The supreme court granted Faggs the authority to get married for about 30 seconds ago-- In a 5-4 decision which contradicts referendums in 20+ states across this country. It is not remotely debatable that the OVERWHELMING majority of people in the United States do not approve of gay marriage. If this woman wants to stand by her principles and religious beliefs regardless of the consequences, then she should be applauded as a HERO.
In short, your response is moronic.
Hope this helps.
In that case, why do we not applaud suicide bombers?
-
The supreme court granted Faggs the authority to get married for about 30 seconds ago-- In a 5-4 decision which contradicts referendums in 20+ states across this country.
That the decision was 5-4 is irrelevant. That 20+ referendums were held is irrelevant.
It is not remotely debatable that the OVERWHELMING majority of people in the United States do not approve of gay marriage.
Well, this "OVERWHELMING majority" is free to overrule the Supreme Court by demanding that a Constitutional Amendment be adopted that explicitly defines marriage as between a man a woman. This would take the matter completely outside of the jurisdiction of the Supremes.
If this woman wants to stand by her principles and religious beliefs regardless of the consequences, then she should be applauded as a HERO.
I hardly think she's a hero - just another idiot who believes in a God that's, apparently, incapable of acting directly and must instead rely on tools like her. An idiot who believes that her religious beliefs entitle her to not do her job and still collect a paycheck.
-
Imagine the uproar if she were denying gun licenses because killing other people with guns were against her religious views. They would be gathering wood to burn her at the stake already.
+1
-
Huckabee to meet with her. pushing for an online petition to get her released.
she's another zimmerman, another rancher bundy... the more repubs know, the more they back away from screaming their support for her. the latest i heard is that she's actually a democrat and refused to let an entire office do their job, which the constitution of the USA said they had to do. She prevented an entire govt office from allowing people to enjoy their legal rights, and chose jail to make a point and get national press.
-
In that case, why do we not applaud suicide bombers?
The stupidity of this question doesn't merit a response. I'll let you figure out the difference between the clerk in Kentucky who refuses to marry queers and ahmed the suicide bomber who blows up a bus full of school children.
-
Tough shit. Deal with it.
Don't give a rats ass if this help you or not.
Relax homo. I don't give a shit about you being able to marry your boyfriend. In fact, it might help eradicate the herpes epidemic sweeping across the bay area.
-
That the decision was 5-4 is irrelevant. That 20+ referendums were held is irrelevant.
Well, this "OVERWHELMING majority" is free to overrule the Supreme Court by demanding that a Constitutional Amendment be adopted that explicitly defines marriage as between a man a woman. This would take the matter completely outside of the jurisdiction of the Supremes.
I hardly think she's a hero - just another idiot who believes in a God that's, apparently, incapable of acting directly and must instead rely on tools like her. An idiot who believes that her religious beliefs entitle her to not do her job and still collect a paycheck.
Ill briefly refute each point in chronological order.
(1) It matters very much. Marriage is state law issue, period. Gay marriage has been voted down by referendum across the board. That one Supreme Court justice felt compelled to interject his personal beliefs into a cut and dried legal issue doesn't make the decision valid. Which brings me to my second point. (2) The Supreme Court is not infallible. Who is on the Supreme Court? 9 human beings-- 9 politically appointed judges that serve for life. They have no accountability. You pretend to be knowledgeable about the law, and yet you know nothing about the history of the Supreme Court. I'm not going to spoon feed you the laundry list of horrible decisions-- but, I suggest you start with Dred Scott. And with that, my final point (3) Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. I wrote: If this woman wants to stand by her principles and religious beliefs regardless of the consequences, then she should be applauded as a HERO. The key part of my previous posting is underlined. The state is free to fire her. I didn't say that the state could not, or should not fire her given the circumstances. My point is that if she has the courage to take a stand based on religious principle, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES, then I think she should be applauded. You don't have to agree with me-- but please don't put words in my mouth.
-
In 1967 the Supreme Court overturned all anti-miscegenation laws in the US, although the vast majority of Americans supported such laws.
(https://rs21testblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/samesex_interracial_marriage.jpg)
Cool graphic. Thanks for the history lesson. ::)
-
No, no help. But thanks.
No point in debating, let's just summarize: When SC decides it's unconstitutional to discriminate, it doesn't really matter what % of the population supports a ban. It's federal law now, which supersedes anything Kentucky decides, as I'm sure you're aware.
But this goofball isn't challenging the legality, she's defying it on moral grounds: "To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience."
You think this is heroic, fine. Common sense suggests that, if her values interfere with her ability to fulfill the duties of a clerk, she should probably step down. She's no political martyr; she's just (illegally) imposing her personal bullshit on others, violating civil rights in the process.
And if her cause were something less right-leaning, I'm sure conservatives would be crying foul. Like they do when an illegal 'sanctuary city' is established.
Again, I never said that she shouldn't be fired. I suppose your lack of reading comprehension correlates with the idiotic comparison you made between this situation and sanctuary cities. Thanks for proving that it was beneath me to address you in the first place.
-
Ill briefly refute each point in chronological order.
(1) It matters very much. Marriage is state law issue, period.
Under Obergefell the Supreme Court has found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Now, you may disagree with that, but it is the decision that the Court reached. Any state law that is contrary to that decision is null and void, just like any state law that limited other constitutionally-guaranteed rights or which went against Federal laws. See, inter alia, the Supremacy clause.
Gay marriage has been voted down by referendum across the board.
Right, and? The United States is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.
That one Supreme Court justice felt compelled to interject his personal beliefs into a cut and dried legal issue doesn't make the decision valid.
If you do not like our existing system of government, argue to have it changed.
Which brings me to my second point. (2) The Supreme Court is not infallible.
Red herring. Nobody suggested that the Supreme Court is infallible. In fact, plenty of the Court's past decisions prove that it isn't, a point that you make further down by citing Dred Scott v. Sandford. There's others too, such as Plessey v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn and Korematsu v. U.S. to name a few more. But it is the final court of appeal.
Who is on the Supreme Court? 9 human beings-- 9 politically appointed judges that serve for life. They have no accountability.
Again, you seem to have a problem with the structure of our Government. That's your right, of course and you're free to argue that it should be changed. But until it is changed, this is the system that we have in place and you are not free to ignore it.
You pretend to be knowledgeable about the law, and yet you know nothing about the history of the Supreme Court. I'm not going to spoon feed you the laundry list of horrible decisions-- but, I suggest you start with Dred Scott.
Dred Scott was a horrible case and was, thankfully, effectively overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to overturn a decision of the Court, then have Congress draft an Amendment and propose it to the States, or get the States to organize a constitutional convention. Both processes are outlined in the Constitution, so take a pick.
And with that, my final point (3) Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. I wrote: If this woman wants to stand by her principles and religious beliefs regardless of the consequences, then she should be applauded as a HERO. The key part of my previous posting is underlined.
Faulty generalization: not all principles are equal or equally valid, and whether standing by one's principles regardless of the consequences is heroic greatly depends on the principle and what one has to do to stand by it. As you correctly pointed out in another post, we don't consider suicide bombers heroic, despite the fact that one could argue that they are "standing by their principles regardless of the consequences." While I don't think that Davis' actions even come close to the level of suicide bombers, the problem is the principle that she can force her religious beliefs on others and the fact is that her actions are illegal.
The state is free to fire her.
Except it's not - as an elected official she cannot be fired.
I didn't say that the state could not, or should not fire her given the circumstances.
I didn't either, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.
My point is that if she has the courage to take a stand based on religious principle, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES, then I think she should be applauded. You don't have to agree with me-- but please don't put words in my mouth.
I, on the other hand, think that people should not blindly be applauded for taking a stand based on some principle without, first, examining the principle in question.
-
Relax homo. I don't give a shit about you being able to marry your boyfriend. In fact, it might help eradicate the herpes epidemic sweeping across the bay area.
Whatever you say Georgie Girl
Your anger is obvious and I enjoy it
-
The stupidity of this question doesn't merit a response. I'll let you figure out the difference between the clerk in Kentucky who refuses to marry queers and ahmed the suicide bomber who blows up a bus full of school children.
both seem to be acting on their respective (presumably sincerely held) consciences
-
Again, I never said that she shouldn't be fired. I suppose your lack of reading comprehension correlates with the idiotic comparison you made between this situation and sanctuary cities. Thanks for proving that it was beneath me to address you in the first place.
She can't be fired, genius. She was elected.
I'm sure you knew that, though.
-
Under Obergefell the Supreme Court has found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Now, you may disagree with that, but it is the decision that the Court reached. Any state law that is contrary to that decision is null and void, just like any state law that limited other constitutionally-guaranteed rights or which went against Federal laws. See, inter alia, the Supremacy clause.
Right, and? The United States is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.
If you do not like our existing system of government, argue to have it changed.
Red herring. Nobody suggested that the Supreme Court is infallible. In fact, plenty of the Court's past decisions prove that it isn't, a point that you make further down by citing Dred Scott v. Sandford. There's others too, such as Plessey v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn and Korematsu v. U.S. to name a few more. But it is the final court of appeal.
Again, you seem to have a problem with the structure of our Government. That's your right, of course and you're free to argue that it should be changed. But until it is changed, this is the system that we have in place and you are not free to ignore it.
Dred Scott was a horrible case and was, thankfully, effectively overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to overturn a decision of the Court, then have Congress draft an Amendment and propose it to the States, or get the States to organize a constitutional convention. Both processes are outlined in the Constitution, so take a pick.
Faulty generalization: not all principles are equal or equally valid, and whether standing by one's principles regardless of the consequences is heroic greatly depends on the principle and what one has to do to stand by it. As you correctly pointed out in another post, we don't consider suicide bombers heroic, despite the fact that one could argue that they are "standing by their principles regardless of the consequences." While I don't think that Davis' actions even come close to the level of suicide bombers, the problem is the principle that she can force her religious beliefs on others and the fact is that her actions are illegal.
Except it's not - as an elected official she cannot be fired.
I didn't either, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.
I, on the other hand, think that people should not blindly be applauded for taking a stand based on some principle without, first, examining the principle in question.
I was somewhat impressed with your counterargument. Then, I noticed you interjected the phrase inter alia into your response. This confirms my sincerely held suspicion that you are a witless fuckwad masquerading as an intellectual on the internet. Let me guess, you just took the LSAT, or better yet, you stayed at Holiday Inn Express last night? ::)
Your wholly unnecessary use of the phrase inter alia, demonstrates, inter alia that you are a jackass.
I have considered your remaining contentions and found them to be entirely without merit. ;D
-
She can't be fired, genius. She was elected.
I'm sure you knew that, though.
Right. The only option was sending her to jail.
-
I was somewhat impressed with your counterargument. Then, I noticed you interjected the phrase inter alia into your response. This confirms my sincerely held suspicion that you are a witless fuckwad masquerading as an intellectual on the internet. Let me guess, you just took the LSAT, or better yet, you stayed at Holiday Inn Express last night? ::)
Your wholly unnecessary use of the phrase inter alia, demonstrates, inter alia that you are a jackass.
I have considered your remaining contentions and found them to be entirely without merit. ;D
The LSAT? Good grief, no... I have as much interest in attending law school as I do in staying a Holiday Inn Express. That is to say, none at all. I use the same vocabulary that I use when writing academic papers. Besides, why complain? It did help give you an excuse to not answer any of the substantive points I made.
-
Right. The only option was sending her to jail.
This seemed to be a rational and calm response. I'm disappointed. I was hoping the meltdown continued.
-
Right. The only option was sending her to jail.
Never suggested such, but interesting subject change nonetheless. Guess I'm done with you, too.
-
Right. The only option was sending her to jail.
You sound about as bright (and angry) as Coach.
The judge later tried to keep Davis out of jail after all. He rejected her lawyer's argument that deputy clerks cannot act against her authority, and required them to declare their intentions.
All but the clerk's son, Nathan Davis, promised to comply. The judge said his refusal wouldn't matter and that his mother could go free as long as she promises not to interfere with issuing of marriage licenses to all couples.
But Kim Davis rejected the offer, choosing jail instead, her attorneys said.
The judge said his only alternative was to jail her because he did not believe she would comply with his order even if she were fined.
Speaking earlier from the bench, Bunning said it would set up a "slippery slope" to allow an individual's ideas to supersede the courts' authority.
"Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense," Bunning said. "I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs ... but I took an oath."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/03/judge-orders-kentucky-clerk-to-jail-for-refusing-to-issue-marriage-licenses-for/
-
You sound about as bright (and angry) as Coach.
The judge later tried to keep Davis out of jail after all. He rejected her lawyer's argument that deputy clerks cannot act against her authority, and required them to declare their intentions.
All but the clerk's son, Nathan Davis, promised to comply. The judge said his refusal wouldn't matter and that his mother could go free as long as she promises not to interfere with issuing of marriage licenses to all couples.
But Kim Davis rejected the offer, choosing jail instead, her attorneys said.
The judge said his only alternative was to jail her because he did not believe she would comply with his order even if she were fined.
Speaking earlier from the bench, Bunning said it would set up a "slippery slope" to allow an individual's ideas to supersede the courts' authority.
"Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense," Bunning said. "I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs ... but I took an oath."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/03/judge-orders-kentucky-clerk-to-jail-for-refusing-to-issue-marriage-licenses-for/
Seems to be a concerted effort to spin the persecuted Christian narrative - exactly what Huckabee hoped to accomplish, I'd imagine. I usually respect the guy, but this is simply dishonest. Pretty narcissistic as well.
-
This seemed to be a rational and calm response. I'm disappointed. I was hoping the meltdown continued.
You know me better than that Lurk.
-
Never suggested such, but interesting subject change nonetheless. Guess I'm done with you, too.
lol ok there sport. Chalk another one up for the good guys.
-
You know me better than that Lurk.
Oh lord... Joon bought your account?
Hee Hee
-
You sound about as bright (and angry) as Coach.
The judge later tried to keep Davis out of jail after all. He rejected her lawyer's argument that deputy clerks cannot act against her authority, and required them to declare their intentions.
All but the clerk's son, Nathan Davis, promised to comply. The judge said his refusal wouldn't matter and that his mother could go free as long as she promises not to interfere with issuing of marriage licenses to all couples.
But Kim Davis rejected the offer, choosing jail instead, her attorneys said.
The judge said his only alternative was to jail her because he did not believe she would comply with his order even if she were fined.
Speaking earlier from the bench, Bunning said it would set up a "slippery slope" to allow an individual's ideas to supersede the courts' authority.
"Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense," Bunning said. "I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs ... but I took an oath."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/03/judge-orders-kentucky-clerk-to-jail-for-refusing-to-issue-marriage-licenses-for/
Yes-- everyone who disagrees with you must be angry. Brilliant thesis "Skeletor". Please explain the relevance of the news article you just posted. You clearly don't know what your talking about-- so I'll educate you.
When Davis was elected, marrying homosexuals wasn't part of the job description. There was no tension between her sincerely held religious beliefs and the law as interpreted by 5 Supreme Court justices. Now, she is faced with the post hoc task of carrying out her "oath" or betraying her faith. She chose the latter. The Judge's reasoning is utter bullshit because, 7 other clerks perform precisely the same function as Davis and all but one agreed to perform gay marriages. If the voters in her district are appalled by her behavior, then she should be voted out of office during the next election cycle. Forcing Davis to choose between rejecting her religious beliefs and jail is the epitome of tyranny.
-
The LSAT? Good grief, no... I have as much interest in attending law school as I do in staying a Holiday Inn Express. That is to say, none at all. I use the same vocabulary that I use when writing academic papers. Besides, why complain? It did help give you an excuse to not answer any of the substantive points I made.
Im sorry, using inter alia in that fashion makes everything you wrote null and void. Plus, if you're not an attorney, I'm not going to waste my time reasoning the law with a lay person.
-
Ooh... post hoc. Are you taking the LSAT or did you just watch the Matlock marathon? ;D
-
Im sorry, using inter alia in that fashion makes everything you wrote null and void. Plus, if you're not an attorney, I'm not going to waste my time reasoning the law with a lay person.
A lay person? Are you suggesting you are a lawyer? I very much suspect that you aren't.
-
A lay person? Are you suggesting you are a lawyer? I very much suspect that you aren't.
You must be new here.
-
Ooh... post hoc. Are you taking the LSAT or did you just watch the Matlock marathon? ;D
Great minds think alike-- I was inspired by your verbosity. ;D
-
Ok-- here is a situation that is the opposite side of the coin.
Serving alcohol was always part of the job description-- she took the job anyway; now shes suing.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223926/Muslim-flight-attendant-files-discrimination-complaint-against-employer-claiming-suspended-refusing-serve-alcohol.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223926/Muslim-flight-attendant-files-discrimination-complaint-against-employer-claiming-suspended-refusing-serve-alcohol.html)
-
don't know what your talking about-- so I'll educate you.
Never fails.
-
Great minds think alike-- I was inspired by your verbosity. ;D
Where's the "Like" button in this joint? ;D
When Davis was elected, marrying homosexuals wasn't part of the job description. There was no tension between her sincerely held religious beliefs and the law as interpreted by 5 Supreme Court justices. Now, she is faced with the post hoc task of carrying out her "oath" or betraying her faith. She chose the latter. The Judge's reasoning is utter bullshit because, 7 other clerks perform precisely the same function as Davis and all but one agreed to perform gay marriages. If the voters in her district are appalled by her behavior, then she should be voted out of office during the next election cycle. Forcing Davis to choose between rejecting her religious beliefs and jail is the epitome of tyranny.
How does the fact that she explicitly said that she would not allow anyone in her office to issue licenses to gay couples – a fact which which you conveniently left out – factor into the analysis though? After all, the clerks in her office are not elected and are subject to termination/dismissal if they refuse to comply with their boss's request.
Her job description hasn't changed as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, although she now has to issue marriages licenses to people who she doesn't think should be married. But what she thinks isn't relevant. The clerk doesn't have discretion to issue or not issue the license and her beliefs on the issue simply do not matter. Look, it's really quite simple. Kim Davis has two choices: she can either do her job and issue licenses in accordance with the law and the decision of the Supreme Court in Obergefell, or if, as a result of said decision, she now finds that her religious beliefs interfere with her ability to do her job then she can resign. But she cannot choose to not follow the law or disregard and ignore Court decisions and orders. This is not how our system works.
You suggest that it's up to the voters to boot her, if they're appaled by her behavior, but that issue is orthogonal to what we're discussing here. Yes, the voters can choose to not re-elect her if she decides to run again. But that doesn't mean that until the next election, that little slice of America is Kim Davis's own private fiefdom to run as she pleases, unconstrained by the law or by the decisions of the Courts.
-
Yes-- everyone who disagrees with you must be angry. Brilliant thesis "Skeletor". Please explain the relevance of the news article you just posted. You clearly don't know what your talking about-- so I'll educate you.
The irony... I'm sure you tried your best though.
When Davis was elected, marrying homosexuals wasn't part of the job description. There was no tension between her sincerely held religious beliefs and the law as interpreted by 5 Supreme Court justices. Now, she is faced with the post hoc task of carrying out her "oath" or betraying her faith. She chose the latter. The Judge's reasoning is utter bullshit because, 7 other clerks perform precisely the same function as Davis and all but one agreed to perform gay marriages. If the voters in her district are appalled by her behavior, then she should be voted out of office during the next election cycle. Forcing Davis to choose between rejecting her religious beliefs and jail is the epitome of tyranny.
It seems reading comprehension is not your strong point. The judge asked her specifically if she promised not to interfere with the other employees issuing the licenses and she said she could not. Read:
The judge later tried to keep Davis out of jail after all. He rejected her lawyer's argument that deputy clerks cannot act against her authority, and required them to declare their intentions.
All but the clerk's son, Nathan Davis, promised to comply. The judge said his refusal wouldn't matter and that his mother could go free as long as she promises not to interfere with issuing of marriage licenses to all couples.
But Kim Davis rejected the offer, choosing jail instead, her attorneys said.
-
Apparently she now requires the people in her office to share her personal religious beliefs (and I guess fuck whatever they choose to believe). She seems to think she is "the office" now and "the office" now has a religious belief
This is the fundies real agenda. It's no different than fundie muslim extremists. They want every muslim to share their particular brand of islam. It's not enough for them to be free to practice their particular type of religion. Their beliefs require that everyone else does as well.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CORLslvW8AA35ve.jpg)
-
From one of my friends:
"Thanks to Eugene Volokh, I am reminded that Title VII's requirement of religious accommodation does not apply to elected officials such as Kim Davis, so this situation must be analyzed under the Kentucky RFRA analysis, whether compelling Davis to issue the marriage licenses is the least restrictive means of insuring that all Kentuckians obtain the licenses they are legally entitled to receive, without suffering discrimination."
-
Is she really being held without bail? That's crazy.
Kentucky clerk appeals order putting her in jail
Published September 07, 2015
Associated Press
LEXINGTON, Ky. – A Kentucky county clerk has appealed a judge's decision to put her in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Attorneys for Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis officially appealed the ruling to the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sunday. The three page motion does not include arguments as to why Davis should be released but amends Davis' earlier appeal of the judge's order.
Davis objects to same-sex marriage for religious reasons and stopped issuing all marriage licenses in June after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her. U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to issue the licenses and the Supreme Court upheld his ruling.
But Davis still refused to do it, saying she could not betray her conscience.
Thursday, Bunning ruled Davis was in contempt of court for disobeying his order and sent her to jail. Her deputy clerks then issued marriage licenses to gay couples Friday with Davis behind bars.
"Civil rights are civil rights and they are not subject to belief," said James Yates, who got a marriage license on Friday after having been denied five times previously.
Mat Staver, one of Davis' attorneys, said the marriage licenses issued Friday are "not worth the paper they are written on" because Davis refused to authorize them. But Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins says the licenses are valid. Bunning said he did not know if the licenses were valid but ordered them issued anyway.
Bunning indicated Davis will be in jail at least a week. She could stay longer if she continues to not obey the judge's order. Bunning had offered to release Davis from jail if she promised not to interfere with her deputy clerks as they issued the licenses. But Davis refused.
Staver called the contempt hearing "a charade" saying that Bunning had his mind made up before the hearing began.
Kentucky law requires marriage licenses be issued under the authority of the elected county clerk. Davis views issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a stamp of approval of something she believes is a sin. She has said she will not issue marriage licenses until the state legislature changes the law so the licenses can be issued under someone else's authority.
The state legislature is not scheduled to meet again until January and Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has refused to call a special session. Davis has refused to resign her $80,000-a-year job. As an elected official the only way she could lose her job is to lose an election or have the state legislature impeach her, which is unlikely given the conservative nature of the state General Assembly.
"She's not going to resign, she's not going to sacrifice her conscience, so she's doing what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, which is to pay the consequences for her decision," Staver said.
Davis' plight has reignited the gay marriage debate and the limits of religious freedom. Her imprisonment has inspired spirited protests from both sides in this small eastern Kentucky community known mostly as the home to Morehead State University.
Saturday, about 300 people rallied in support of Davis at the Carter County Detention Center where she is being held. Another rally is scheduled for Tuesday with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/07/kentucky-clerk-appeals-order-putting-her-in-jail/?intcmp=hpbt2
-
Is she really being held without bail? That's crazy.
Kentucky clerk appeals order putting her in jail
Published September 07, 2015
Associated Press
LEXINGTON, Ky. – A Kentucky county clerk has appealed a judge's decision to put her in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Attorneys for Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis officially appealed the ruling to the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sunday. The three page motion does not include arguments as to why Davis should be released but amends Davis' earlier appeal of the judge's order.
Davis objects to same-sex marriage for religious reasons and stopped issuing all marriage licenses in June after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her. U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to issue the licenses and the Supreme Court upheld his ruling.
But Davis still refused to do it, saying she could not betray her conscience.
Thursday, Bunning ruled Davis was in contempt of court for disobeying his order and sent her to jail. Her deputy clerks then issued marriage licenses to gay couples Friday with Davis behind bars.
"Civil rights are civil rights and they are not subject to belief," said James Yates, who got a marriage license on Friday after having been denied five times previously.
Mat Staver, one of Davis' attorneys, said the marriage licenses issued Friday are "not worth the paper they are written on" because Davis refused to authorize them. But Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins says the licenses are valid. Bunning said he did not know if the licenses were valid but ordered them issued anyway.
Bunning indicated Davis will be in jail at least a week. She could stay longer if she continues to not obey the judge's order. Bunning had offered to release Davis from jail if she promised not to interfere with her deputy clerks as they issued the licenses. But Davis refused.
Staver called the contempt hearing "a charade" saying that Bunning had his mind made up before the hearing began.
Kentucky law requires marriage licenses be issued under the authority of the elected county clerk. Davis views issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a stamp of approval of something she believes is a sin. She has said she will not issue marriage licenses until the state legislature changes the law so the licenses can be issued under someone else's authority.
The state legislature is not scheduled to meet again until January and Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has refused to call a special session. Davis has refused to resign her $80,000-a-year job. As an elected official the only way she could lose her job is to lose an election or have the state legislature impeach her, which is unlikely given the conservative nature of the state General Assembly.
"She's not going to resign, she's not going to sacrifice her conscience, so she's doing what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, which is to pay the consequences for her decision," Staver said.
Davis' plight has reignited the gay marriage debate and the limits of religious freedom. Her imprisonment has inspired spirited protests from both sides in this small eastern Kentucky community known mostly as the home to Morehead State University.
Saturday, about 300 people rallied in support of Davis at the Carter County Detention Center where she is being held. Another rally is scheduled for Tuesday with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/07/kentucky-clerk-appeals-order-putting-her-in-jail/?intcmp=hpbt2
more crazy than claiming a book allegedly containing rules from a God forbid her to follow the law and issue a marriage license to homosexuals?
-
Is she really being held without bail? That's crazy.
The judge is a Bush apointee and HIGHLY conservative. Doesn't like the law, but feels obligation to obey it.
It's a highly conservative county also.
http://www.newstalkflorida.com/conservative-judge-bunning-jailed-kim-davis-without-bail
-
Is she really being held without bail? That's crazy.
She is not being held without bail, because THERE IS NO BAIL IN CONTEMPT CASES. Bail comes into play when you are charged with something and are released on bail pending a trial that will happen at a later day. She was already found in contempt and sentenced to jail.
-
more crazy than claiming a book allegedly containing rules from a God forbid her to follow the law and issue a marriage license to homosexuals?
Not crazy at all. It's actually as American as apple pie. :)
-
She is not being held without bail, because THERE IS NO BAIL IN CONTEMPT CASES. Bail comes into play when you are charged with something and are released on bail pending a trial that will happen at a later day. She was already found in contempt and sentenced to jail.
Wow. Big distinction there. . . . .
Is she really being held indefinitely without being released? Is that better?
-
Wow. Big distinction there. . . . .
Is she really being held indefinitely without being released? Is that better?
the conservative judge is holding her according to the law. He doesnt like it, but he obeys it.
so much LOL at conservatives willing to chuck laws out the window when they disagree with them.
-
Why Can't the Kentucky Clerk Get Bail?
By Greg Richter |
Sunday, 06 Sep 2015
Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis has been jailed without bail since Thursday for refusing to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Her attorney, Matthew Staver, says that even some people accused of murder are allowed to be free on bail while their trail is pending.
"This woman who hasn't done any crime at all," Staver told Newsmax on Sunday. "She's being held without bail for an indefinite period of time. In fact, one of the U.S. marshals when they were directed by the judge to take her into custody told her he had never arrested somebody who had not committed a crime."
GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told ABC's "This Week" Sunday that there is a double standard for liberals and conservatives when it comes to violating same-sex marriage laws. He pointed to former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome and President Barack Obama's former Attorney General Eric Holder for allowing same-sex marriage when it was illegal, yet suffering no consequences.
But Davis, who says same-sex marriage violates her Christian beliefs, is in control of her own destiny, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz tells Newsmax.
"She can get out immediately," Dershowitz said. "All she has to do is resign her job … and say, 'Look, I can't do this in conscience. And because I can't do it in conscience, I really can't hold the job of being clerk.' That's the principled decision."
Davis' being able to continue to serve as county clerk while refusing to issue marriage licenses would be comparable to a conscientious objector, rather than declining to enter the Army, joining instead, then refusing to follow orders, Dershowitz said.
U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning has said he jailed Davis without bail in an effort to force her to comply on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling this summer legalizing gay marriage nationally. Allowing her to pay a fine wouldn't have worked, Bunning said, because Davis has a large group of supporters willing to cover the cost.
Staver, Davis' lawyer, is skeptical that Bunning ever even considered a fine – even though the gay couples seeking the original injuction against Davis specifically requested a fine and not jail time.
The temporary injunction ended at the end of the day August 31, Staver said, and at 10:30 the next morning a motion for contempt was filed. Bunning set a 1 p.m. hearing, allowing only a five-page response, when the rules allow for 20 pages.
When the hearing was held 48 hours later, Bunning already had the jailer – who had to travel from another county – in the courtroom ready to take Davis into custody.
"Then when he read he was going to confine her, he read from a prepared statement he had already written, and didn't give civil penalties at a graduated rate," Staver said. Jailing Davis was the judge's intent "from the very beginning," Staver said.
University of Alabama School of Law professor Ronald Krotoszynski Jr. tells Newsmax that he was surprised as well. A judge usually starts with a fine first, Krotoszynski said, before moving to incarceration. The exception is with journalists who refuse to give up their confidential sources.
Staver is appealing the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but Krotoszynski said he doesn't expect to see the decision overturned.
Unless the Sixth Circuit finds the judge was "wildy inappropriate" in his ruling, it will stand, he said.
Staver feels differently, telling Newsmax, "This is just this particular judge who violates the rule of law to reach his desired end."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kentucky-clerk-bail-gay/2015/09/06/id/673857/#ixzz3l5AzJz8t
-
Chick denies gays a marriage license - imposes HER morality, violating THEIR civil rights - but she's the discrimination victim?
This is the mindset, seriously?
-
She's being turned into a martyr given the heavy-handed way this is being handled.
-
She's being turned into a martyr given the heavy-handed way this is being handled.
No. She is being exposed as an idiot who let her bigot views lead her to jail.
-
more crazy than claiming a book allegedly containing rules from a God forbid her to follow the law and issue a marriage license to homosexuals?
Don't know what her problem is, she is already condemned to hell for the same thing when she issued that marriage license to that transgendered couple.
-
No. She is being exposed as an idiot who let her bigot views lead her to jail.
No. She is being imprisoned like a violent criminal for standing on principle. And locking her up like a murderer is only making her bigger than she needs to be. She is probably going to make money when this is all said and done.
-
She's being turned into a martyr given the heavy-handed way this is being handled.
by a conservative judge in a conservative county, upholding a conservative law?
Dem libs are the problem tho, huh?
And locking her up like a murderer
Some murderers actually get bail lol. she does not.
-
Madonna's Brother Defends Jailed Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples
by Ryan Gajewski
9/5/2015
"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who himself is openly gay.
Madonna's brother, Christopher Ciccone, is speaking out in defense of the county clerk in Kentucky who was recently jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Ciccone, who is openly gay, posted a message to Facebook on Friday in which he said that Kim Davis should be granted the right deny the licenses, with Ciccone citing her "religious freedom."
"The county clerk in [Kentucky] deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a Muslim [woman] who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without your man's approval," he wrote.
Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind…or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."
"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."
Ciccone began his entertainment career as one of Madonna's backup dancers before moving on to direct music videos for such stars as Dolly Parton.
His full post can be seen below.
The county clerk in Kentucy deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a muslim women who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without ur mans approval.....perspective is everything.....this woman is a civil servant, she is required to follow federal law.....but why should she....when DOJ and other civil authories don't follow federal law when they choose not to.....i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of "sanctuary cities".....i always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches.......these things aside....this is why we have elections.....if the folks of this county in Kentucy don't want her as the county clerk....then don't have to vote for her.....that is how a democracy works....not to mention the courts.
In the mean time.....since when are we the arbiter of other peoples faith?.......can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i'm not mistaken, it's in the constitution.....somethi ng about religious freedom or something......selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy....freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength. Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice. Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners. Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion?...or must we destroy her in order for here to betray her faith. No matter how we judge its truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/madonnas-brother-defends-jailed-clerk-820753
-
No. She is being imprisoned like a violent criminal for standing on principle. And locking her up like a murderer is only making her bigger than she needs to be. She is probably going to make money when this is all said and done.
No she is being jailed like any lawyer or other person in contempt of court.. the heavy handedness comes from her own stubbornness to refuse to follow the law and perform her duties.
-
No. She is being imprisoned like a violent criminal for standing on principle. And locking her up like a murderer is only making her bigger than she needs to be. She is probably going to make money when this is all said and done.
Not for imposing her ignorant horseshit on innocent victims?
Too much, guy.
-
Madonna's Brother Defends Jailed Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples
by Ryan Gajewski
9/5/2015
"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who himself is openly gay.
Madonna's brother, Christopher Ciccone, is speaking out in defense of the county clerk in Kentucky who was recently jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Ciccone, who is openly gay, posted a message to Facebook on Friday in which he said that Kim Davis should be granted the right deny the licenses, with Ciccone citing her "religious freedom."
"The county clerk in [Kentucky] deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a Muslim [woman] who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without your man's approval," he wrote.
Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind…or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."
"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."
Ciccone began his entertainment career as one of Madonna's backup dancers before moving on to direct music videos for such stars as Dolly Parton.
His full post can be seen below.
The county clerk in Kentucy deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a muslim women who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without ur mans approval.....perspective is everything.....this woman is a civil servant, she is required to follow federal law.....but why should she....when DOJ and other civil authories don't follow federal law when they choose not to.....i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of "sanctuary cities".....i always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches.......these things aside....this is why we have elections.....if the folks of this county in Kentucy don't want her as the county clerk....then don't have to vote for her.....that is how a democracy works....not to mention the courts.
In the mean time.....since when are we the arbiter of other peoples faith?.......can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i'm not mistaken, it's in the constitution.....somethi ng about religious freedom or something......selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy....freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength. Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice. Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners. Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion?...or must we destroy her in order for here to betray her faith. No matter how we judge its truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/madonnas-brother-defends-jailed-clerk-820753
In other words she deserves NO support..
-
No she is being jailed like any lawyer or other person in contempt of court.. the heavy handedness comes from her own stubbornness to refuse to follow the law and perform her duties.
I disagree. There are a number of ways this could have been handled other than locking her up indefinitely.
-
Not for imposing her ignorant horseshit on innocent victims?
Too much, guy.
I don't agree with the way she has handled this and I don't believe she should be allowed to prevent people from getting marriage licenses.
I also don't agree with locking her up.
But yes, this is about principle for her.
-
I disagree. There are a number of ways this could have been handled other than locking her up indefinitely.
like?
-
I disagree. There are a number of ways this could have been handled other than locking her up indefinitely.
The Court explicitly asked her if she would allow the employees in her office to issue certificates and she said she would not. The problem is that her employees are subject to termination and have to listen to her as she is their boss; she isn't subject to termination (because she can't be fired - only impeached) so what's left? How would you suggest that this is handled? Remember, Kim Davis is not above the law, and she can't run her little slice of America as a fiefdom where Kim Davis' personal religious beliefs dictate what laws do and don't apply.
-
like?
Fining her, which is apparently what some of the gay couples requested. Issue an injunction preventing her from entering the office.
-
Fining her, which is apparently what some of the gay couples requested. Issue an injunction preventing her from entering the office.
That would not work, as a fund by those with her same mindset was already created to counter any fines.
The money would have come from the fund and not herself. Hence why the judge decided on the jail time.
Are you saying that elected officials are not the same elected officials when they are not in the office?
I would say that she would have still been telling her employees to not do what they agreed they would do. If that's the case, then she is effectively going to end up in jail over this anyway.
There was no stopping what she put in motion herself.
-
Fining her, which is apparently what some of the gay couples requested. Issue an injunction preventing her from entering the office.
The Judge explicitly explained why he didn't fine her: because he didn't this would have a deterrent effect and fix the issue - that is, to bring her into compliance. It's unclear what such an injunction would achieve or how it would serve to bring the office into compliance. In fact, the injunction would very likely not bring her into compliance which is what the Judge here is, correctly, trying to achieve.
-
I disagree. There are a number of ways this could have been handled other than locking her up indefinitely.
She has the keys to her jail cell. All she needs to do is comply with the Court's decision, just like everyone else.
-
The Judge explicitly explained why he didn't fine her: because he didn't this would have a deterrent effect and fix the issue - that is, to bring her into compliance. It's unclear what such an injunction would achieve or how it would serve to bring the office into compliance. In fact, the injunction would very likely not bring her into compliance which is what the Judge here is, correctly, trying to achieve.
I disagree with the judge. A petty move to not fine her based on the possibility of someone else picking up the tab.
Bringing her into compliance is part of the issue. The bigger issue is ensuring everyone who is entitled to a license receives one. That could have been accomplished by banning her from the office until she complies. Indefinite jail time for something like this is just crazy.
-
I don't agree with the way she has handled this and I don't believe she should be allowed to prevent people from getting marriage licenses.
I also don't agree with locking her up.
But yes, this is about principle for her.
Jail sounds excessive, yeah, but what's the alternative?
She's FORCING the martyr bullshit, no one wanted her jailed. She insisted. And now all her like-minded bibleheads cry foul, doing the work for her. All coming around to coddlie the poor "victim."
Where were her fucking principles when she divorced three times? An 'Ok, staaaaaar-tiiiiiiing ... NOW!' kinda thing, where unfortunate couples get screwed by her fresh rebirth?
Stereotypically simple-minded hypocrites, man, an impossibly predictable joke.
-
I disagree with the judge. A petty move to not fine her based on the possibility of someone else picking up the tab.
Bringing her into compliance is part of the issue. The bigger issue is ensuring everyone who is entitled to a license receives one. That could have been accomplished by banning her from the office until she complies. Indefinite jail time for something like this is just crazy.
Does she not have the ability to remove herself by simply stating and holding to her statement that she will not interfere in others giving marriage licenses to gay couples?
She has already stated that the license isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Also, as such, how do we know she will not go back and nullify those licenses if she is released?
This is a woman who can go in and rescind every license that was produced and basically "unmarry" people right?
-
Jail sounds excessive, yeah, but what's the alternative?
She's FORCING the martyr bullshit, no one wanted her jailed. She insisted. And now all her like-minded bibleheads cry foul, doing the work for her. All coming around to coddlie the poor "victim."
Where were her fucking principles when she divorced three times? An 'Ok, staaaaaar-tiiiiiiing ... NOW!' kinda thing, where unfortunate couples get screwed by her fresh rebirth?
Stereotypically simple-minded hypocrites, man, an impossibly predictable joke.
I just explained the alternative: fine her and ban her from the office.
-
Does she not have the ability to remove herself by simply stating and holding to her statement that she will not interfere in others giving marriage licenses to gay couples?
She has already stated that the license isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Also, as such, how do we know she will not go back and nullify those licenses if she is released?
This is a woman who can go in and rescind every license that was produced and basically "unmarry" people right?
As I've said several times now, ban her from the office. That's a much better alternative than locking her up.
-
As I've said several times now, ban her from the office. That's a much better alternative than locking her up.
Are you saying she can only fire employees when she is in the office?
-
Are you saying she can only fire employees when she is in the office?
I didn't say anything about her firing employees.
-
I didn't say anything about her firing employees.
But that's all part of it... if she can fire and hire employees, then she can fire anyone who she deems unworthy. Therefore, if she disagrees with someone giving out those licenses, she can fire them.
Even if she's not in the office.
Which will start an entirely separate law suit from whomever that employee is.
Honestly, the easiest and most efficient way, was the do this, or do that, or go to jail scenario.
She had options... She chose jail.
No one said, "Go to jail no-matter what."
She had options, she CHOSE jail over the others.
-
I just explained the alternative: fine her and ban her from the office.
She wouldn't pay, this was explained. Hence the insisting. And can't ban/fire an elected official, this too was explained. So what's left?
If the Fundie officials are gonna be an issue, these backwoods shitholes really need to change their marriage licensing procedure. Fuck the signature.
-
But that's all part of it... if she can fire and hire employees, then she can fire anyone who she deems unworthy. Therefore, if she disagrees with someone giving out those licenses, she can fire them.
Even if she's not in the office.
Which will start an entirely separate law suit from whomever that employee is.
Honestly, the easiest and most efficient way, was the do this, or do that, or go to jail scenario.
She had options... She chose jail.
No one said, "Go to jail no-matter what."
She had options, she CHOSE jail over the others.
The judge has taken over this whole situation, so I doubt anyone is getting fired. Did she try and fire her employees?
The judge has options and chose the most severe punishment, which should be reserved for criminals, not this woman.
-
I disagree with the judge. A petty move to not fine her based on the possibility of someone else picking up the tab.
Bringing her into compliance is part of the issue. The bigger issue is ensuring everyone who is entitled to a license receives one. That could have been accomplished by banning her from the office until she complies. Indefinite jail time for something like this is just crazy.
When someone is breaking the law on a class C violation, like pan handling, or loud noise, it's typical for the officer responding to write a citation for the violation IF that will end the violation. Otherwise they are instructed to make a custody arrest. Same situation here. Fining her would not change her behavior. It would serve no purpose. Jail sounds like it's heavy handed but it is the best option in this case. It's not only this hypocritical fundie that we should be concerned about, but we should send a message that if you refuse to follow the laws and you discriminate as an elected official, you too will see the inside of a jail cell.
-
The judge has taken over this whole situation, so I doubt anyone is getting fired. Did she try and fire her employees?
The judge has options and chose the most severe punishment, which should be reserved for criminals, not this woman.
The judge gave her options. She chose to go to jail.
If you are rude to a judge in a court room, you can be found in contempt and jailed... Happens all the time.
Do you think rudeness is less criminal than what she's doing by ignoring a direct order? I certainly do, but it's jailed many a person anyway.
-
She wouldn't pay, this was explained. Hence the insisting. And can't ban/fire an elected official, this too was explained. So what's left?
If the Fundie officials are gonna be an issue, these backwoods shitholes really need to change their marriage licensing procedure. Fuck the signature.
It is assumed someone else would pay. So what?
Firing and banning are not the same, so no, that was not "explained."
-
When someone is breaking the law on a class C violation, like pan handling, or loud noise, it's typical for the officer responding to write a citation for the violation IF that will end the violation. Otherwise they are instructed to make a custody arrest. Same situation here. Fining her would not change her behavior. It would serve no purpose. Jail sounds like it's heavy handed but it is the best option in this case. It's not only this hypocritical fundie that we should be concerned about, but we should send a message that if you refuse to follow the laws and you discriminate as an elected official, you too will see the inside of a jail cell.
What law did she break?
Jailing her isn't changing her behavior either.
-
How different is this from some old school Southern judge refusing to marry an interracial couple? I'm sure we can find a bible verse to support such a stance.
I can't imagine the same support for this hypothetical judge, what with all the "racist!" backlash ... yet it's entirely consistent with what's happening here. And we should all find these hypothetical Christians hypocritical for not supporting my hypothetical judge.
-
What law did she break?
Jailing her isn't changing her behavior either.
When you refuse to obey a court order from a judge, it's an offense.
The point of being in jail is that it has in the past, certainly changed behavior, so give her some time. The RIGHT thing to do, would have been for this fundie who now refuses to do a function of her job, should resign.. If I decided that arresting people for smoking pot was against my beliefs.. I couldn't expect to maintain my job, why should she?
-
How different is this from some old school Southern judge refusing to marry an interracial couple? I'm sure we can find a bible verse to support such a stance.
I can't imagine the same support for this hypothetical judge, what with all the "racist!" backlash ... yet it's entirely consistent with what's happening here. And we should all find these hypothetical Christians hypocritical for not supporting my hypothetical judge.
Really? What Bible verse supports a judge refusing to marry an interracial couple, and which judge used that verse?
-
How different is this from some old school Southern judge refusing to marry an interracial couple? I'm sure we can find a bible verse to support such a stance.
I can't imagine the same support for this hypothetical judge, what with all the "racist!" backlash ... yet it's entirely consistent with what's happening here. And we should all find these hypothetical Christians hypocritical for not supporting my hypothetical judge.
The judge has stated he is also a Christian and doesn't agree with it, however, he is to uphold the law and this is the law of the land.
-
Deut 7:3-4
-
When you refuse to obey a court order from a judge, it's an offense.
The point of being in jail is that it has in the past, certainly changed behavior, so give her some time. The RIGHT thing to do, would have been for this fundie who now refuses to do a function of her job, should resign.. If I decided that arresting people for smoking pot was against my beliefs.. I couldn't expect to maintain my job, why should she?
She disobeyed a court order. She didn't break some law related to homosexual marriage.
Actually part of the reason we lock people up is prevent them from committing more crime. Same thing could have been accomplished without locking this woman up.
-
Deut 7:3-4
lol. It always cracks me up when atheists quote the Bible chapter and verse. :)
Which judge used those verses to deny performing interracial marriage in the United States?
-
Really? What Bible verse supports a judge refusing to marry an interracial couple, and which judge used that verse?
I'd have to find one, of course. But with all the pro-slavery shit in there, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult.
Which judge? How many times must I type "hypothetical," sir?
-
I'd have to find one, of course. But with all the pro-slavery shit in there, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult.
Which judge? How many times must I type "hypothetical," sir?
A hypothetical Bible verse in support of a hypothetical judge involving a hypothetical situation. Sort of a pointless discussion, don't you think?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html
Not using a bible verse.. just racist.. but still amazing in this day and age..
-
lol. It always cracks me up when atheists quote the Bible chapter and verse. :)
Which judge used those verses to deny performing interracial marriage in the United States?
Were any of us around before 1967? Perhaps if we wanted to go through all of those cases before Loving vs. Virginia we might find something, that said, what difference does it make if there is or is not?
Certainly the groups used religion as the basis for the belief against it... Or do you believe everyone is just making that part up?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html
Not using a bible verse.. just racist.. but still amazing in this day and age..
Completely different subject.
-
Were any of us around before 1967? Perhaps if we wanted to go through all of those cases before Loving vs. Virginia we might find something, that said, what difference does it make if there is or is not?
Certainly the groups used religion as the basis for the belief against it... Or do you believe everyone is just making that part up?
Who cares if some people twisted their religious beliefs to support discrimination decades ago?
-
Just an fyi, in case anyone is confused about this. :)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=552319.0
-
Who cares if some people twisted their religious beliefs to support discrimination decades ago?
Isn't that what this is? Religious beliefs supporting discrimination today?
-
Isn't that what this is? Religious beliefs supporting discrimination today?
Kim Davis is actually requiring all her deputies to share HER religious beliefs
So much for fundies crying about persecution and freedom of religion
-
Just an fyi, in case anyone is confused about this. :)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=552319.0
I believe the confusion is in personal information.
Apparently mentioning someone's employment is also against the rules.
I don't care if people know what I do, but that's just me.
Some people are sensitive it seems.
-
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html
Here is one of several churches that refuse to marry interracial couples, nor let them be members of the church... This is relative because it is from the same mold. Religious people like to cover their bigotry and racism in the cloak of righteousness. We shouldn't think any more of them than we do the KKK or any other racist or hate organization simply because they use "religion" to hide their ugliness behind
-
I believe the confusion is in personal information.
Apparently mentioning someone's employment is also against the rules.
I don't care if people know what I do, but that's just me.
Some people are sensitive it seems.
::)
-
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html
Here is one of several churches that refuse to marry interracial couples, nor let them be members of the church... This is relative because it is from the same mold. Religious people like to cover their bigotry and racism in the cloak of righteousness. We shouldn't think any more of them than we do the KKK or any other racist or hate organization simply because they use "religion" to hide their ugliness behind
Wait. So you find some church in Kentucky with racist beliefs? What are there like 25 members of their church?
-
Wait. So you find some church in Kentucky with racist beliefs? What are there like 25 members of their church?
Just like we found ONE clerk using "religion" to descriminate
-
Just like we found ONE clerk using "religion" to descriminate
This is a valid point.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/mississippi-black-couple-wedding/
Mississippi
http://aattp.org/tennesee-preacher-refuses-to-marry-whites-and-blacks-because-communism-video/
Tennesee
-
::)
What was that for?
Are you inferring that I was referencing you? Why on earth would you think that?
-
What was that for?
Are you inferring that I was referencing you? Why on earth would you think that?
LOL! :-*
-
It is assumed someone else would pay. So what?
Firing and banning are not the same, so no, that was not "explained."
Ok, I stand corrected. Pretty sure she wouldn't let anyone pay, though, that was the plan.
-
You can be religious all you like... but you can't refuse to follow the law and a court order as an elected official, effectively discriminating against a group of people.. do the honorable thing and resign if it bothers you that much...
-
LOL! :-*
:'(
-
Ok, I stand corrected. Pretty sure she wouldn't let anyone pay, though, that was the plan.
I don't think that really changes much. Doesn't justify locking her up.
-
:'(
:)
-
lol. It always cracks me up when atheists quote the Bible chapter and verse. :)
Why, are they different for Christians? You guys get the reasonable version, one that makes more sense?
-
I disagree with the judge.
Oh... well... that changes everything! ::)
A petty move to not fine her based on the possibility of someone else picking up the tab.
He didn't fine her because that wouldn't help bring her into compliance which is the whole point behind the Judge's order. He issued a lawful order and she's refusing to follow it! Listen, we live in a nation of laws and Kim Davis doesn't get to pick and choose which laws and which court orders she follows.
Bringing her into compliance is part of the issue.
No. It is the ONLY issue. There's an order compelling her to issue licenses. She may disagree with the order, which is her right. She can complain about it all she wants. But she is not free to ignore it.
The bigger issue is ensuring everyone who is entitled to a license receives one.
Which will happen only if she agrees to either follow the law and comply with the Court order or if she resigns and someone else, who can follow the law takes her place.
That could have been accomplished by banning her from the office until she complies.
Even if the Judge had the authority to "ban her from the office" it's unclear that that would change anything at all. She explicitly said that she would not allow her employees to issue licenses. Whether she's physically in the office or not, she still has authority to fire the clerks who do not follow her direction. Short of jailing her for contempt, what else could the Judge have done? He doesn't have the authority to remove her from her elected position - and if you think he does, please cite the relevant statute.
Indefinite jail time for something like this is just crazy.
That's how contempt of court works when the court is trying to bring someone into compliance. What else would you suggest? Asking again but adding "pretty please"? Serenading her?
-
I think locking her up was appropriate.. considering all the circumstances..
-
:)
Not really sure why you are trying to blow kisses at me... seems to detract from the reasonable tone of the thread, but I guess that's how you "moderate" politics.
-
Why, are they different for Christians? You guys get the reasonable version, one that makes more sense?
Why is someone who doesn't believe in God reading a book about something they don't believe in?
-
Oh... well... that changes everything! ::)
He didn't fine her because that wouldn't help bring her into compliance which is the whole point behind the Judge's order. He issued a lawful order and she's refusing to follow it! Listen, we live in a nation of laws and Kim Davis doesn't get to pick and choose which laws and which court orders she follows.
No. It is the ONLY issue. There's an order compelling her to issue licenses. She may disagree with the order, which is her right. She can complain about it all she wants. But she is not free to ignore it.
Which will happen only if she agrees to either follow the law and comply with the Court order or if she resigns and someone else, who can follow the law takes her place.
Even if the Judge had the authority to "ban her from the office" it's unclear that that would change anything at all. She explicitly said that she would not allow her employees to issue licenses. Whether she's physically in the office or not, she still has authority to fire the clerks who do not follow her direction. Short of jailing her for contempt, what else could the Judge have done? He doesn't have the authority to remove her from her elected position - and if you think he does, please cite the relevant statute.
That's how contempt of court works when the court is trying to bring someone into compliance. What else would you suggest? Asking again but adding "pretty please"? Serenading her?
Putting her in jail is not solving the problem.
-
Not really sure why you are trying to blow kisses at me... seems to detract from the reasonable tone of the thread, but I guess that's how you "moderate" politics.
I'm just laughing at you. You crack me up. :)
-
A hypothetical Bible verse in support of a hypothetical judge involving a hypothetical situation. Sort of a pointless discussion, don't you think?
Not at all. Hypothetical situation practically mirroring this one, just swapping gay for interracial. The verse wouldn't be hypothetical, though, just need an appropriate fit.
Would it really surprise you to find a little racism in that book?
-
What law did she break?
Are you fucking kidding or are you really THAT dense? SHE IS REFUSING TO OBEY AN EXPLICIT COURT ORDER!
-
Why is someone who doesn't believe in God reading a book about something they don't believe in?
Why do people who believe in that god never bother to read that book? To me that is the bigger question
-
Not at all. Hypothetical situation practically mirroring this one, just swapping gay for interracial. The verse wouldn't be hypothetical, though, just need an appropriate fit.
Would it really surprise you to find a little racism in that book?
I guess. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
It would not surprise me to find atheists selectively quoting portions of a book about something they don't believe in to justify some viewpoint.
-
Putting her in jail is not solving the problem.
YOu don't have a crystal ball... give it time
-
Are you fucking kidding or are you really THAT dense? SHE IS REFUSING TO OBEY AN EXPLICIT COURT ORDER!
Well, since you put it in all caps, that changes everything.
It's a court order, not a law. Your Google skills are slipping.
-
Putting her in jail is not solving the problem.
It actually has though, hasn't it?
She can sit in there until she dies if she doesn't follow the order of the judge and boom... problem solved.
I guess. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
It would not surprise me to find atheists selectively quoting portions of a book about something they don't believe in to justify some viewpoint.
Christians selectively quote portions of the same book.
Let's go with the old testament stuff today... New testament tomorrow... whatever fits my agenda.
-
Why do people who believe in that god never bother to read that book? To me that is the bigger question
Good question.
-
Well, since you put it in all caps, that changes everything.
It's a court order, not a law. Your Google skills are slipping.
its weird, but judges have the power to order people jailed...they sign bench warrants for people who don't appear, arrest warrants every day... pretty cool what all a judge can do.. like jail someone for violating a court order, or protective order, or restraining order..
-
Well, since you put it in all caps, that changes everything.
It's a court order, not a law. Your Google skills are slipping.
So you believe that people are free to not obey court orders and there are no consequences to disobeying? I'm done with you... you're either an idiot or a troll.
-
It actually has though, hasn't it?
She can sit in there until she dies if she doesn't follow the order of the judge and boom... problem solved.
Christians selectively quote portions of the same book.
Let's go with the old testament stuff today... New testament tomorrow... whatever fits my agenda.
No, it hasn't. She's not going to comply, so is the judge going to lock her up until the next election? That's insane.
-
It actually has though, hasn't it?
She can sit in there until she dies if she doesn't follow the order of the judge and boom... problem solved.
Christians selectively quote portions of the same book.
Let's go with the old testament stuff today... New testament tomorrow... whatever fits my agenda.
very common
-
No, it hasn't. She's not going to comply, so is the judge going to lock her up until the next election? That's insane.
refusing to follow a court order because you read it in a religious book written 1000's of years ago... while you are on your 3rd or 4th marriage..... that's closer to insanity..
-
its weird, but judges have the power to order people jailed...they sign bench warrants for people who don't appear, arrest warrants every day... pretty cool what all a judge can do.. like jail someone for violating a court order, or protective order, or restraining order..
Yeah, indefinitely. Great
-
its weird, but judges have the power to order people jailed...they sign bench warrants for people who don't appear, arrest warrants every day... pretty cool what all a judge can do.. like jail someone for violating a court order, or protective order, or restraining order..
Exactly.
They do it constantly.
True story here... I was sitting in court once and a person who had a wreckless driving case didn't show... their attorney couldn't make it and the attorney had sent a letter in to the courts explaining the situation, requesting a continuance, and that the person was out of town for work.
A bailiff read the letter from the attorney in open court and the judge must have had some kind of bad day because he issued a bench warrant straight away.
No question... no nothing... I talked to the bailiff at lunch and he was actually dumbfounded. He had never heard of the judge issuing a bench warrant when a continuance and letter had been sent to the courts.
Judge just decided he wanted to do it.
The Bailiff had no choice but to issue the warrant as he was requested to do, but it was virtually unheard of he said.
The bailiff even called the attorney on the case to let him know what had happened because he was so shocked by it.
Judges have a lot of power... can do anything they want in their court and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it.
-
Yeah, indefinitely. Great
is it indefinite when she holds the key to the cell? No... it's just as long as she allows it..and not a second more. As soon as she chooses to come into compliance with the law, she is free
-
So you believe that people are free to not obey court orders and there are no consequences to disobeying? I'm done with you... you're either an idiot or a troll.
No, Morton Downy Jr., I didn't say people are free to disobey court orders. I was correcting the contention that she broke the law. But you like to argue and be right so often that you tripped all over yourself and missed it. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)
And you are free not to engage me. You won't hurt my feelings. :)
-
No, it hasn't. She's not going to comply, so is the judge going to lock her up until the next election? That's insane.
She can walk out at ANY moment... as long as she agrees to not interfere in anyone else doing their job.
How do you put that all on the judge and none of it on the Clerk?
She has every ability to walk out the doors of that cell, she just refuses to.
-
refusing to follow a court order because you read it in a religious book written 1000's of years ago... while you are on your 3rd or 4th marriage..... that's closer to insanity..
Refusing to follow a court order, because she has the same convictions of the founders of the country, shared by close to 90 percent of the country, isn't insanity. I think she should resign, but I don't think she's crazy.
What does the fact she is on her third or fourth marriage have to do with anything?
-
She can walk out at ANY moment... as long as she agrees to not interfere in anyone else doing their job.
How do you put that all on the judge and none of it on the Clerk?
She has every ability to walk out the doors of that cell, she just refuses to.
Because the judge is the one who ordered her to jail, indefinitely, when there were less harsh measures available.
-
No, Morton Downy Jr., I didn't say people are free to disobey court orders. I was correcting the contention that she broke the law. But you like to argue and be right so often that you tripped all over yourself and missed it. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)
And you free not to engage me. You won't hurt my feelings. :)
She is breaking the law by refusing to issue marriages because of her own religious beliefs. And she is disobeying an explicit Court order directing her to comply with the law.
-
Because the judge is the one who ordered her to jail, indefinitely, when there were less harsh measures available.
Indefinitely until she says she will not inhibit anyone else.
If you are saying that she has no blame in this, then I'm going to ignore anything you say from now on because you are obviously not capable of rational thought.
To be clear, you are saying she has zero culpability right?
-
Refusing to follow a court order, because she has the same convictions of the founders of the country, shared by close to 90 percent of the country, isn't insanity. I think she should resign, but I don't think she's crazy.
What does the fact she is on her third or fourth marriage have to do with anything?
you got to be kidding.. She is a horrible example of Christianity. When you look up Hypocrite in the dictionary it has her picture. Give me a break...
-
She is breaking the law by refusing to issue marriages because of her own religious beliefs. And she is disobeying an explicit Court order directing her to comply with the law.
So you traded all caps for bold? At least you're not yelling anymore. :)
She is violating a court order. I'm unaware of her state or Congress passing some law that she violated?
Note that I'm not suggesting she is free to violate court orders.
-
Indefinitely until she says she will not inhibit anyone else.
If you are saying that she has no blame in this, then I'm going to ignore anything you say from now on because you are obviously not capable of rational thought.
To be clear, you are saying she has zero culpability right?
Of course not. She is violating a court order. There has to be consequences. I'm saying locking her up indefinitely shouldn't be one of them.
-
you got to be kidding.. She is a horrible example of Christianity. When you look up Hypocrite in the dictionary it has her picture. Give me a break...
Really? You'll have to point me to the part that says people are supposed to be perfect. Under your approach, no one could be a Christian. Everyone makes mistakes.
-
Refusing to follow a court order, because she has the same convictions of the founders of the country, shared by close to 90 percent of the country, isn't insanity. I think she should resign, but I don't think she's crazy.
What does the fact she is on her third or fourth marriage have to do with anything?
Well, if you read the bible.. you will see that while Jesus didn't speak on homosexuality, he did spend a bit of time talking about divorce..... it's a no no unless for fornication/adultery.. of course it sounds like she was the one doing the fornicating.. and then when she remarried, she actually caused her new spouse (both new spouses as it turns out) to commit adultery.. and Jesus said adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven
"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
1) In Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery
-
Of course not. She is violating a court order. There has to be consequences. I'm saying locking her up indefinitely shouldn't be one of them.
Then I don't think you have an understanding of how the courts work in regards to civil contempt.
The judge has done nothing that is not standard practice for such things.
-
So to prop this woman up as some martyr for Christian beliefs is ridiculous...
-
Well, if you read the bible.. you will see that while Jesus didn't speak on homosexuality, he did spend a bit of time talking about divorce..... it's a no no unless for fornication/adultery.. of course it sounds like she was the one doing the fornicating.. and then when she remarried, she actually caused her new spouse (both new spouses as it turns out) to commit adultery.. and Jesus said adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven
"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
1) In Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery
This is before she was "saved, so it doesn't count.
-
Well, if you read the bible.. you will see that while Jesus didn't speak on homosexuality, he did spend a bit of time talking about divorce..... it's a no no unless for fornication/adultery.. of course it sounds like she was the one doing the fornicating.. and then when she remarried, she actually caused her new spouse (both new spouses as it turns out) to commit adultery.. and Jesus said adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven
"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
1) In Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery
Why do you read the Bible if you are an atheist?
Not this matters at the end of the day, but how do you know she didn't divorce because of "sexual immorality"?
-
Then I don't think you have an understanding of how the courts work in regards to civil contempt.
The judge has done nothing that is not standard practice for such things.
It is not standard practice to lock someone up indefinitely for violating a court order related to homosexual marriage.
-
So to prop this woman up as some martyr for Christian beliefs is ridiculous...
I'm not propping her up. I'm saying that's the net effect of locking her up like a murderer.
-
She is violating a court order. I'm unaware of her state or Congress passing some law that she violated?
The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell requires the States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Once the decision was handed down, this is the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not. By failing to issue licenses to gay couples, she is disobeying the law. By failing to issue licenses to any couples, she is also disobeying the law, which doesn't give her much latitude to decide whether or not to issue the license.
With that said, I think that Kim Davis was right to sue the State to request that her beliefs - such as they are - be accommodated by removing her name from the certificates. This could actually be a sensible accommodation, but she's not free to not issue licenses in the meantime.
She is refusing to do her job and violating State and Federal law in the process. She's been sued, and when faced with an explicit order to let the people in her office do their job, she told a Federal Judge that she would not allow this. If nothing else, she's in violation of 18 USC 401 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401), as I've previously mentioned in this and another thread:
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
Wait... let me guess... you're going to say that this isn't a law either?
-
I'm not propping her up. I'm saying that's the net effect of locking her up like a murderer.
or locked up like a non payment of child support payer..., or a fail to appear dude, or any number of other folks who are jailed for disobeying a court order...
-
It is not standard practice to lock someone up indefinitely for violating a court order related to homosexual marriage.
It is standard practice to lock someone up indefinitely for violating a court order period.
Why are you specifically making it "related to homosexual marriage"?
If a judge orders you to be quiet, you be quiet, or he can and does lock you up.
If a judge orders you to pay child support, you pay child support, or he can and does lock you up.
Any court order a judge makes can and does end up with jail time if you do not listen.
What the order is about makes zero difference... You are the only one who wants it to be specifically because it's "related to homosexual marriage" and that's has zero bearing on it.
-
Why do you read the Bible if you are an atheist?
Not this matters at the end of the day, but how do you know she didn't divorce because of "sexual immorality"?
I read the bible my entire teen and a good part of my adult life. More times than I care to remember.. I don't read it anymore but on occasion I refer to it when discussing issues that tie into the bible.
-
The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell requires the States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Once the decision was handed down, this is the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not. By failing to issue licenses to gay couples, she is disobeying the law. By failing to issue licenses to any couples, she is also disobeying the law, which doesn't give her much latitude to decide whether or not to issue the license.
With that said, I think that Kim Davis was right to sue the State to request that her beliefs - such as they are - be accommodated by removing her name from the certificates. This could actually be a sensible accommodation, but she's not free to not issue licenses in the meantime.
She is refusing to do her job and violating State and Federal law in the process. She's been sued, and when faced with an explicit order to let the people in her office do their job, she told a Federal Judge that she would not allow this. If nothing else, she's in violation of 18 USC 401 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401):
That's violating a court order. The subtle point here is that we are talking about a court decision by a handful of judges, not a law passed by Congress (or her state). That's the point George tried to make with you earlier. No, that doesn't give her the right to disobey a court order. It just provides some context.
I don't like this situation one bit, all the way around.
-
Why is someone who doesn't believe in God reading a book about something they don't believe in?
Seriously?
How else would we know it's bullshit? MOST atheists have read it; for many, it's the reason they became atheist. True for me. By contrast, NONE of my Christian peeps have (dozens), which is hardly rare. Worst thing a believer could ever do.
They only know Him as the kind, gentle, loving, forgiving Jesus incarnation. They have no clue what OT God is about - Deuteronomy alone would crush their spirit, never to recover.
-
It is standard practice to lock someone up indefinitely for violating a court order period.
Why are you specifically making it "related to homosexual marriage"?
If a judge orders you to be quiet, you be quiet, or he can and does lock you up.
If a judge orders you to pay child support, you pay child support, or he can and does lock you up.
Any court order a judge makes can and does end up with jail time if you do not listen.
What the order is about makes zero difference... You are the only one who wants it to be specifically because it's "related to homosexual marriage" and that's has zero bearing on it.
I'm the only one? I doubt it.
I think this is unprecedented, but maybe someone will find a story from somewhere in the country where this has happened before.
-
Seriously?
How else would we know it's bullshit? MOST atheists have read it; for many, it's the reason they became atheist. True for me. By contrast, NONE of my Christian peeps have (dozens), which is hardly rare. Worst thing a believer could ever do.
They only know Him as the kind, gentle, loving, forgiving Jesus incarnation. They have no clue what OT God is about - Deuteronomy alone would crush their spirit, never to recover.
Saw a bumper sticker once that said "Athiest- Christian that read the bible" I thought it had some truth to it
-
Just an fyi, in case anyone is confused about this. :)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=552319.0
I don't understand. What was said?
-
or locked up like a non payment of child support payer..., or a fail to appear dude, or any number of other folks who are jailed for disobeying a court order...
How many of them were locked up indefinitely for failing to obey a court order, where the person violated the order due to their religious beliefs, and the judge had less restrictive means available to enforce the order?
-
I'm the only one? I doubt it.
I think this is unprecedented, but maybe someone will find a story from somewhere in the country where this has happened before.
I recall several instances over the years where reporters refused to give up their sources on a story that was tied in with a trial. The judge reviewed the circumstances and ruled they were not protected and ordered the reporters to reveal their source. The reporters refused and went to jail until they complied.
-
That's violating a court order. The subtle point here is that we are talking about a court decision by a handful of judges, not a law passed by Congress (or her state). That's the point George tried to make with you earlier. No, that doesn't give her the right to disobey a court order. It just provides some context.
I don't like this situation one bit, all the way around.
The Supreme Court's decision established a Constitutional right to marriage for homosexual couples. Now, you may disagree with that decision. You may think it's just as bad as Korematsu, or Plessy. But whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. What matters is that, post-Obergefell, the right of homosexual couples to marry is the law of the land.
-
I'm the only one? I doubt it.
I think this is unprecedented, but maybe someone will find a story from somewhere in the country where this has happened before.
I think it's funny that you focused on that "You're the only one" bit... I knew you would.
Of course I mean in the current conversation with those who are responding currently, but alas, you decide to focus on something that has zero basis to the actual topic.
It is unprecedented specifically because it's about "homosexual marriage licenses", but the general premise of denying civil rights that have been adjudicated by the highest court in the land is of course not unprecedented and you know it.
-
Seriously?
How else would we know it's bullshit? MOST atheists have read it; for many, it's the reason they became atheist. True for me. By contrast, NONE of my Christian peeps have (dozens), which is hardly rare. Worst thing a believer could ever do.
They only know Him as the kind, gentle, loving, forgiving Jesus incarnation. They have no clue what OT God is about - Deuteronomy alone would crush their spirit, never to recover.
Seriously? I don't read about things that I know are BS. That makes no sense. I will read things from a source I don't agree with to expand my viewpoint and educate myself, but for example if someone published a "bible" about subterranean aliens planning a War of the Worlds attack, I wouldn't be reading it, quoting it, etc.
I know a plethora of Christians who have read the entire Bible and they are not crushed at all.
-
I recall several instances over the years where reporters refused to give up their sources on a story that was tied in with a trial. The judge reviewed the circumstances and ruled they were not protected and ordered the reporters to reveal their source. The reporters refused and went to jail until they complied.
Which ones?
The closest example I can think of is the lady involved with Clinton who refused to testify and spent something like 9 months in jail.
-
The Supreme Court's decision established a Constitutional right to marriage for homosexual couples. Now, you may disagree with that decision. You may think it's just as bad as Korematsu, or Plessy. But whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. What matters is that, post-Obergefell, the right of homosexual couples to marry is the law of the land.
Whether I agree or disagree is not irrelevant. That's sort of what living in a Democracy is all about. We have to follow rules, but we don't have to agree with them.
Nobody is saying those people don't have the right to get married. I certainly haven't said that.
-
There is also the guy in the Barry Bonds case who refused to drop a dime on him and spent a long time in jail. But none of those situations involved a First Amendment free exercise of religion issue.
-
Seriously? I don't read about things that I know are BS. That makes no sense. I will read things from a source I don't agree with to expand my viewpoint and educate myself, but for example if someone published a "bible" about subterranean aliens planning a War of the Worlds attack, I wouldn't be reading it, quoting it, etc.
I know a plethora of Christians who have read the entire Bible and they are not crushed at all.
I grew up in the bible belt, live in Texas now.. I haven't met ONE Christian other than my brother, who isn't a preacher that has read the bible cover to cover and that's a lot of Christians. True story, was having dinner with my wife's friends a couple months ago and the husband is a religious guy who preaches at prisons.. he was hitting me hard about Christianity and all the god stuff and he wanted to know why I didn't believe the bible. I said there are many many reasons but one is the lack of contemporary historians writing about what should have been remarkable events, but are only found in sometimes one book of the bible. He asked for an example and I told him that in Matthew 27 when Jesus died there was an earthquake and dead saints rose up out of their graves and walked through the city and were seen by many.. I said if something like this actually happened, it would have been mentioned by more than just Matthew. He said that story isn't in the bible. I was a little surprised he would challenge me when I have no dog in the hunt but I said yeah..it's in there. He said he read matthew many times and would remember that. So I bet him dinner it was in there... The good news is, I won dinner, the bad news is, I had to spend another evening with him. On our next outing..where he was buying.. I mentioned that a lot of people don't know who cut Samsons hair.. He immediately said Delilah. I said no.. she didn't. Another dinner bet and now I have to meet him again. On our third dinner he never brought up religion..
-
There is also the guy in the Barry Bonds case who refused to drop a dime on him and spent a long time in jail. But none of those situations involved a First Amendment free exercise of religion issue.
but they were standing on principle...
-
There is also the guy in the Barry Bonds case who refused to drop a dime on him and spent a long time in jail. But none of those situations involved a First Amendment free exercise of religion issue.
Nobody is preventing Kim Davis from exercising her religion freely. But the free exercise clause doesn't mean she can force her beliefs on others which is what she is actively doing!
-
I grew up in the bible belt, live in Texas now.. I haven't met ONE Christian other than my brother, who isn't a preacher that has read the bible cover to cover and that's a lot of Christians. True story, was having dinner with my wife's friends a couple months ago and the husband is a religious guy who preaches at prisons.. he was hitting me hard about Christianity and all the god stuff and he wanted to know why I didn't believe the bible. I said there are many many reasons but one is the lack of contemporary historians writing about what should have been remarkable events, but are only found in sometimes one book of the bible. He asked for an example and I told him that in Matthew 27 when Jesus died there was an earthquake and dead saints rose up out of their graves and walked through the city and were seen by many.. I said if something like this actually happened, it would have been mentioned by more than just Matthew. He said that story isn't in the bible. I was a little surprised he would challenge me when I have no dog in the hunt but I said yeah..it's in there. He said he read matthew many times and would remember that. So I bet him dinner it was in there... The good news is, I won dinner, the bad news is, I had to spend another evening with him. On our next outing..where he was buying.. I mentioned that a lot of people don't know who cut Samsons hair.. He immediately said Delilah. I said no.. she didn't. Another dinner bet and now I have to meet him again. On our third dinner he never brought up religion..
I've met lots who were not preachers.
I can't say I've read it "cover to cover," but I'm pretty sure I've read most of it. And I don't preach to anyone about religion. I rarely talk about it in real life. There are lots of people like me.
Sorry you have had bad experiences.
-
but they were standing on principle...
It was more like self preservation, protecting future business by not ratting out his client, and not throwing a friend under the bus. Not the same IMO.
-
Nobody is preventing Kim Davis from exercising her religion freely. But the free exercise clause doesn't mean she can force her beliefs on others which is what she is actively doing!
The free exercise of religion is exactly what this is about.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread said she should be able to force her beliefs on others.
-
It was more like self preservation, protecting future business by not ratting out his client, and not throwing a friend under the bus. Not the same IMO.
either way... and I can't speak for their motives.. but I think the issue here is that you don't believe jail was warranted and it could have been resolved another way. I think jail was appropriate given her refusal to cooperate with the alternatives she was offered and perhaps she will have time to contemplate while there. Hopefully an angel will appear to her and instruct her to stop being a hypocritical bigot, but I won't hold my breath
-
thanks for the good conversation
-
either way... and I can't speak for their motives.. but I think the issue here is that you don't believe jail was warranted and it could have been resolved another way. I think jail was appropriate given her refusal to cooperate with the alternatives she was offered and perhaps she will have time to contemplate while there. Hopefully an angel will appear to her and instruct her to stop being a hypocritical bigot, but I won't hold my breath
And if she doesn't comply, then what? Lock her up until the next election?
-
Refusing to follow a court order, because she has the same convictions of the founders of the country, shared by close to 90 percent of the country, isn't insanity. I think she should resign, but I don't think she's crazy.
What does the fact she is on her third or fourth marriage have to do with anything?
Your "facts" are suspect. Which founders? Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, the educated ones? Or Washington?
90%? Where'd you get this? I know we're an uneducated people, but the number was 80ish years back, and we've been moving further away since.
And why do her immoral, forbidden divorces matter? Same reason she's making gay matter. She obviously can't live right by God, so she has no business imposing her failed morality on others. She's a fucking hypocrite, who shouldn't be held up as some moral crusader.
Pick better martyrs. Jesus, this Davis movement is starting to embrace a ridiculous BLM-type ignorance.
-
thanks for the good conversation
Ditto.
-
The free exercise of religion is exactly what this is about.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread said she should be able to force her beliefs on others.
Actually it's not about the free exercise of religion.
It's about her denying the rights of others. She can not like gay marriage, just like she might not like interracial marriage (I don't know if she does or not), but she can not deny those people the right to be married or receive a license for it.
And if she doesn't comply, then what? Lock her up until the next election?
Fine by me... It's her choice as much as anyone else's.
-
Your "facts" are suspect. Which founders? Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, the educated ones? Or Washington?
90%? Where'd you get this? I know we're an uneducated people, but the number was 80ish years back, and we've been moving further away since.
And why do her immoral, forbidden divorces matter? Same reason she's making gay matter. She obviously can't llive right by God, so she has no business imposing her failed morality on others. She's a fucking hypocrite, who shouldn't be held up as some moral crusader.
Pick better martyrs. Jesus, this Davis movement is starting to embrace a ridiculous BLM-type ignorance.
They all believed in God.
I haven't looked at the statistics lately. Last time I did it was close to 90 percent. Even it's 80 percent, we're still talking about the overwhelming majority of the country. Which begs the question: who is more likely to be crazy, the 80 to 90 percent believe, or the 10 to 20 who don't? :)
How do you know her divorces are immoral?
And let's assume she is a hypocrite. She doesn't forfeit her right to ask for an accommodation of her religious beliefs, even if she is a hypocrite.
-
The free exercise of religion is exactly what this is about.
No. The State isn't intefering with Kim Davis' ability to go to Church, pray, fast, or do whatever else she feels like doing in her personal life. Kim Davis, the County Clerk, doesn't get to decide to issue or not issue marriage licenses based on the religious beliefs of Kim Davis, the person. Kim Davis the County Clerk is an elected official acting in her official capacity and is an instrument of the State. If Kim Davis the person doesn't think she can do the job of Kim Davis the County Clerk, then Kim Davis the person ought to simply resign.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread said she should be able to force her beliefs on others.
She is refusing to issue marriage licenses in her capacity as an State employee because of her personal religious beliefs. As a result, couples otherwise entitled to receive a marriage license and get married don't receive one and can't get married. How is that not forcing her beliefs on others?!?
They all believed in God.
I haven't looked at the statistics lately. Last time I did it was close to 90 percent. Even it's 80 percent, we're still talking about the overwhelming majority of the country. Which begs the question: who is more likely to be crazy, the 80 to 90 percent believe, or the 10 to 20 who don't? :)
Right, because if 80 or 90% of people believe something, then it must be true... ::) See argumentum ad populum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).
-
Of course not. She is violating a court order. There has to be consequences. I'm saying locking her up indefinitely shouldn't be one of them.
Don't see how that matters. I think assisted suicide facilities shouldn't be illegal. Oh, well. What's "shouldn't" got to do with anything?
-
Seriously? I don't read about things that I know are BS. That makes no sense.
Makes no sense? What are you even talking about, guy?
You think my teenage brain knew it was BS by intuition? I obviously read it AND DISCOVERED it was BS, just like all the rest. You read it, I assume, and came to another conclusion. I guess that happens, too.
-
No. The State isn't intefering with Kim Davis' ability to go to Church, pray, fast, or do whatever else she feels like doing in her personal life. Kim Davis, the County Clerk, doesn't get to decide to issue or not issue marriage licenses based on the religious beliefs of Kim Davis, the person. Kim Davis the County Clerk is an elected official acting in her official capacity and is an instrument of the State. If Kim Davis the person doesn't think she can do the job of Kim Davis the County Clerk, then Kim Davis the person ought to simply resign.
She is refusing to issue marriage licenses in her capacity as an State employee because of her personal religious beliefs. As a result, couples otherwise entitled to receive a marriage license and get married don't receive one and can't get married. How is that not forcing her beliefs on others?!?
Right, because if 80 or 90% of people believe something, then it must be true... ::) See argumentum ad populum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).
Yes, her claim involves the right to avoid doing something that conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. That falls under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (or as my friend corrected me, under Religious Freedom Restoration Act). So yes, this is a religious freedom/free exercise matter. Whether she has a valid claim is another story.
I said I didn't see anyone in this thread saying she should be able to force her beliefs on others. I haven't said it. Did someone else? Maybe I missed it.
I was joking about the percentages, but you kinda have to not be uptight to see that. :)
-
Don't see how that matters. I think assisted suicide facilities shouldn't be illegal. Oh, well. What's "shouldn't" got to do with anything?
C'mon man. You are telling me that even the smallest part of you is not bothered by locking up an American citizen indefinitely, without a trial, without having committed a crime like a common criminal? Seriously?
-
Makes no sense? What are you even talking about, guy?
You think my teenage brain knew it was BS by intuition? I obviously read it AND DISCOVERED it was BS, just like all the rest. You read it, I assume, and came to another conclusion. I guess that happens, too.
I'm not talking about you growing up and reading things to educate yourself, which is great. I'm talking about being an atheist and reading the Bible, solely to try and argue with Christians. That's what makes no sense to me.
-
C'mon man. You are telling me that even the smallest part of you is not bothered by locking up an American citizen indefinitely, without a trial, without having committed a crime like a common criminal? Seriously?
How much of you were bothered when the Patriot act let you do the same thing?
Seriously?
And contempt of court doesn't require a trial... it NEVER HAS.
-
How much of you were bothered when the Patriot act let you do the same thing?
Seriously?
And contempt of court doesn't require a trial... it NEVER HAS.
I am always bothered by the prospect of an American citizen being locked up indefinitely without charges (or being convicted). What does the Patriot Act have to do with the price of tea in China?
-
I am always bothered by the prospect of an American citizen being locked up indefinitely without charges (or being convicted). What does the Patriot Act have to do with the price of tea in China?
When were we talking about Tea in China?
I thought we were talking about American Citizens being locked up indefinitely without charges. (or being convicted)... which is exactly what the Patriot Act allows for.
Don't get high and mighty about it now because you want to use religion... This has been happening for different reasons for almost 15 years now.
-
When were we talking about Tea in China?
I thought we were talking about American Citizens being locked up indefinitely without charges. (or being convicted)... which is exactly what the Patriot Act allows for.
Don't get high and mighty about it now because you want to use religion... This has been happening for different reasons for almost 15 years now.
We are talking about a woman in Kentucky being locked up indefinitely after violating a court order due to her sincerely held religious beliefs. We're not talking about the Patriot Act, which has absolutely nothing to do with this woman.
What has been happening for almost 15 years now?
-
We are talking about a woman in Kentucky being locked up indefinitely after violating a court order due to her sincerely held religious beliefs. We're not talking about the Patriot Act, which has absolutely nothing to do with this woman.
What has been happening for almost 15 years now?
American citizens being locked up without trials.
We are talking about core beliefs of the American judicial system.
If you believe that the core of americans being locked up indefinitely without trials is wrong, then why did you not protest about the patriot act allowing for it.
You are picking and choosing which citizens can be locked up and which can not.
That is a problem.
-
I grew up in the bible belt, live in Texas now.. I haven't met ONE Christian other than my brother, who isn't a preacher that has read the bible cover to cover and that's a lot of Christians. True story, was having dinner with my wife's friends a couple months ago and the husband is a religious guy who preaches at prisons.. he was hitting me hard about Christianity and all the god stuff and he wanted to know why I didn't believe the bible. I said there are many many reasons but one is the lack of contemporary historians writing about what should have been remarkable events, but are only found in sometimes one book of the bible. He asked for an example and I told him that in Matthew 27 when Jesus died there was an earthquake and dead saints rose up out of their graves and walked through the city and were seen by many.. I said if something like this actually happened, it would have been mentioned by more than just Matthew. He said that story isn't in the bible. I was a little surprised he would challenge me when I have no dog in the hunt but I said yeah..it's in there. He said he read matthew many times and would remember that. So I bet him dinner it was in there... The good news is, I won dinner, the bad news is, I had to spend another evening with him. On our next outing..where he was buying.. I mentioned that a lot of people don't know who cut Samsons hair.. He immediately said Delilah. I said no.. she didn't. Another dinner bet and now I have to meet him again. On our third dinner he never brought up religion..
This is so not uncommon. Most Christians haven't read the fucking thing, they're clueless. Only theologians and apologists in my experience. Not even most preachers, they just cherrypick is all. So it's pretty amusing when they bitch about atheists citing troublesome verses. Like WE'RE the cherrypickers? Lot more bad than good if they'd bother to open the thing.
I swear, to a person they have NO IDEA about the genocide, or stonings, or torture, or slavery, or racism, or rape, or sexism, or slaughter, slaughter, slaughter - no clue how many seemingly innocuous activities result in a fatal smiting: fabrics, crops, Sabbath, shellfish - they just call me a liar and move on. Scared to death of what they'll learn, that's how strong the delusion. I'd bet my nonsoul it represents upwards of 70% of American believers.
-
American citizens being locked up without trials.
We are talking about core beliefs of the American judicial system.
If you believe that the core of americans being locked up indefinitely without trials is wrong, then why did you not protest about the patriot act allowing for it.
You are picking and choosing which citizens can be locked up and which can not.
That is a problem.
Which American citizens have been locked up indefinitely without charges or convictions for the past 15 years?
This has zero to do with Kentucky woman.
-
Which American citizens have been locked up indefinitely without charges or convictions for the past 15 years?
This has zero to do with Kentucky woman.
Who cares which have or haven't?
The fact is that they can... The NDAA made sure of that as well.
Actually, as you are discussing the core of citizens being able to be detained without charge indefinitely, they are very related.
You obviously can see this, you just don't want to admit it.
-
Who cares which have or haven't?
The fact is that they can... The NDAA made sure of that as well.
Actually, as you are discussing the core of citizens being able to be detained without charge indefinitely, they are very related.
You obviously can see this, you just don't want to admit it.
Not saying I don't believe you. Actually, yes I am. :)
-
Which American citizens have been locked up indefinitely without charges or convictions for the past 15 years?
This has zero to do with Kentucky woman.
How could you be guaranteed to know?
-
How would you be guaranteed to know?
Because it would be all over the internet. And if it's on the internets, it must be true. :)
What are you suggesting, secret prisons?
-
Not saying I don't believe you. Actually, yes I am. :)
Who cares what you believe... It's the truth.
United States[edit]
See also: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.R. 4435; 113th Congress)
Regarding U.S. Citizens accused of supporting terrorism, senator Lindsey Graham has stated before the senate, "When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’"
– U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, 2011[8]
In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants;[9] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,[10] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have also been highly controversial. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[11][12][13][14][15]
On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens,[8] leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.[16][17] Congress and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[18] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[19] The American Civil Liberties Union stated that “President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”[20] On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[21] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[22][23][24][25][26]
In 2013, the House of Representatives[27] and the Senate[28] reauthorized National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[29] The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek preenforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens".
On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[30][31] The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits indefinite detention without trial, remains in law as of 2014.
-
Who cares what you believe... It's the truth.
United States[edit]
See also: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.R. 4435; 113th Congress)
Regarding U.S. Citizens accused of supporting terrorism, senator Lindsey Graham has stated before the senate, "When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’"
– U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, 2011[8]
In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants;[9] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,[10] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have also been highly controversial. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[11][12][13][14][15]
On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens,[8] leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.[16][17] Congress and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[18] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[19] The American Civil Liberties Union stated that “President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”[20] On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[21] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[22][23][24][25][26]
In 2013, the House of Representatives[27] and the Senate[28] reauthorized National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[29] The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek preenforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens".
On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[30][31] The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits indefinite detention without trial, remains in law as of 2014.
It's the truth that American citizens have been locked up indefinitely without charges or convictions for the past 15 years under the Patriot Act, but you cannot give me any examples. I'm definitely calling BS.
-
Because it would be all over the internet. And if it's on the internets, it must be true. :)
Serious?
What are you suggesting, secret prisons?
Again: How could I know?
-
It's the truth that American citizens have been locked up indefinitely without charges or convictions for the past 15 years under the Patriot Act, but you cannot give me any examples. I'm definitely calling BS.
Oh my God... Jose Padilla was not charged for over 3 and 1/2 years!
CHARGED.
He sat uncharged with a crime for 3.5 years.
If it weren't for the civil rights people going insane, he would have NEVER been charged.
-
Serious?
Again: How could I know?
Obviously not.
How could you know that numerous American citizens have been imprisoned without charges or convictions for the past 15 years under the Patriot Act? I have no idea how you would find out that information. But why would you make a claim like that without a factual basis?
-
Obviously not.
How could you know that numerous American citizens have been imprisoned without charges or convictions for the past 15 years under the Patriot Act? I have no idea how you would find out that information. But why would you make a claim like that without a factual basis?
Me? What claim?
-
Oh my God... Jose Padilla was not charged for over 3 and 1/2 years!
CHARGED.
He sat uncharged with a crime for 3.5 years.
If it weren't for the civil rights people going insane, he would have NEVER been charged.
Wow. You mean Jose Padilla, the convicted terrorist? I didn't support him being held without charges.
I'm about to laugh out loud if that is the sum total of your "American citizens have been locked up indefinitely without charges or convictions for the past 15 years under the Patriot Act."
-
Me? What claim?
What question did you ask me?
-
What question did you ask me?
How can we know, you mean?
-
How can we know, you mean?
?
-
?
!
-
Wow. You mean Jose Padilla, the convicted terrorist? I didn't support him being held without charges.
I'm about to laugh out loud if that is the sum total of your "American citizens have been locked up indefinitely without charges or convictions for the past 15 years under the Patriot Act."
Laugh all you want. It doesn't matter if he's a convicted "terrorist". He was a US citizen who was not charged with a crime for over 3 years even though being held.
The core principle is still that a US citizen was illegally held indefinitely without being charged with a crime.
Period.
And that's just the one we actually know about.
Are you willing to guarantee that there have not been any others we don't know about?
-
Laugh all you want. It doesn't matter if he's a convicted "terrorist". He was a US citizen who was not charged with a crime for over 3 years even though being held.
The core principle is still that a US citizen was illegally held indefinitely without being charged with a crime.
Period.
And that's just the one we actually know about.
Are you willing to guarantee that there have not been any others we don't know about?
I'm willing to guarantee that you are full of crap for saying this happening to numerous Americans for the past 15 years.
So you said this:
American citizens being locked up without trials.
We are talking about core beliefs of the American judicial system.
If you believe that the core of americans being locked up indefinitely without trials is wrong, then why did you not protest about the patriot act allowing for it.
You are picking and choosing which citizens can be locked up and which can not.
That is a problem.
And here is what I said about holding people indefinitely without charges years ago:
I agree with this. We shouldn't be holding anyone indefinitely without charges.
Court Rules in Favor of Enemy Combatant
. . .
Yes they should have charged him much sooner, but it's good to know they were not detaining an innocent man.
I don't think anyone, citizen or not, should be held for five years without charges.
I'm talking about context. I didn't hear you or anyone else who talked about this guy mention anything about the fact he is a criminal. Most of the people caught up in the system are criminals and don't need to be on the streets. Even though I don't think the guy should have been held without charges, the fact is Bush did you a favor by getting this terd off the streets. The ordinary law abiding citizen who isn't running around with Al Qaeda like this idiot generally doesn't have to be worried about getting arrested.
Here is an excerpt about his background:
Padilla's parents moved to the state of New York from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. He was born in Brooklyn, New York, but later moved to Chicago, Illinois where he joined the Maniac Latin Disciples street gang and was arrested several times. During his gang years, he maintained several aliases, such as José Rivera, José Alicea, José Hernandez, and José Ortiz. As a small-time criminal he was convicted of aggravated assault as a juvenile when a gang member he kicked in the head died.[2] After serving his last jail sentence, he converted to Islam and professed a nonviolent philosophy. He went to the Masjid Al-Iman mosque in Fort Lauderdale, Florida with Adham Amin Hassoun, who at that time was the registered agent for Benevolence International Foundation, a charitable trust which U.S. investigators have accused of funding terrorist activities. Padilla and Hassoun became friends. U.S. authorities accuse Hassoun of consorting with radical Islamic fundamentalists, including Al-Qaeda. Hassoun was arrested in 2002 for overstaying his visa.[3]
If you don't want Big Brother locking you up, then don't break the law and quit hanging around with terrorists.
-
I'm willing to guarantee that you are full of crap for saying this happening to numerous Americans for the past 15 years.
So you said this:
And here is what I said about holding people indefinitely without charges years ago:
I said it was allowed to happen.
Get the quote right.
I didn't say it happened to numerous Americans for the past 15 years.
I said the Patriot Act allowed for it.
Care to go find my quote again?
How much of you were bothered when the Patriot act let you do the same thing?
Seriously?
And contempt of court doesn't require a trial... it NEVER HAS.
When were we talking about Tea in China?
I thought we were talking about American Citizens being locked up indefinitely without charges. (or being convicted)... which is exactly what the Patriot Act allows for.
Don't get high and mighty about it now because you want to use religion... This has been happening for different reasons for almost 15 years now.
If you're going to use semantics in your argument... Then you better get the quote right.
-
I said it was allowed to happen.
Get the quote right.
I didn't say it happened to numerous Americans for the past 15 years.
I said the Patriot Act allowed for it.
Care to go find my quote again?
You said it has been happening to Americans (plural) for the last 15 years under the Patriot Act. No need to embellish to try and make a point. If you were only talking about Padilla, the convicted terrorist, then you should have just said so.
-
We have no way of knowing with certainty what's happening, or why. It's the entire point.
That means "prove it" doesn't work in this situation, and that is the polar opposite of where we have been, and where we need to be.
It scares me to think of the Americans that don't understand.
-
You said it has been happening to Americans (plural) for the last 15 years under the Patriot Act. No need to embellish to try and make a point. If you were only talking about Padilla, the convicted terrorist, then you should have just said so.
I didn't say that.
So get it right.
-
We have no way of knowing with certainty what's happening, or why. It's the entire point.
That means "prove it" doesn't work in this situation, and that is the polar opposite of where we have been, and where we need to be.
It scares me to think of the Americans that don't understand.
If we're talking about American citizens being held indefinitely without charges under the Patriot Act for the last 15 years, we would all "know."
-
If we're talking about American citizens being held indefinitely without charges under the Patriot Act for the last 15 years, we would all "know."
How?
-
If we're talking about American citizens being held indefinitely without charges under the Patriot Act for the last 15 years, we would all "know."
Says who? You?
-
I didn't say that.
So get it right.
You said this:
How much of you were bothered when the Patriot act let you do the same thing?
Which I just showed you was false.
Then you said this:
When were we talking about Tea in China?
I thought we were talking about American Citizens being locked up indefinitely without charges. (or being convicted)... which is exactly what the Patriot Act allows for.
Don't get high and mighty about it now because you want to use religion... This has been happening for different reasons for almost 15 years now.
And this:
American citizens being locked up without trials.
. . .
When I asked for examples, you gave me one: Jose Padilla, the convicted terrorist.
-
How?
Seriously?
-
Says who? You?
Of course.
-
You said this:
Which I just showed you was false.
Then you said this:
And this:
When I asked for examples, you gave me one: Jose Padilla, the convicted terrorist.
So after all of my statements about it being allowed in official government policy, you focus on that one sentence to try to get your "I got you moment"?
Please.
You look foolish.
As I said, it has been a part of government policy for 15 years to allow for it.
Your semantics are weak.
How much of you were bothered when the Patriot act let you do the same thing?
Seriously?
And contempt of court doesn't require a trial... it NEVER HAS.
When were we talking about Tea in China?
I thought we were talking about American Citizens being locked up indefinitely without charges. (or being convicted)... which is exactly what the Patriot Act allows for.
Don't get high and mighty about it now because you want to use religion... This has been happening for different reasons for almost 15 years now.
-
So after all of my statements about it being allowed in official government policy, you focus on that one sentence to try to get your "I got you moment"?
Please.
You look foolish.
As I said, it has been a part of government policy for 15 years to allow for it.
Your semantics are weak.
Actually it was you making a false statement (my lack of protests). And your embellishment about numerous American citizens being held indefinitely without charges under the Patriot Act.
But my work here is done. ;D
-
Of course.
Well there you have it folks.
Because he said so.
-
Seriously?
Yes, I want to know. I want to know how you'd trust that to happen.
-
Actually it was you making a false statement (my lack of protests). And your embellishment about numerous American citizens being held indefinitely without charges under the Patriot Act.
But my work here is done. ;D
I made no such embellishment and I hardly think your 3 posts count as a protest, but sure, if it helps you sleep better at night.
You have made more statements about this Clerk being jailed for an actual contempt of court than you ever made about the premise of indefinite detentions under the patriot act or the NDAA.
-
Yes, I want to know. I want to know how you'd trust that to happen.
Because of the media, the ACLU, the family members of those being imprisoned, public defenders, etc., etc. If you think there are secret prisons in this country where people are being held under the Patriot Act without charges, indefinitely, and nobody knows about it, then you probably watch too many movies.
-
Because of the media, the ACLU, the family members of those being imprisoned, public defenders, etc., etc. If you think there are secret prisons in this country where people are being held under the Patriot Act without charges, indefinitely, and nobody knows about it, then you probably watch too many movies.
How would they find out? How would that process work?
-
How would they find out? How would that process work?
The same way it always works when we hear about alleged abuses of people's rights.
-
The same way it always works when we hear about alleged abuses of people's rights.
How's that?
-
How's that?
Reading. Listening. Watching. Having half a brain.
How do you always hear about alleged abuses?
-
No. She is being imprisoned like a violent criminal for standing on principle. And locking her up like a murderer is only making her bigger than she needs to be. She is probably going to make money when this is all said and done.
No she isn't. She is being locked up like the troubler maker she is. Locked up like a murderer? I was unaware that a murderer could gain their freedom by agreeing not to "do it" anymore.
I disagree. There are a number of ways this could have been handled other than locking her up indefinitely.
She should have thought of that instead of acting like an asshat.
The judge has taken over this whole situation, so I doubt anyone is getting fired. Did she try and fire her employees?
The judge has options and chose the most severe punishment, which should be reserved for criminals, not this woman.
Defying a court order makes you what again?
What law did she break?
Jailing her isn't changing her behavior either.
You mean there aren't laws protecting other people's rights from people trying to take them away?
She disobeyed a court order. She didn't break some law related to homosexual marriage.
Actually part of the reason we lock people up is prevent them from committing more crime. Same thing could have been accomplished without locking this woman up.
Certainly stopped her from continuing to deny other people their basic rights and liberties.
Putting her in jail is not solving the problem.
Seeing how marriage licenses have now resumed being handed out, I would say that YES putting her in jail did solve the problem.
I guess. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
It would not surprise me to find atheists selectively quoting portions of a book about something they don't believe in to justify some viewpoint.
No, it hasn't. She's not going to comply, so is the judge going to lock her up until the next election? That's insane.
No. He is only locking her up until she agrees not to interfere with other people's civil liberties and common rights. It's not indefinite. She can leave anytime she wants to. As long as she doesn't interfere in other people's lives anymore. The fact that she chooses to remain in jail is solely her own choice which shows that she isn't going to stop meddling in affairs of other citizens in a negative way.
Because the judge is the one who ordered her to jail, indefinitely, when there were less harsh measures available.
Indefinitely is at her discretion. Not the judges'.
It is not standard practice to lock someone up indefinitely for violating a court order related to homosexual marriage.
Doesn't matter what the court order is for, violate it and pay the consequences. Might as well get over this "indefinitely" claim. It isn't true.
I'm not propping her up. I'm saying that's the net effect of locking her up like a murderer.
Again, last time I checked, a murderer was not free to walk and leave any time they wanted as long they "didn't do it anymore".
How many of them were locked up indefinitely for failing to obey a court order, where the person violated the order due to their religious beliefs, and the judge had less restrictive means available to enforce the order?
Indefinitely. Violating your religious beliefs does not justify denying other people their basic rights and liberties. She refused the judges attempt at alternative solutions.
The free exercise of religion is exactly what this is about.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread said she should be able to force her beliefs on others.
No. Freedom FROM religion is exactly what this is about. People are not to have their rights trampled on and denied simply because of another person's beliefs.
And if she doesn't comply, then what? Lock her up until the next election?
Sounds good to me.
C'mon man. You are telling me that even the smallest part of you is not bothered by locking up an American citizen indefinitely, without a trial, without having committed a crime like a common criminal? Seriously?
It's not indefinite.
Contempt of court doesn't require a trial.
Was unaware you could legally ignore a court's orders and not face some kind of punishment.
We are talking about a woman in Kentucky being locked up indefinitely after violating a court order due to her sincerely held religious beliefs. We're not talking about the Patriot Act, which has absolutely nothing to do with this woman.
What has been happening for almost 15 years now?
Not indefinitely. ::)
You sure are spending a lot of time making excuses for this fellow Jesus warrior.
-
No evidence needed to make a situation where no one can prove shit.
That's what criminals try to do, isn't it?
-
No evidence needed to make a situation where no one can prove shit.
That's what criminals try to do, isn't it?
How did you learn about Jose Padilla?
-
How did you learn about Jose Padilla?
He was charged, wasn't he?
-
He was charged, wasn't he?
Not until years after he was imprisoned. How did you learn about him?
-
Not until years after he was imprisoned. How did you learn about him?
Was his bust made public record? As a result of that, is the only way I can imagine.
-
Was his bust made public record? As a result of that, is the only way I can imagine.
The fact he was incarcerated was all over the media.
-
The fact he was incarcerated was all over the media.
Because of what he was accused of?
-
Because of what he was accused of?
That and because he was being held without charges.
-
I go to the beach for a day, and come back to 10 new pages of responding to trolling. I feel left out.
1) the longest anyone has ever been held in contempt of court was 14 years in a divorce proceeding. Lawyer husband was hiding millions from his wife. He was ordered to disclose the location of this money. He refused. Judge locked him up.
Longest time a journalist has been jailed in contempt of court for protecting his sources is 226 days.
2) the Founding Fathers were not religious. This was the time of The Enlightenment, finally saying we don't need religion to explain things. Many of the Founding Fathers were Diest, which is saying well there may be a god but he is a distant god and doesn't get involved with what is going on here. Diests certainly don't believe the bible is the word of god.
-
That and because he was being held without charges.
Was just reading about this guy. You understand that it wasn't until a month after he was busted when he was declared an "enemy combatant", don't you?
-
Was just reading about this guy. You understand that it wasn't until a month after he was busted when he was declared an "enemy combatant", don't you?
No I didn't remember that detail. And?
-
No I didn't remember that detail. And?
Do you perhaps think that's how they knew?:
Because of the media, the ACLU, the family members of those being imprisoned, public defenders, etc., etc.
-
Do you perhaps think that's how they knew?:
I don't know exactly at what point they found out about it. The point is they knew. Just like you knew.
-
What the fuck. You guys are talking in circles. What about the moslem flight attendant?
-
I don't know exactly at what point they found out about it. The point is they knew. Just like you knew.
They could find out immediately upon looking after he was arrested.
-
What the fuck. You guys are talking in circles. What about the moslem flight attendant?
lol :D
-
They all believed in God.
I haven't looked at the statistics lately. Last time I did it was close to 90 percent. Even it's 80 percent, we're still talking about the overwhelming majority of the country. Which begs the question: who is more likely to be crazy, the 80 to 90 percent believe, or the 10 to 20 who don't? :)
How do you know her divorces are immoral?
And let's assume she is a hypocrite. She doesn't forfeit her right to ask for an accommodation of her religious beliefs, even if she is a hypocrite.
1) Debatable. They vacillated a bit, but many were Deists (or Christian Deists), who accepted Jesus's moral teachings, but not his divinity (see Jeffersonian Bible). All were science-minded skeptics - before Evolution - so they left room for a creator. But not a hands-on, personal God.
Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, various quotes from Adams, Madison, and latter-day Franklin, all very critical of Christianity.
2) 80-90%, fine, but 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide (90%-plus in Muslim countries); 1 billion Hindus (93% of Southern Africa, 70%-plus in South Asia); 500 million Buddhists (90%-plus in Thailand/Cambodia).
Point being, if numbers make it true, are they all right? And in America, specifically, you really wanna align yourself with the 80-90%, when only 35% have a college education?
Then there's the science: 46% of Americans believe in creation, which suggests a similar percentage believes in young earth (<10k years). So do we listen to them, or the 99.9% of scientists who believe in evolution? And is truth determined by percentage or total number? If it's percentage, is that based on total population or just the educated folk?
3) Divorce, who says immoral? Bible, pal:
Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:15, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:6, Matthew 19:9, Romans 7:2, Mark 10:12, 1 John 2:3-4, Matthew 19:8, Matthew 19:3-9, 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 7:10-17, Deuteronomy 24:1-22, 1 Corinthians 7:10, Genesis 2:24, Matthew 5:31-32, Hebrews 13:4, Matthew 19:4-6, Malachi 2:16, Exodus 14:14, 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Corinthians 7:11, Mark 10:11, Proverbs 18:1-24, Romans 7:3, Matthew 19:8-9, Malachi 2:14-16, Matthew 19:3-12, Jeremiah 3:8, Proverbs 24:14, 1 Timothy 3:2, Mark 10:11-12, Isaiah 54:4, Mark 10:4, Mark 10:1-12, Jeremiah 3:1, Mark 10:2-12, Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, Matthew 12:25, Matthew 19:3, Matthew 19:1-30, Numbere 30:9, Ephesians 5:1-33, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Matthew 19:1-12, Titus 1:6, 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, Jeremiah 33:3, Proverbs 21:19, 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, Matthew 19:9-10, Matthew 6:1-34, Matthew 5:27-28, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 1:18-20, Isaiah 50:1, Ezra 10:1-16, Exodus 21:7-11, James 2:20-24, Mark 10:2, Malachi 2:15, 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Deuteronomy 24:1-3, Romans 7:4, Nehemiah 13:23-30.
So, yeah, not much, but when you multiply it by three for Ms. Davis ...
Homosexuality, on the other hand, only mentioned seven times. Irony?
-
I go to the beach for a day, and come back to 10 new pages of responding to trolling. I feel left out.
1) the longest anyone has ever been held in contempt of court was 14 years in a divorce proceeding. Lawyer husband was hiding millions from his wife. He was ordered to disclose the location of this money. He refused. Judge locked him up.
Longest time a journalist has been jailed in contempt of court for protecting his sources is 226 days.
2) the Founding Fathers were not religious. This was the time of The Enlightenment, finally saying we don't need religion to explain things. Many of the Founding Fathers were Diest, which is saying well there may be a god but he is a distant god and doesn't get involved with what is going on here. Diests certainly don't believe the bible is the word of god.
i before e, except after D: Deist. For future reference, not trying to be douchey.
-
I disagree. There are a number of ways this could have been handled other than locking her up indefinitely.
conservative judge, conservative county, conservative law.
it's all the libs fault.
-
Actually part of the reason we lock people up is prevent them from committing more crime. Same thing could have been accomplished without locking this woman up.
Hmmm...
So we should take the crack dealers' crack, and let him go... cause hey, we have his crack now, he cannot sell it!
???
-
I think locking her up was appropriate.. considering all the circumstances..
the outcome of things is usually what it should be.
Tebow ain't starting QB because he's not accurate. not because there's a big conspiracy.
Palin ain't in politics because she's stupid as shit. Not because the media is mean to her.
This woman is in jail for breaking conservative law in conservative county... not because libruls.
-
the outcome of things is usually what it should be.
Tebow ain't starting QB because he's not accurate. not because there's a big conspiracy.
Palin ain't in politics because she's stupid as shit. Not because the media is mean to her.
This woman is in jail for breaking conservative law in conservative county... not because libruls.
Conspiracy? Who's saying that?
-
Conspiracy? Who's saying that?
some people claim the NFL teams conspire against tebow because of his beliefs, not because of his poor mechanics, random inacuracy, 47.8% completion rate career, or piss poor decision making after the snap.
-
some people claim the NFL teams conspire against tebow because of his beliefs, not because of his poor mechanics, random inacuracy, 47.8% completion rate career, or piss poor decision making after the snap.
No one cares about his beliefs, as long as he can win for them. Shit, they most likely share his beliefs. That's just silly.
-
Under Obergefell the Supreme Court has found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Now, you may disagree with that, but it is the decision that the Court reached. Any state law that is contrary to that decision is null and void, just like any state law that limited other constitutionally-guaranteed rights or which went against Federal laws. See, inter alia, the Supremacy clause.
Right, and? The United States is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.
If you do not like our existing system of government, argue to have it changed.
Red herring. Nobody suggested that the Supreme Court is infallible. In fact, plenty of the Court's past decisions prove that it isn't, a point that you make further down by citing Dred Scott v. Sandford. There's others too, such as Plessey v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn and Korematsu v. U.S. to name a few more. But it is the final court of appeal.
Again, you seem to have a problem with the structure of our Government. That's your right, of course and you're free to argue that it should be changed. But until it is changed, this is the system that we have in place and you are not free to ignore it.
Dred Scott was a horrible case and was, thankfully, effectively overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to overturn a decision of the Court, then have Congress draft an Amendment and propose it to the States, or get the States to organize a constitutional convention. Both processes are outlined in the Constitution, so take a pick.
Faulty generalization: not all principles are equal or equally valid, and whether standing by one's principles regardless of the consequences is heroic greatly depends on the principle and what one has to do to stand by it. As you correctly pointed out in another post, we don't consider suicide bombers heroic, despite the fact that one could argue that they are "standing by their principles regardless of the consequences." While I don't think that Davis' actions even come close to the level of suicide bombers, the problem is the principle that she can force her religious beliefs on others and the fact is that her actions are illegal.
Except it's not - as an elected official she cannot be fired.
I didn't either, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.
I, on the other hand, think that people should not blindly be applauded for taking a stand based on some principle without, first, examining the principle in question.
excellent on all points.
probably will be thought of as stupid and irrelevant
after all, it disagrees with his informed (!) opinion.
-
She's still in jail.
God was too busy celebrating Labor Day to be bothered enough to swoop in and free her.
-
Should have been impeached and fired..not jailed without bail...mass murder suspects have gotten bail. The liberal hypocrisy with this is ridiculous.
-
Should have been impeached and fired..not jailed without bail...mass murder suspects have gotten bail. The liberal hypocrisy with this is ridiculous.
She's from a highly conservative county. NO WAY those with the power would impeach her & lose re-election.
-
Should have been impeached and fired..not jailed without bail...mass murder suspects have gotten bail. The liberal hypocrisy with this is ridiculous.
You really don't understand how the judicial system works do you?
-
She was jailed without bail...for what? I don't think you do.....sanctuary cities...violation of Fed Law yet cheered by lib douchbags. Prop 8..voted and passed by Cali voters yet liberal officials much like this woman still issued marraige licenses...all in violation of Cali law but cheered by the Left. There are two examples....you people are out of control.
-
She was jailed without bail...for what? I don't think you do.....sanctuary cities...violation of Fed Law yet cheered by lib douchbags. Prop 8..voted and passed by Cali voters yet liberal officials much like this woman still issued marraige licenses...all in violation of Cali law but cheered by the Left. There are two examples....you people are out of control.
What are you talking about?
She was jailed for CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Title 18 of the US Code.
I used to think you were sensible... Now, not so much.
Your first issue, Sanctuary cities is not applicable as it's not a cities job to go out and search for illegal immigrants. That's a federal job.
Secondly, I can give you the difference in Prop 8, but similarly to interracial laws, it was just wrong and as such, is NOW overturned... because, you know... laws.
-
No bail......how about a fine? Gimme a break. As for prop 8 cali law was overturned by judges not the people and the point was that the Left cheered the folks just like this woman who continued to issue licenses...but I don't know "liberal douchbaggery" its ok. This woman should never have been jailed....it should never have gotten this far. Cities like San Fran have a duty to comply with Federal law....if they don't they are in violation...but the point again was they are cheered by the left while this woman is vilified. You people don't care about the rule of law, you just want to further the cause.
-
Apparently she's now been ordered released...fire or move her and lets move on.
-
No bail......how about a fine? Gimme a break. As for prop 8 cali law was overturned by judges not the people and the point was that the Left cheered the folks just like this woman who continued to issue licenses...but I don't know "liberal douchbaggery" its ok. This woman should never have been jailed....it should never have gotten this far. Cities like San Fran have a duty to comply with Federal law....if they don't they are in violation...but the point again was they are cheered by the left while this woman is vilified. You people don't care about the rule of law, you just want to further the cause.
You are insane.
This isn't about any cause except the rule of law.
People are jailed for contempt ALL OF THE TIME.
Why do you care about this case? Because you "hate fags"?
-
She was jailed without bail...for what? I don't think you do.....sanctuary cities...violation of Fed Law yet cheered by lib douchbags. Prop 8..voted and passed by Cali voters yet liberal officials much like this woman still issued marraige licenses...all in violation of Cali law but cheered by the Left. There are two examples....you people are out of control.
this is where getbig gets bad....
this instantly goes from "why did this conservative judge, in conservative county, decide to lock her up"
INTO
"libs suck, look at all they get away with..."
Liberals actually have little to do with this case. Bush-appointed John Roberts led the SCOTUS to this ruling. Conservative state, county, and judge locked her up. And more than half of the repubs running actually agree she broke law and should not have stood in the way of the licences.
Tough to blame liberals here... it's cherry picking of marriage standards by a woman with multiple affairs and marriages, preventing others in a govt office from doing the job they swore to do, acc'g to the Constitution. Shit man, sometimes it's just people being people, not libs ruining the world.
-
the only presidential candidates pandering to her willful ignorance of the law are those who are desperate.
I love cruz, but he's pandering at a sickening level, blaming obama for what SCOTUS says.
-
Ted Cruz travels to Kentucky to support Kim Davis
Source: Washington Post
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) will travel to Kentucky Tuesday to show his support for a clerk who was ordered to jail after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Cruz will hold a news conference outside the Carter County Detention Center, where clerk Kim Davis has been held in federal custody since last week. Cruz will not be the only 2016 Republican hopeful appearing outside the Grayson, Ky., complex; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will hold what he is billing on Twitter as an #ImWithKimLibertyRally Tuesday afternoon.
"It is important to Sen. Cruz for Kim Davis to know that he supports her and will do everything in his power to ensure her situation is resolved and that no other Americans who strive to live out their faith fall victim to religious persecution by the government," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in a statement.
"The First Amendment — the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and expression — is foundational to all other freedoms and Sen. Cruz is committed to defending it," the statement said.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/ted-cruz-travels-to-kentucky-to-support-kim-davis/
-
Should have been impeached and fired..not jailed without bail...mass murder suspects have gotten bail. The liberal hypocrisy with this is ridiculous.
How much is bail for contempt of court?
Please look it up and report back what you find.
Which liberal judge and in what liberal county did this hypocrisy occur?
Please look it up and report back what you find.
-
The judge ordered her released. That's good news.
Now if she interferes with the law again, it will be criminal contempt.
-
The judge ordered her released. That's good news.
Now if she interferes with the law again, it will be criminal contempt.
The problem will be once she actually sits down and talks to FOX News and they realize she's a hillbilly democrat who cherry picks which parts of marriage she respects.
"So, you were fccking hubby #3 while married to hubby #1 and got pregnant, and you also voted obama, and ran a democrat, that's very nice".
-
Huckabee awkwardly walking behind her out of the courthouse.
He's officially Al Sharpton for the anti-gay, anti-constitution crowd.
And I dont like Al Sharpton, because his goal for the USA is a very ugly one.
-
Huckabee awkwardly walking behind her out of the courthouse.
He's officially Al Sharpton for the anti-gay, anti-constitution crowd.
And I dont like Al Sharpton, because his goal for the USA is a very ugly one.
Offering himself up as a sacrifice, outmartyring the martyr. Knowing they won't jail him, that's some self-serving political BS right there.
-
1) Debatable. They vacillated a bit, but many were Deists (or Christian Deists), who accepted Jesus's moral teachings, but not his divinity (see Jeffersonian Bible). All were science-minded skeptics - before Evolution - so they left room for a creator. But not a hands-on, personal God.
Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, various quotes from Adams, Madison, and latter-day Franklin, all very critical of Christianity.
2) 80-90%, fine, but 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide (90%-plus in Muslim countries); 1 billion Hindus (93% of Southern Africa, 70%-plus in South Asia); 500 million Buddhists (90%-plus in Thailand/Cambodia).
Point being, if numbers make it true, are they all right? And in America, specifically, you really wanna align yourself with the 80-90%, when only 35% have a college education?
Then there's the science: 46% of Americans believe in creation, which suggests a similar percentage believes in young earth (<10k years). So do we listen to them, or the 99.9% of scientists who believe in evolution? And is truth determined by percentage or total number? If it's percentage, is that based on total population or just the educated folk?
3) Divorce, who says immoral? Bible, pal:
Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:15, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:6, Matthew 19:9, Romans 7:2, Mark 10:12, 1 John 2:3-4, Matthew 19:8, Matthew 19:3-9, 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 7:10-17, Deuteronomy 24:1-22, 1 Corinthians 7:10, Genesis 2:24, Matthew 5:31-32, Hebrews 13:4, Matthew 19:4-6, Malachi 2:16, Exodus 14:14, 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Corinthians 7:11, Mark 10:11, Proverbs 18:1-24, Romans 7:3, Matthew 19:8-9, Malachi 2:14-16, Matthew 19:3-12, Jeremiah 3:8, Proverbs 24:14, 1 Timothy 3:2, Mark 10:11-12, Isaiah 54:4, Mark 10:4, Mark 10:1-12, Jeremiah 3:1, Mark 10:2-12, Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, Matthew 12:25, Matthew 19:3, Matthew 19:1-30, Numbere 30:9, Ephesians 5:1-33, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Matthew 19:1-12, Titus 1:6, 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, Jeremiah 33:3, Proverbs 21:19, 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, Matthew 19:9-10, Matthew 6:1-34, Matthew 5:27-28, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 1:18-20, Isaiah 50:1, Ezra 10:1-16, Exodus 21:7-11, James 2:20-24, Mark 10:2, Malachi 2:15, 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Deuteronomy 24:1-3, Romans 7:4, Nehemiah 13:23-30.
So, yeah, not much, but when you multiply it by three for Ms. Davis ...
Homosexuality, on the other hand, only mentioned seven times. Irony?
Not much of a debate. I've read and studied enough history to know that they believed in God.
Aside from joking, the only real point to mentioning percentages is how crazy it makes people sound when they call those who believe in a higher power crazy.
I doubt you have read all of the verses you just cut and pasted. But assuming you did, which ones have told you that this particular woman committed some immoral act by getting divorced and remarried repeatedly?
No, the fact homosexuality is "only" mentioned seven times (assuming that is true) is not ironic. Is there some quota? How many times is gluttony mentioned? Or abusing kids? Or abusing the elderly?
-
Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Released From Jail
Tuesday, 08 Sep 2015
Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, walked out of jail on Tuesday after the U.S. district court judge who found her in contempt said he was satisfied licenses were being issued in accordance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered her release after six days in jail, saying she "shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples."
If she tries to interfere, "that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered," Bunning said.
Davis was greeted by over one thousand singing and shouting supporters. "I just want to give God his glory," an emotional Davis said in brief remarks to supporters after being released from jail.
"She will do her job good and she will serve the people as they want her to serve. She will also be loyal to God and she is not going to violate her conscience," her lawyer, Mathew Staver, said, with his arm around Davis. She was also flanked by Republic presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
Staver, the founder of Christian religious advocacy group Liberty Counsel, said Davis would continue to ask for an accommodation to remove her name and her authority from the marriage certificates.
Huckabee called her a "brave lady" for her willingness to go to jail for what she believed.
Another Republican president hopeful, Ted Cruz, was seen entering and leaving the Carter County Detention Center.
State Representative David Hale, a Davis supporter who was in the crowd, said he will push for legislation to take marriage licenses out of the hands of county clerks and move it to the Office of Vital Statistics.
Not everyone in the crowd was a Davis supporter.
"I am only OK with it if she agrees to do her job," said Beth Baker, of Grayson.
As an Apostolic Christian, Davis says she believes a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. She has refused to issue any marriage licenses since the U.S. Supreme Court in June made same-sex marriages legal across the United States.
While she was jailed, the county's deputy clerks issued marriage licenses to several same-sex couples.
Davis, who is 9 days shy of her 50th birthday, was ordered into custody by Bunning on Sept. 3 after continuing to defy his order to issue the licenses in accordance with the law.
Bunning secured the assurances of five of six deputy clerks who stated under oath that they would comply with the court's orders and issue licenses to all legally eligible couples.
The deputies will need to file status reports every fourteen days to prove they are in compliance, the order said.
Davis, a Democrat, was elected to her position in November 2014 after 27 years as deputy clerk of Rowan County. She took over the office from her mother, who served for 37 years. Her son Nathan, a deputy clerk, was the only one not to pledge compliance with the judge's orders.
Her faith became central to her life in the last four years, following the death of her mother-in-law, she said in a statement issued last week through her legal representatives, Liberty Counsel.
Grayson, a town in northeastern Kentucky, canceled school out of concern over increased traffic coinciding with dismissal time.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Gay-Marriage-Kentucky-The-Latest/2015/09/08/id/678585/#ixzz3lBXbh7Dx
-
LOL @ the "iconic" images of this obese unfaithful democrat embracing the leech huckabee, ready to go home to hubby #4 after telling us about the sanctity of marriage.
Repubs are so deperate for a hero.
Joe the Plumber, Palin, zimmerman, trump, now this Davis person. Where have all the reagans gone?
-
Here is the judge's order releasing her: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/09/08/us-district-court-order-releasing-kim-davis-from-custory/?intcmp=hpbt1
-
LOL @ the "iconic" images of this obese unfaithful democrat embracing the leech huckabee, ready to go home to hubby #4 after telling us about the sanctity of marriage.
Repubs are so deperate for a hero.
Joe the Plumber, Palin, zimmerman, trump, now this Davis person. Where have all the reagans gone?
I thought divorce was against the bible? Yet, she has been married multiple times and I believe had a child out of wedlock.
Talk about your typical religious hypocrisy. :D :D
-
Will be interesting to see if she actually does not interfere.
She has said she will. So if she is now saying she will not, then that will be interesting.
-
I thought divorce was against the bible? Yet, she has been married multiple times and I believe had a child out of wedlock.
Talk about your typical religious hypocrisy. :D :D
thats the weird part. its not like she is this perfect example of a perfect marriage. she got knocked up by hubby #3 while married to hubby #1. Married FOUR times.
and this press conference... WHEW...
It'll be interesting to see more examples of this happening now... When a Muslim DMV employee refuses to give a woman a DRIVERS licence because he doesn't think they should drive? When a white woman won't issue a car registration to a black man beacuse she doesn't think he should own property? When a bus driver decides "whites only" is appropriate, and just practices his "constitutional right" to refuse certain people.
-
Pic sorta summarizes what Republicans have become. Guess I'm going Trump after all.
Sorry, Rob.
-
LOL i love ted cruz, but between machine-gun cooked bacon he eats with a fork, and this pic lol...
Ugh. Where have all the republican heroes gone?
-
.
-
LOL @ the "iconic" images of this obese unfaithful democrat embracing the leech huckabee, ready to go home to hubby #4 after telling us about the sanctity of marriage.
Repubs are so deperate for a hero.
Joe the Plumber, Palin, zimmerman, trump, now this Davis person. Where have all the reagans gone?
Troll.
Reagan WAS a very-liberal person, yes.
He magically "evolved" when he wanted to become president.
As president, he ACTED like a dem- tripling size of govt, doubling national debt, letting 4 million illegals stay, the list goes on and on.
reagan was a conservative for just as long as it took to get elected. Just like Trump is ;)
-
well, as far as republican heroic standards go, Reagan is the #1 option, almost always.
The fox-news-stained version of history doesn't reveal reagan for the liberal that he was. And most repubs are too stupid or in denial to look it up.
I feel bad that you looked up those quotes to win some sort of argument... if anything, you just proved the inept nature of repub supporters these days. They worship the liberal reagan just like they worship the liberal trump. Enjoy a democrat in office, but hey, he'll be "great" at whatever policy he chooses once elected.
-
well, as far as republican heroic standards go, Reagan is the #1 option, almost always.
The fox-news-stained version of history doesn't reveal reagan for the liberal that he was. And most repubs are too stupid or in denial to look it up.
I feel bad that you looked up those quotes to win some sort of argument... if anything, you just proved the inept nature of repub supporters these days. They worship the liberal reagan just like they worship the liberal trump. Enjoy a democrat in office, but hey, he'll be "great" at whatever policy he chooses once elected.
You should feel bad for being a dishonest troll.
-
You should feel bad for being a dishonest troll.
I'm correct about many repubs these days. Loving on trump while not even caring his position on the issues.
And yes, reagan was liberal in many ways.
-
I'm correct about many repubs these days. Loving on trump while not even caring his position on the issues.
And yes, reagan was liberal in many ways.
It's obvious you're passionately trying to discredit Trump, get Rs to withhold support, but have you made a case for anyone else?
Genuinely curious, I really don't know.
-
It's obvious you're passionately trying to discredit Trump, get Rs to withhold support, but have you made a case for anyone else?
Genuinely curious, I really don't know.
I think Cruz would do the best job, once he's in office.
I dislike his desperate attempt at pandering in the last few weeks - I think he THOUGHT he'd remain that #2 option to Trump (which Carson has suddenly become), and that the grown-up voters would wise up once they realized the horse's ass Trump could actually win.
Now that Carson is stealing that conservative option spot (despite Cruz being the #1 GOA endorsed and Carson being anti gun), I think Cruz is getting a little nervous. Hence him showing up to Kim davis and getting blocked from speaking by hucks' bodyguard. Worse than al sharpton... flying all that way to get blocked from speaking.
-
Cruz is being exposed as nothing but a bunch of hot air. He is nothing but a wimp trying to posture his way into people supporting him. He isn't the bad boy that he has tried so hard to make people think he is. Trump neutered him right off the bat.
Can you imagine the reaction from Trump if that Huck staffer tried to block his way at the Davis event? Cruz? Rolled over and slunk off.
-
Bah!
-
At her press conference, she came out hands in the air staring at the sky and stating "I want to give God the glory".
What glory? For you getting locked up or for marriage licenses being issued? Sounds like the "glory" involved here isn't something she liked either way.
-
At her press conference, she came out hands in the air staring at the sky and stating "I want to give God the glory".
What glory? For you getting locked up or for marriage licenses being issued? Sounds like the "glory" involved here isn't something she liked either way.
example of giving religion a bad name.
-
If a god exists I'm certain it wouldn't give one iota about Kim Davis or any glory from that debacle she has created
-
Kentucky clerk battle fuels debate over religious accommodation laws
Published September 09, 2015
FoxNews.com
The battle over Kentucky clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gay marriage licenses is beginning to raise the issue in statehouses as to whether lawmakers should enshrine religious accommodations for public officials -- with some warning that failure to do so will only lead to further standoffs.
Some point to states like North Carolina, which earlier this year passed a law allowing court officials to refuse to perform gay marriage responsibilities because of their religious beliefs -- while letting other officials step in for them, so eligible couples can still get their licenses.
At least one bill has been pre-filed for the 2016 session in Kentucky that would protect county clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds.
But that session begins in January, and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has said he sees "no need" to spend extra state resources on a special session before then when most county clerks "are doing their jobs."
Davis and her attorney nevertheless renewed their call Tuesday for state action, as she was released from a local jail after five days.
Attorney Mat Staver said his client wants an "accommodation" allowing for her name to be removed from marriage certificates for gay couples.
"Kim still is asking for that today," he said, adding that the courts, the legislature and the governor could act on this.
Unclear is whether Davis, barring such a change in the law, will violate the federal judge's order that freed her on Tuesday.
In that order, U.S. District Judge David Bunning, the same judge who initially jailed the Rowan County clerk last week on a contempt of court charge, said the court is "satisfied" that the clerk's office has since issued marriage licenses "to all legally eligible couples" -- those licenses have been handled by Davis' deputy clerks.
At the same time, Bunning directed Davis not to "interfere in any way" with the marriage licenses now being issued by her office.
"If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered," he said in the order.
Her legal counsel did not say whether Davis had any intention to defy the courts.
Rather, Staver said: "She loves God, she loves people, she loves her work -- and she will not betray any of those three." He said Davis will not violate her "conscience," and said the court order "did not resolve the underlying issue."
Some Republican presidential candidates agreed that lawmakers, at the state and federal level, should step in to craft an accommodation for clerks like Davis.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told Fox News that "there should be some accommodation made for people of faith. I mean, this is a very serious religious matter."
He specifically called for passage of a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act, or a similar executive order. That proposal would specifically bar the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against someone acting on their religious objections to gay marriage. Santorum said states, in addition to the federal government, should pass similar legislation.
"This isn't going to be the only time we run into this situation," Santorum said.
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson also told Fox News that "Congress now has a responsibility to step up to the plate and enact legislation that will protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans."
Few states have actually passed such accommodation laws, as gay marriage has only been the law of the land since June.
Among the first to act was North Carolina, where the legislature overrode Republican Gov. Pat McCrory's veto over the summer on the bill. The law says court officials who disclose a "sincerely held religious objection" must stop performing marriage duties for both gay and heterosexual couples for at least six months. The chief District Court judge or the county register of deeds -- both elected officials -- would fill in on marriages if needed.
Before North Carolina, only Utah had passed such a similar exemption, earlier this year.
Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, has pointed to the North Carolina law as an example that other states could follow.
He wrote in The New York Times that it both accommodates religious beliefs of court officials while making clear that eligible couples cannot be denied a license. "Perhaps a similar solution could be found in Kentucky, by removing an individual clerk's name and title from a marriage license," he wrote.
In a Sept. 3 statement, Gov. Beshear, a Democrat, urged all sides to wait until the next session.
"The General Assembly will convene in just four months and can make any statutory changes it deems necessary at that time," he said.
The governor also told reporters Tuesday that he's "glad" for Bunning's latest order and if the legislature wants to "change the process" for marriage licenses, "they're certainly free to do so" in January.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/09/kentucky-clerk-battle-fuels-debate-religious-accommodation-laws/
-
Kentucky clerk battle fuels debate over religious accommodation laws
Shep Smith went off on it yesterday. FOX isn't falling in step with this ridiculous woman. She can't suck enough d**ks, she can't cheat on her own marriage enough - but wants to tell others how to live.
-
If a god exists I'm certain it wouldn't give one iota about Kim Davis or any glory from that debacle she has created
Sounds as though God's glory is more rewarding for the couples getting married than it is for Kim Davis.
-
example of giving religion a bad name.
Think maybe religion gives religion a bad name.
-
Think maybe religion gives religion a bad name.
Yep.. Westboro Baptist Church can show you scripture where they are doing what they are supposed to do... in fact, if you were to judge "christians" strictly by the bible, Westboro are following the bible much more closely than the average citizen who's only demonstration that they are Christian is the attendance of church and a bumper sticker
-
If a god exists I'm certain it wouldn't give one iota about Kim Davis or any glory from that debacle she has created
Even though it's a mess, it has spurred a healthy discussion about this entire subject. More problems are coming. We saw a glimpse in Texas several months back when they were going after preachers trying to subpoena sermons that talked negatively about homosexuality. That might be the next frontier, where they start attacking religious groups.
-
Yep.. Westboro Baptist Church can show you scripture where they are doing what they are supposed to do... in fact, if you were to judge "christians" strictly by the bible, Westboro are following the bible much more closely than the average citizen who's only demonstration that they are Christian is the attendance of church and a bumper sticker
Those Democrats can cite a verse or two out of context, but they are nuts. Amazing how a literal handful of people can repeatedly make national headlines.
-
Those Democrats can cite a verse or two out of context, but they are nuts. Amazing how a literal handful of people can repeatedly make national headlines.
Agreed 100%.
Kim Davis a Democrat.
-
Those Democrats can cite a verse or two out of context, but they are nuts. Amazing how a literal handful of people can repeatedly make national headlines.
What does their political party have to do with them going to church or being a Christian and knowing the Bible?
Seems to me that when the country is 70% Christian leaning that 70% (no matter their political affiliation) should be able to recite some scripture.
It's not like the Bible is full of mysterious text that no one else can read.
It's a translation of a translation of a translation of texts that were put to parchment 100 years at a minimum behind the people who were supposedly stating it.
Certainly anyone can read it and their meaning be just as valid as anyone else's.
Are you saying only the translations or context that you agree with are accurate?
-
What does their political party have to do with them going to church or being a Christian and knowing the Bible?
Seems to me that when the country is 70% Christian leaning that 70% (no matter their political affiliation) should be able to recite some scripture.
It's not like the Bible is full of mysterious text that no one else can read.
It's a translation of a translation of a translation of texts that were put to parchment 100 years at a minimum behind the people who were supposedly stating it.
Certainly anyone can read it and their meaning be just as valid as anyone else's.
Are you saying only the translations or context that you agree with are accurate?
People often mistakenly refer to the Westboro nuts as conservative. That's the reason I mentioned they are Democrats.
And yes I disagree with their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity that purportedly condones the hateful and disgusting things they do.
-
People often mistakenly refer to the Westboro nuts as conservative. That's the reason I mentioned they are Democrats.
And yes I disagree with their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity that purportedly condones the hateful and disgusting things they do.
I'm not specifically speaking of the WBBC, but what you are saying can apply to any christian group.
Many people feel that what Mrs. Davis did is hateful and disgusting. No difference.
Also, how do you know that they are ALL Democrats?
-
Yep.. Westboro Baptist Church can show you scripture where they are doing what they are supposed to do... in fact, if you were to judge "christians" strictly by the bible, Westboro are following the bible much more closely than the average citizen who's only demonstration that they are Christian is the attendance of church and a bumper sticker
Indeed. Just like Muslims, they follow the literal Word. And after all, who are we to revise His Law (all 613 commandments) for modern society?
Like God needs an interpreter.
-
I'm not specifically speaking of the WBBC, but what you are saying can apply to any christian group.
Many people feel that what Mrs. Davis did is hateful and disgusting. No difference.
Also, how do you know that they are ALL Democrats?
I was specifically referring to the Westboro nuts.
Yes, there are people who believe anyone who believes in traditional marriage is a bigot, hateful, etc. I don't agree with them.
Their founder and leader is a Democrat.
-
I was specifically referring to the Westboro nuts.
Yes, there are people who believe anyone who believes in traditional is a bigot, hateful, etc. I don't agree with them.
Their founder and leader is a Democrat.
How does their founder equate to all of the people of the church? The leader of the US is a Democrat, but that doesn't make you or myself one.
-
How does their founder equate to all of the people of the church? The leader of the US is a Democrat, but that doesn't make you or myself one.
Yes, it's possible the leader of their family is a Democrat and the rest are Republicans. I doubt it, but anything is possible.
That said, comparing the president of a country with 300 million people to a cult/klan of about 40 people is pretty silly.
-
Yes, it's possible the leader of their family is a Democrat and the rest are Republicans. I doubt it, but anything is possible.
That said, comparing the president of a country with 300 million people to a cult/klan of about 40 people is pretty silly.
Defining any political leanings of a group based upon one person is much more silly.
-
Defining any political leanings of a group based upon one person is much more silly.
lol. Ok. Whatever. This isn't just a group.
-
lol. Ok. Whatever. This isn't just a group.
Seems like a group to me.
group
ɡro͞op/
noun
1.
a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.
-
Seems like a group to me.
group
ɡro͞op/
noun
1.
a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.
That's because you're trying to argue about stupid stuff. lol This isn't just a collection of people. It's largely one family that is more like a cult than anything else.
-
That's because you're trying to argue about stupid stuff. lol This isn't just a collection of people. It's largely one family that is more like a cult than anything else.
All religions are cults. That is the only way they can exist.
-
All religions are cults. That is the only way they can exist.
lol
-
That's because you're trying to argue about stupid stuff. lol This isn't just a collection of people. It's largely one family that is more like a cult than anything else.
I'm not... I'm showing you how defining a group based on one person is silly.
Did you or did you not just do that?
-
I think the Westborough BC ceased all party affiliation during the period Gore first ran for president.
-
I'm not... I'm showing you how defining a group based on one person is silly.
Did you or did you not just do that?
I'm showing you how you failed to use context.
-
I'm showing you how you failed to use context.
Except you're the one who failed.
-
Except you're the one who failed.
If you say so.
-
If you say so.
Well, it is your go to answer for everything.
Says who? You?
Of course.
-
We need to start a betting pool in regards to how long before this hick is back in jail again.
-
Well, it is your go to answer for everything.
Oh you got me. Good work Columbo.
-
If you say so.
Can I have "What people say when they don't have a clue how to respond" for $1000, Alex?
-
Can I have "What people say when they don't have a clue how to respond" for $1000, Alex?
No, but you can have trolling for dollars for $500.
-
We need to start a betting pool in regards to how long before this hick is back in jail again.
Do we have a definitive date on when she goes back to her office?
-
Do we have a definitive date on when she goes back to her office?
It will be soon most likely. She is not going to resign. In light of that, she has only has two options. 1) Allow the licenses to be issued or 2) Interfere with the licenses being issued.
If she allows the license to be issued then she is going to hell. If not, then jail.
Hell
Jail
Unemployment
I think we can agree that she will rule two of those out.
-
It will be soon most likely. She is not going to resign. In light of that, she has only has two options. 1) Allow the licenses to be issued or 2) Interfere with the licenses being issued.
If she allows the license to be issued then she is going to hell. If not, then jail.
Hell
Jail
Unemployment
I think we can agree that she will rule two of those out.
It's so exciting.
-
No, but you can have trolling for dollars for $500.
I think they took the odd-dollars out of things on Jeopardy back around the time you were voting Bill Clinton.
400, 800, 1200, 1600, 2000 are the new numbers in Double round? $500 is not a number we'd expect to see.
-
I've honestly lost interest in this topic. However, I am intrigued to find out if the county clerks in say, Dearborne Michigan and other Islamic outposts in North America are going to be subject to the same treatment as Kim Davis and her ilk.
I can't wait for the first CNN news anchor to plow into an Islamic bakery in Dearborne and demand that the owner bake a cake for a gay wedding.
I wonder if all this feigned outrage will be directed at the Muslim pizzeria owner in Bloomington Illinois who refuses to cater a gay wedding.
And you see-- there wont be any investigative journalism or heavy handed court decisions to compel those people to do anything-- regardless of what the Supreme Court says. The left is predicated upon phony courage without consequence. Gay rights is a civil rights issue where the opposing side is open to non-violent dialogue. The left is damn lucky that most red blooded christian Americans will openly debate their position and stand behind their principles without becoming violent. If the worst of the bunch is Kim Davis engaging in civil disobedience, who gives a shit?
The first time one of these liberal panzie news outlets take a stand against an openly hostile group of people, hell will freeze over. And so they won't-- because they are cowards. Better keep piling on Kim Davis!
Christians will continue to be be persecuted for their beliefs while Muslims run amok. Perhaps if Christians began circumcising their female children and blowing up subway stations, the leftist establishment media would consider them a "disenfranchised" group and treat them with the same kids gloves.
-
I've honestly lost interest in this topic. However, I am intrigued to find out if the county clerks in say, Dearborne Michigan and other Islamic outposts in North America are going to be subject to the same treatment as Kim Davis and her ilk.
They better. It is the law of the land.
I don't give a shit why your religion says.
-
They better. It is the law of the land.
I don't give a shit why your religion says.
I appreciate your thoughts homey. Let's pay close attention to how that situation plays out. Spoiler alert: The queer brigade is not marching into Dearborne and demanding that devout Muslims celebrate/cater a lesbian wedding. Trust me. It will never ever happen. Doing so, would take guts and courage-- attributes that liberals generally consider too "macho" and misogynistic.
-
I appreciate your thoughts homey. Let's pay close attention to how that situation plays out. Spoiler alert: The queer brigade is not marching into Dearborne and demanding that devout Muslims celebrate/cater a lesbian wedding. Trust me. It will never ever happen. Doing so, would take guts and courage-- attributes that liberals generally consider too "macho" and misogynistic.
That's true, it's probably because gay people don't live in Dearborne, but let's be clear, there is no excuse.
Let's be clear, if this shit comes to pass and they do not tell the Muslims to go fuck themselves, then they are absolute pussies and shouldn't be allowed to call themselves Americans.
-
That's true, it's probably because gay people don't live in Dearborne, but let's be clear, there is no excuse.
Let's be clear, if this shit comes to pass and they do not tell the Muslims to go fuck themselves, then they are absolute pussies and shouldn't be allowed to call themselves Americans.
Amen to that. But deep down, you know I'm right. Think about it. How many gays are in rural Kentucky, or that middle of nowhere town with the christian pizzeria owners that CNN decided to stalk.
The left just wants to go after easy targets. They need easy scapegoats that can be marginalized mocked or ignored. As a general matter, I don't think highly of Muslims. But I will tell you this, they say what they mean and they mean what they say. Violence is like a bodily function demanded from god to those people. The left knows that poking a gay stick in the Muslim communities eye will result in a seismic and probably bloody backlash.
Maybe not Jim Crow- turning the fire hoses on-- but certainly some honor killings, kidnappings, beheadings, vicious assaults etc. You think the queer agenda has the chops to buck up to that sort of resistance? I think not. In all likelihood, they would run for the hills and have those evil homophobic Christians fight the battle for them.
-
Amen to that. But deep down, you know I'm right. Think about it. How many gays are in rural Kentucky, or that middle of nowhere town with the christian pizzeria owners that CNN decided to stalk.
The left just wants to go after easy targets. They need easy scapegoats that can be marginalized mocked or ignored. As a general matter, I don't think highly of Muslims. But I will tell you this, they say what they mean and they mean what they say. Violence is like a bodily function demanded from god to those people. The left knows that poking a gay stick in the Muslim communities eye will result in a seismic and probably bloody backlash.
Maybe not Jim Crow- turning the fire hoses on-- but certainly some honor killings, kidnappings, beheadings, vicious assaults etc. You think the queer agenda has the chops to buck up to that sort of resistance? I think not. In all likelihood, they would run for the hills and have those evil homophobic Christians fight the battle for them.
I will say that I hope you are wrong, I do fear you are correct.
-
Amen to that. But deep down, you know I'm right. Think about it. How many gays are in rural Kentucky, or that middle of nowhere town with the christian pizzeria owners that CNN decided to stalk.
The left just wants to go after easy targets. They need easy scapegoats that can be marginalized mocked or ignored. As a general matter, I don't think highly of Muslims. But I will tell you this, they say what they mean and they mean what they say. Violence is like a bodily function demanded from god to those people. The left knows that poking a gay stick in the Muslim communities eye will result in a seismic and probably bloody backlash.
Maybe not Jim Crow- turning the fire hoses on-- but certainly some honor killings, kidnappings, beheadings, vicious assaults etc. You think the queer agenda has the chops to buck up to that sort of resistance? I think not. In all likelihood, they would run for the hills and have those evil homophobic Christians fight the battle for them.
This is also true. Well said.
-
Amen to that. But deep down, you know I'm right. Think about it. How many gays are in rural Kentucky, or that middle of nowhere town with the christian pizzeria owners that CNN decided to stalk.
The left just wants to go after easy targets. They need easy scapegoats that can be marginalized mocked or ignored. As a general matter, I don't think highly of Muslims. But I will tell you this, they say what they mean and they mean what they say. Violence is like a bodily function demanded from god to those people. The left knows that poking a gay stick in the Muslim communities eye will result in a seismic and probably bloody backlash.
Maybe not Jim Crow- turning the fire hoses on-- but certainly some honor killings, kidnappings, beheadings, vicious assaults etc. You think the queer agenda has the chops to buck up to that sort of resistance? I think not. In all likelihood, they would run for the hills and have those evil homophobic Christians fight the battle for them.
I would be surprised if it mattered to a person who was doing the discriminating. I don't think the average gay couple seriously think that the Muslim store owner is going to kill them if they speak out. Maybe in another country, but unlikely here.
-
I've honestly lost interest in this topic. However, I am intrigued to find out if the county clerks in say, Dearborne Michigan and other Islamic outposts in North America are going to be subject to the same treatment as Kim Davis and her ilk.
I can't wait for the first CNN news anchor to plow into an Islamic bakery in Dearborne and demand that the owner bake a cake for a gay wedding.
I wonder if all this feigned outrage will be directed at the Muslim pizzeria owner in Bloomington Illinois who refuses to cater a gay wedding.
And you see-- there wont be any investigative journalism or heavy handed court decisions to compel those people to do anything-- regardless of what the Supreme Court says. The left is predicated upon phony courage without consequence. Gay rights is a civil rights issue where the opposing side is open to non-violent dialogue. The left is damn lucky that most red blooded christian Americans will openly debate their position and stand behind their principles without becoming violent. If the worst of the bunch is Kim Davis engaging in civil disobedience, who gives a shit?
The first time one of these liberal panzie news outlets take a stand against an openly hostile group of people, hell will freeze over. And so they won't-- because they are cowards. Better keep piling on Kim Davis!
Christians will continue to be be persecuted for their beliefs while Muslims run amok. Perhaps if Christians began circumcising their female children and blowing up subway stations, the leftist establishment media would consider them a "disenfranchised" group and treat them with the same kids gloves.
Good points. It is crazy how some liberals can be anti-Christian and pro-Muslim, especially those concerned about homosexual rights.
-
Amen to that. But deep down, you know I'm right. Think about it. How many gays are in rural Kentucky, or that middle of nowhere town with the christian pizzeria owners that CNN decided to stalk.
The left just wants to go after easy targets. They need easy scapegoats that can be marginalized mocked or ignored. As a general matter, I don't think highly of Muslims. But I will tell you this, they say what they mean and they mean what they say. Violence is like a bodily function demanded from god to those people. The left knows that poking a gay stick in the Muslim communities eye will result in a seismic and probably bloody backlash.
Maybe not Jim Crow- turning the fire hoses on-- but certainly some honor killings, kidnappings, beheadings, vicious assaults etc. You think the queer agenda has the chops to buck up to that sort of resistance? I think not. In all likelihood, they would run for the hills and have those evil homophobic Christians fight the battle for them.
Dude, you obviously haven't seen two fags wearing the same outfit on Friday night bump into each other.
-
Good points. It is crazy how some liberals can be anti-Christian and pro-Muslim, especially those concerned about homosexual rights.
Baffling, yes. Conflicting ideals, but not offending "the other" ultimately trumps true liberalism.
-
Good summary of the issues. He also makes a good point about how other elected officials refused to enforce the law on this same subject.
Kim Davis, ‘Lawless’ in Kentucky
Rowan County, Ky., clerk Kim Davis (Ty Wright/Getty)
by John C. Eastman
September 8, 2015
When the Supreme Court oversteps its bounds, citizens are right to resist. Until her release earlier today, Kim Davis, the clerk of rural Rowan County, Kentucky, was confined to a jail cell because she refused to issue marriage licenses over her name to same-sex couples. She has been pilloried in the media for “lawlessness” and compared not to Martin Luther King Jr. for her civil disobedience but to Governor George Wallace of Alabama. Michael Keegen of the grossly misnamed People for the American Way called her actions an “abuse of power” and proposed instead that she should “find another line of work” — that is, resign her elected office — if she “can’t in good conscience fulfill [her] duties.”
The double standard on display is palpable. I don’t recall Keegen or any of the other self-righteous, newfound devotees of the rule of law calling for the resignation of Kentucky’s attorney general when he refused to defend his state’s marriage law — or any of the other state attorneys general who did the same, from California’s Jerry Brown to Pennsylvania’s Kathleen Kane, and several others, including perhaps most notoriously Oregon’s Ellen Rosenblum, who was caught actively colluding with plaintiffs to ensure judicial invalidation of the Oregon marriage law she disliked.
“But Davis was refusing to comply with a decision of the Supreme Court,” it will be argued. So, too, did all those illustrious attorneys general. All of them refused to do their duty and defend their state’s man-woman marriage laws, even though the binding precedent of the Supreme Court at that time, a 1972 case called Baker v. Nelson, was that such laws were constitutionally valid.
Ms. Davis’s position has also been mischaracterized as asserting that because the Supreme Court’s decision is contrary to God’s authority, she cannot be compelled to comply with it and therefore can prevent same-sex couples from getting married in her county. Her position — so described — has been belittled by simpletons across the political spectrum as nothing more than the misguided stance of a crazy evangelical clinging to her Bible. But that is not her legal argument at all (however much merit it might have as a reaction to an illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court). Her actual argument is much more restrained.
Kentucky has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which expressly prevents the government from imposing a substantial burden on someone’s religious beliefs unless the government’s mandate is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Because this lawsuit is pending in federal court, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which contains the same protection, is also applicable. Ms. Davis’s lawyers have simply argued that these federal and state laws require that her religious objection to issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses over her own name be accommodated.
There is no compelling interest here. Even assuming the validity of the Supreme Court’s decision holding that right to same-sex “marriage” is a fundamental right, no one is being denied the right to marry. As a matter of Kentucky law, the couples seeking to compel Ms. Davis herself to issue them a marriage license can obtain a marriage license from any other county in Kentucky. They can also get one from the county executive of Rowan County. And if the governor would simply call the legislature into special session to deal with the problem that has arisen since the Supreme Court’s decision in June, it would likely even be possible for other clerks in Ms. Davis’s office to issue a marriage license without its being issued on Ms. Davis’s authority (the legislature could simply remove the problematic “under [her] authority” language from the statewide uniform form), or for marriage licenses to be obtained via a statewide online system.
But none of those options would accomplish what the same-sex couple and its chorus of advocates are really after, which is not the “marriage” but forcing Ms. Davis and everyone like her to bow to the new, unholy orthodoxy. In other words, this controversy has all the hallmarks of the one that engulfed Thomas More, who silently acquiesced in but would not condone King Henry VIII’s illicit marriage.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, both the federal law and Kentucky’s version of it, required that Ms. Davis’s religious objection be accommodated as a matter of law. The federal court’s refusal to respect those laws is where the real lawlessness lies in this case. And of course, that lawlessness is quite apart from the not insignificant question of whether the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision is itself lawless. Such claims did not originate with Ms. Davis, but with the four Supreme Court Justices who stridently dissented from Justice Kennedy’s diktat, calling it “illegitima[te],” “indefensible,” “dangerous for the rule of law,” “demeaning to the democratic process,” “a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power,” “pretentious,” “egotistic,” a “judicial Putsch,” “deeply misguided,” a “usurp[ation of] the constitutional right of the people,” a “perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation,” and an “extravagant conception of judicial supremacy.” The federal court’s refusal to respect religious-freedom laws is where the real lawlessness lies in this case.
That latter point is important to put to rest the other charge that has been leveled against Ms. Davis, namely, that she is violating her oath of office by not upholding the law she swore to uphold. The Constitution requires that all officials, both federal and state, take an oath to “support this Constitution,” and the Constitution itself provides that “this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Neither the oath clause nor the supremacy clause requires fealty to an erroneous decision of the Supreme Court that is contrary to the Constitution itself. That is not constitutionalism, or the rule of law, but the rule of judges; a claim that although the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is, even if what they say is a patently erroneous interpretation of the Constitution.
Reacting to a similar piece of judicial tyranny in the Dred Scott case, Abraham Lincoln famously said, in his first inaugural address, that although judicial decisions are binding on the specific parties to a case, “the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
In short, Ms. Davis was much more faithful to her oath of office, and to the Constitution she vowed to support, than the federal judge who jailed her for contempt, the attorney general of the state who refused to defend Kentucky’s laws, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who usurped the authority of the states and the more than 50 million voters who had recently reaffirmed the natural definition of marriage, in order to impose his own more “enlightened” views on the nation. One can only hope that Ms. Davis’s simple but determined act of civil disobedience will yet ignite the kind of reaction in the American people that is necessary to oppose such lawlessness, or at the very least bring forth a national leader who will take up the argument against judicial supremacy in truly Lincolnian fashion.
— John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, and former dean, at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law. He is also the founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423709/kim-davis-constitutional
-
She folded. God is so disappointed in her.
http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-jailed-over-gay-marriage-return-085806509.html#
Clerk Kim Davis returned to work Monday for the first time since being jailed for disobeying a federal judge and said she was faced with a "seemingly impossible choice" between following her conscience and losing her freedom over denying marriage licenses to gay couples.
Related Stories
With her voice shaking, she said she decided not to interfere with deputy clerks who will continue to hand out the marriage licenses in Rowan County, but Davis declared they would not be authorized by her and she questioned their validity.
In her first day back after a five-day stint in jail, Davis said she was torn between obeying God and a directive from the judge that "forces me to disobey God." Davis, an Apostolic Christian, believes gay marriage is a sin.
-
Ky. Clerk Will Issue, Not Authorize, Marriage Licenses
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=30b16804-7d80-4ea5-b42b-36aa8d431ebf&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Ky. Clerk Will Issue, Not Authorize, Marriage Licenses (Getty Images)
Monday, 14 Sep 2015
The county clerk from Kentucky who was jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples said Monday she will not authorize the licenses now that she has returned to work, but she will not block her deputies from issuing them.
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, 49, who has said her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian prevent her from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has been under the threat of returning to jail if she interfered in the issuance of licenses.
Davis said she doubted the validity of the licenses that are set to be issued, which she said would state that they are being issued under U.S. District Judge David Bunning's order.
Davis, who returned to work on Monday, told a news conference any marriage licenses issued would not carry her name, title or her personal authorization. She added she would take no action against deputy clerks who issue licenses, although she does not believe they have the authority to do so.
"I'm here before you this morning with a seemingly impossible choice that I do not wish on any of my fellow Americans: my conscience or my freedom," Davis said.
A pack of reporters crowded into the clerk's office on Monday morning, where there were no applicants for marriage licences. Davis' supporters rallied outside, saying gay marriage is a sin.
The issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky and other states has become the latest focal point in the long-running debate over gay marriage, which became legal nationwide following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June.
Her supporters see her as being persecuted for her religious beliefs while her opponents say she is abdicating her duties as a public servant by trying to ban gay marriage which is now the law of the land.
Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Davis announced an office policy that no marriage licenses would be issued. Gay couples who were denied licenses challenged her policy.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis jailed for contempt on Sept. 3 for refusing to comply with his order to issue licenses in line with the Supreme Court ruling. He ordered her released five days later when the licenses were being issued by deputy clerks.
In his release order, Bunning warned Davis there would be consequences if she interfered with the issuance of marriage licenses, directly or indirectly, when she returned to work.
Davis left the jail last Tuesday to a roaring crowd of supporters, who launched rallies after her release demanding the firing of deputy clerks who provide marriage licenses without her permission.
On Friday, Davis asked the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to allow her to continue banning marriage licenses for her entire office until a lawsuit against her is decided. Her attorneys argued that Bunning's initial order had only covered couples who were suing her.
Liberty Counsel spokeswoman Charla Bansley said on Monday they would continue to pursue appeals for Davis.
Davis has asked Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat, state lawmakers and Bunning to accommodate her beliefs.
"I don't want to have this conflict. I don't want to be in the spotlight, and I certainly don't want to be a whipping post," said Davis, also a Democrat.
The Rowan County Rights Coalition has no objection to licenses being issued as Davis described, spokeswoman Mary Hargis said. Davis violated the civil rights of same-sex couples when she chose not to issue marriage licenses, she added.
"She has an excuse as a religious conviction, but when did religious conviction and religious freedom become a shield for bigotry?" Hargis said.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Kentucky-Clerk-Kim-Davis-marriage-licenses/2015/09/14/id/691397/#ixzz3ljWTf6ai
-
LOL @ Santorum
The supreme court/constitution is NOT the law of the land if it interferes with your beliefs in any way.
-
LOL @ Santorum
The supreme court/constitution is NOT the law of the land if it interferes with your beliefs in any way.
Sounds like an argument for theocracy.
-
She folded. God is so disappointed in her.
Well, jail fucking sucks.
I don't blame her. She's on the wrong side of history anyway.
-
Well, jail fucking sucks.
I don't blame her. She's on the wrong side of history anyway.
Reason, too.
-
Ky. Clerk Will Issue, Not Authorize, Marriage Licenses
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/63225997.jpg)
-
Ky. Clerk Will Issue, Not Authorize, Marriage Licenses
So chose employment over heaven. So she is going to hell now.
-
So chose employment over heaven. So she is going to hell now.
she makes 80.000 a year with all the overtime she gives herself.
it's a completely cake job and she's not even up for re-elction until 2019, I believe.
the office is terrible - her son and daughter in law all banking crazy overtime, while she tells the county she doesn't have enough hours. She could have 2-3 more employees if she stops the OT.
She was in an ideal situation. I bet those budget makers are looking at her hard now.
-
she makes 80.000 a year with all the overtime she gives herself.
"Davis actually earns $79,796.68 annually, according to the Kentucky Department for Local Government."
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29993556/why-kim-davis-makes-80000-a-year-as-rowan-county-clerk
-
"Davis actually earns $79,796.68 annually, according to the Kentucky Department for Local Government."
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29993556/why-kim-davis-makes-80000-a-year-as-rowan-county-clerk
her mother was the previous county clerk. she hired 2 family members. All enjoying OT in an office whining they can't cover workload without more employees.
In 2011, county residents complained about Davis' compensation, an annual wage of $51,812 and an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation during 2011.[13] Davis earned substantially more than the county's other chief deputies, including $38,000 for the Chief Deputy Sheriff Joe Cline and $36,000 to the Deputy Judge-Executive Jerry Alderman, neither of whom receive overtime pay.[13] The County Fiscal Court reviewed the compensation of clerks in the office and voted unanimously to cut the department's salary budget by one-third for 2012.
-
her mother was the previous county clerk. she hired 2 family members. All enjoying OT in an office whining they can't cover workload without more employees.
In 2011, county residents complained about Davis' compensation, an annual wage of $51,812 and an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation during 2011.[13] Davis earned substantially more than the county's other chief deputies, including $38,000 for the Chief Deputy Sheriff Joe Cline and $36,000 to the Deputy Judge-Executive Jerry Alderman, neither of whom receive overtime pay.[13] The County Fiscal Court reviewed the compensation of clerks in the office and voted unanimously to cut the department's salary budget by one-third for 2012.
Where is the support for this statement?
she makes 80.000 a year with all the overtime she gives herself.
Or did you just make that up?
-
Where is the support for this statement?
Or did you just make that up?
she and her grifter ilk have been bilking taxpayers for overtime.
Big surprise that the man who still believes hermann cain never cheated, would stick by Palin Lite in this case.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim-davis-was-overpaid-as-a-deputy-clerk-barely-won-a-primary-election-and-then-hired-her-21-year-old-son/
-
she and her grifter ilk have been bilking taxpayers for overtime.
Big surprise that the man who still believes hermann cain never cheated, would stick by Palin Lite in this case.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim-davis-was-overpaid-as-a-deputy-clerk-barely-won-a-primary-election-and-then-hired-her-21-year-old-son/
Oh brother. From your link: "Davis, who draws an $80,000 salary as county clerk"
I should have just skipped to calling you the lying liar that you have repeatedly proved to be, instead of giving you the benefit of the doubt. Tell the truth for a change.
-
Where is the support for this statement?
Or did you just make that up?
The difference is $203 and some change. Rounding it up to 80K isn't that much of a stretch.
Unless you have no other point to make.
-
The difference is $203 and some change. Rounding it up to 80K isn't that much of a stretch.
Unless you have no other point to make.
No, $203 is not the point. He claimed her $80k salary was inflated by overtime. According to what I read, including from his own links, her base pay is $80k.
-
Christian county clerk jailed for five days after refusing to approve gay marriages is now accused of tampering with paperwork to make new licenses invalid
Kim Davis, clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, was jailed earlier this month
Had refused to issue gay marriage licences because of Christian beliefs
Was released after five days and told she wouldn't have to issue licenses
But conditions mean she also couldn't interfere with others issuing them
However, staff say she has changed licence forms, making them invalid
The Christian county clerk imprisoned for five days for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses is now accused of trying to alter new licenses, making them invalid.
Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan county, Kentucky, was jailed earlier this month after she said 'God's authority' prevented her from granting marriages to same sex couples.
Davis, who has been married four times herself, was released after agreeing that she wouldn't have to issue the licenses herself, but was told she could also not interfere with others giving them out.
However, Davis's employees say she has now tampered with the paperwork issued to gay couples, potentially making their marriage licenses invalid.
As part of the conditions of her release Davis was allowed to alter documents to remove her name, after protesting that including it on the licenses would violate her Apostolic Christian beliefs.
At the time, lawyers were concerned that removing the name of the county clerk might call the validity of the licenses into question, but were happy with a compromise that allowed the licenses to be signed to the federal court.
However, lawyers assigned to each of Davis's staff after she was freed say she confiscated the original forms, and has since reissued new forms with changes that go beyond what was agreed.
Deputy clerk Brian Mason, who issued the marriage licenses while Davis was in jail, says the new papers he has been given do not have her name, the name of the county or any references to the deputy clerks on them.
He said he is being forced to sign the licenses as a 'notary public', rather than as a deputy clerk, and that there is a space for him to sign his initials, but not his signature.
Richard Hughes, lawyer for Mr Mason, said: 'Mr. Mason is concerned because he is in a difficult position.
'He continues to issue the licenses per the court's order ... which had some remote questionable validity, but now with these changes may in fact have some substantial questions about validity
'It also appears to this counsel those changes were made in some attempt to circumvent the court's orders and may have raised to the level of interference against the court's orders.'
Lawyers for David Moore and David Ermold, the gay couple who were initially denied a marriage licence by Davis, asked for a class action lawsuit to be filed.
They said: 'These alterations call into question the validity of the marriage licenses issued, create an unconstitutional two tier system of marriage licenses issued in Kentucky, and do not comply with this Court's September 3 Order prohibiting Davis from interfering with the issuance of marriage licenses.'
Davis, for her part, has argued that any license issued without her name on it is invalid.
By Kentucky state law, licenses must be issued by the county clerk, before a minister or other officiant then performs the ceremony and signs the license.
Despite Davis's name being taken off of the papers, Kentucky's Democratic governor and attorney general have both said the licenses are valid and will be recognized by the state.
David Bunning, the federal judge, refused to give judgement on whether the licenses are valid, adding that it is up to gay couples to take that chance.
Mr Mason is the only person in Davis's office who has said he is happy to issue the licenses, and agreed with his coworkers to give them out 'to ease the tension of the situation'.
It is unclear exactly what would happen if Mr Mason were absent from work, though Hughes said the other staff would be required to issue the paperwork.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240804/Christian-county-clerk-jailed-five-days-refusing-approve-gay-marriages-accused-tampering-paperwork-make-new-licences-invalid.html
-
I hope they throw this hypocritical fundie twat back in jail
If she had any dignity and honor she would just resign
For some reason this dumb kunt seems to think she is "the office" of county recorder rather than the person holding the office
"the office" doesn't have a religious belief
-
I wonder if those supporting her would be okay with muslim govt workers secretly changing govt documents to fit their religious beliefs?
-
I hope they throw this hypocritical fundie twat back in jail
If she had any dignity and honor she would just resign
For some reason this dumb kunt seems to think she is "the office" of county recorder rather than than the person holding the office
"the office" doesn't have a religious belief
Yes.
-
Fucking A, this shit is still going on?
-
HAHAHAHA now you know where the term "Kentucky Puppies" comes from.
-
Sep 21, 2015 10:35 PM EDT - 2 Women say Kim Davis took her name and the county off their marriage
license.
(This is a test case of authority to set precedence IMO to further the erosion of church/state boundaries. I see this as a BFD, as do many.)
http://www.wdrb.com/story/30083350/2-women-say-kim-davis-took-her-name-and-the-county-off-their-marriage-license
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- Kim Davis might be finding herself in legal trouble again. Two of the plaintiffs in her case are asking her to be held in contempt.
They say it's because Davis allowed a marriage license issued to a same-sex couple to be altered, by removing her name and the name of the county.
The women say it is not clear whether altered licenses are legal.
Their motion asks a federal judge to put the clerk's office in receivership, to ensure licenses are issued properly.
-
This hag is still at it. Good lord. Literally. She claims she is "good at her job". ::)
Perfect example of why church and state must be kept separate.
Kentucky clerk Davis rejects marriage licenses as invalid: ABC
Reuters -
The county clerk from Kentucky who went to jail rather than issue marriage licenses to gay couples said the licenses being granted by her staff are invalid, according to an interview that aired on Tuesday.
"I can't put my name on a license that doesn't represent what God ordained what marriage to be," Davis said in a television interview with ABC News, taped on Monday.
"They're not valid in God's eyes, for one," she said of licenses her staff has begun issuing. "I have given no authority to write a marriage license. They did not have my permission, they did not have my authorization."
Davis, 50, has said her Christian beliefs prevent her from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She was released on the condition that she not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses.
Davis added that she was prepared to return to jail over the controversy, according to ABC.
She returned to work on Sept. 14 after a five-day stint in jail for refusing to issue any marriage licenses following a Supreme Court ruling in June that made gay marriage legal across the United States.
On Monday, lawyers for couples suing Davis said that she made material changes to the forms since returning to work and is not in compliance with a federal court order.
Issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky and other U.S. states has become the latest flash point in the nation's long-running debate over gay marriage.
In the wide-ranging interview from Morehead, Kentucky, Davis said she should keep her post, saying: "I'm good at my job."
"My constituents elected me, but the main authority that rules my life is the Lord," Davis told ABC, speaking alongside one of her lawyers.
She defended her actions and rejected criticism that she is a hypocrite and a homophobe for her actions and for citing her religious beliefs to deny marriages even as she has been married four times and had some children out of wedlock.
"I'm forgiven. Washed clean," she said.
Mat Staver, an attorney for Davis, has said she has made a good faith effort to comply with U.S. District Judge David Bunning's order.
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, in a federal court filing on Monday, said Bunning should order the licenses to be issued under the previous format and reissue those given under the altered one.
Despite Davis' comments, their legality of the marriage licenses issued without her consent has not been challenged in court.
(Reporting and writing by Susan Heavey in Washington; Additional reporting by Steve Bittenbender in Louisville, Kentucky; Editing by Eric Walsh)
-
This hag is still at it. Good lord. Literally. She claims she is "good at her job". ::)
Perfect example of why church and state must be kept separate.
Kentucky clerk Davis rejects marriage licenses as invalid: ABC
Reuters -
The county clerk from Kentucky who went to jail rather than issue marriage licenses to gay couples said the licenses being granted by her staff are invalid, according to an interview that aired on Tuesday.
"I can't put my name on a license that doesn't represent what God ordained what marriage to be," Davis said in a television interview with ABC News, taped on Monday.
"They're not valid in God's eyes, for one," she said of licenses her staff has begun issuing. "I have given no authority to write a marriage license. They did not have my permission, they did not have my authorization."
Davis, 50, has said her Christian beliefs prevent her from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She was released on the condition that she not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses.
Davis added that she was prepared to return to jail over the controversy, according to ABC.
She returned to work on Sept. 14 after a five-day stint in jail for refusing to issue any marriage licenses following a Supreme Court ruling in June that made gay marriage legal across the United States.
On Monday, lawyers for couples suing Davis said that she made material changes to the forms since returning to work and is not in compliance with a federal court order.
Issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky and other U.S. states has become the latest flash point in the nation's long-running debate over gay marriage.
In the wide-ranging interview from Morehead, Kentucky, Davis said she should keep her post, saying: "I'm good at my job."
"My constituents elected me, but the main authority that rules my life is the Lord," Davis told ABC, speaking alongside one of her lawyers.
She defended her actions and rejected criticism that she is a hypocrite and a homophobe for her actions and for citing her religious beliefs to deny marriages even as she has been married four times and had some children out of wedlock.
"I'm forgiven. Washed clean," she said.
Mat Staver, an attorney for Davis, has said she has made a good faith effort to comply with U.S. District Judge David Bunning's order.
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, in a federal court filing on Monday, said Bunning should order the licenses to be issued under the previous format and reissue those given under the altered one.
Despite Davis' comments, their legality of the marriage licenses issued without her consent has not been challenged in court.
(Reporting and writing by Susan Heavey in Washington; Additional reporting by Steve Bittenbender in Louisville, Kentucky; Editing by Eric Walsh)
When I see pictures of this fat, adulterous, fundie hick the last thing that comes to mind it being "washed clean"
again, I see no reason why she can't issue the licenses and then ask Jeebus to forgive her
isn't that the entire fucking point of her zombie worshiping cult?.....that any evil shit man can do is "washed clean" by Jeebus.
Think of all the murders, child molestors and even alduterers (like Kim Davis) that are partying non-stop with Jeebus in heaven right now.
-
huck probably encouraging her to go BACK to JAIL so he can get another nationwide media cycle on that stage.
just like the heroes of the right previously, such as zimmerman, it just gets harder and harder to defend them, when they push it further and further.
-
Is there a limit on how many times you can be forgiven? Is it a daily limit or a weekly? Monthly or set number?
-
Is there a limit on how many times you can be forgiven? Is it a daily limit or a weekly? Monthly or set number?
Nope.
-
ACLU wants Kim Davis' 'scalp to hang on the wall'
By Todd Starnes
Published September 22, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/09/22/kim-davis-called-me-hitler/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1442939706679.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis makes a statement to the media at the front door of the Rowan County Judicial Center in Morehead, Ky., Monday, Sept. 14, 2015. Davis announced that her office will issue marriage licenses under order of a federal judge, but they will not have her name or office listed. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)
Federal prisoner Kim Davis walked into the Kentucky jail cell
wearing an orange jumpsuit and holding a Bible.
“When I went back into that holding cell I hit my knees and just
prayed, just cried out for God to give me some peace and assurance that all was
going to be well – and I prayed and I sang,” she told me in her first digital
interview.
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch –a Must-Read for
Conservatives
It was September 3 – the day Mrs. Davis became the first Christian
jailed as a result of the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage.
Federal Judge David Bunning ordered her jailed for contempt of
court after she defied a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to gay
couples. He denied her request to accommodate her religious beliefs by simply
removing her name from the marriage form.
“That’s all I ever asked for,” she said. “I didn’t ask for them to
jump over the moon and give me the stars and pull the sun down for me. I asked
a very simple and doable accommodation.”
Mrs. Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, was released five days
later after she agreed that she would not interfere with deputies who were
issuing licenses to gay couples.
Bunning said he was “satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s
Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally
eligible couples.”
However, the American Civil Liberties Union representing four
Kentucky couples contends that Mrs. Davis has altered marriage licenses -- making
them possibly invalid. And they want her held in contempt – again.
The validity of the licenses is “questionable at best,” ACLU
attorneys told the Washington Post. “What’s more, the adulterated marriage
licenses received by Rowan County couples will effectively feature a stamp of
animus against the LGBT community, signaling that, in Rowan County, the
government’s position is that LGBT couples are second-class citizens unworthy
of official recognition and authorization of their marriage license but for
this Court’s intervention and order.”
Mat Staver, of the Liberty Counsel law firm, is Mrs. Davis’
attorney. He said the ACLU’s allegations have no merit.
“They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy,” he said.
Mrs. Davis is a follower of the Apostolic Christian faith and a
devoutly religious woman. She is uncomfortable in the public spotlight.
“I’ve been called Hitler, a homophobe, a hypocrite -- words I
didn’t even use when I was in the world -- words that are very vile and nasty,”
she said. “I’ve been called pretty much anything that you can think in your
mind.”
But the words did not hurt.
“It’s a righteous thing to defend the Word of God and I am so much
of a nothing -- to be used of God is just an honor and a privilege,” she said.
“I count it all joy.”
Our half-hour conversation was sprinkled with references to Bible
passages and worship songs. She frequently became emotional when talking about
her relationship with God.
She spent most of her time in jail reading her Bible and writing
notes and singing songs like, “What a Mighty God we serve.”
She especially took comfort in a passage of Scripture from the New
Testament.
“God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love
and of a sound mind,” she said, quoting Second Timothy 1:7.
But it was the following verse that gave her courage.
“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of
me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according
to the power of God…”
“I walked and prayed and sang praises in the jail cell and just
really drew comfort from God’s word when I was there,” she told me.
Staver said he marveled at his client’s composure during their
first meeting inside the jailhouse.
“We hugged and shed a few tears and the first words out of her
mouth were, ‘All is well,’” Staver told me. “I went in there to encourage her, but
we went away being encouraged ourselves by her.”
She was at complete peace, Staver said.
“I think it’s hard for people to understand that, but there was a
definite peace,” he said.
Mrs. Davis told me it was worth every day behind bars.
“The Lord died and suffered so terribly for us and I counted such
a privilege and an honor and a joy that I would have to sit a mere five days in
jail to uphold His word,” she said. “For me, it’s worth it.”
Life is slowly returning to normal for Mrs. Davis. She’s back at
work at the clerk’s office – in early, out late. She dotes on her children and
grandson. And she finds time to read her Bible atop a hill on the family’s
property.
And in spite of the media firestorm, this nationally known
defender of religious liberty even found time to celebrate her birthday.
Mrs. Davis turned 50 on Sept. 17 – which just happens to be
Constitution Day.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/22/kim-davis-called-me-hitler.html?intcmp=hpbt4
-
typical repub move... play the victim.
if she doesn't like what the job requires, QUIT, write a book, do TV shows and get rich.
But to keep a job you morally detest? Shameful.
-
Is there a limit on how many times you can be forgiven? Is it a daily limit or a weekly? Monthly or set number?
That's the cool part: unlimited forgiveness by proxy.
(And you can probably even fake the remorse thing, really.)
-
I said on page 1 of this thread
each time she has to issue a license to a gay couple just do it and then ask Jeebus to forgive you
problem solved
Hey fundies, I think I see a solution here.
Doesn't Jesus forgive your sins.
Issue the license and then ask to be forgiven.
Bingo Bango you're on your way back to heaven.
-
That's the cool part: unlimited forgiveness by proxy.
(And you can probably even fake the remorse thing, really.)
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
so clearly her religious beliefs provide a solution for her but instead she decides to make this big national fuss and then pretend she is some kind of religiously persecuted victim
this woman gets more disgusting every day
-
so clearly her religious beliefs provide a solution for her but instead she decides to make this big national fuss and then pretend she is some kind of religiously persecuted victim
this woman gets more disgusting every day
Jail or Hell. That is her only two choices. Seeing how she refuses to step down and save her soul.
-
This cow says what hurts the most is when people say that God doesn't love her.
You know... just like Christians tell gay people all the time.
-
I can't wait until some pacifist muslim employee at the Pentagon decides to try shredding important documents, or sending intel to our enemies because their religion tells them to.
I hope 1) we can them before they put our nation at risk, and 2) Huck is just as vocal for their rights as for hers.
-
Jail or Hell. That is her only two choices. Seeing how she refuses to step down and save her soul.
Funny how she didn't give two shits about Jesus or going to hell when she wanted to commit adultery
and of course I'm sure she asked Jeebus to forgive her for that and I'm sure she believes she's been "washed clean" of that deadly sin so I'm having a hard time understanding why she can't do the same for this perceived sin which her job requires.
I'm sure there are thousands of christian soldiers who have killed people in combat. Heck there are christians who have just flat out murdered people and I'm sure they belive that sin has been forgiven too.
-
I can't wait until some pacifist muslim employee at the Pentagon decides to try shredding important documents, or sending intel to our enemies because their religion tells them to.
I hope 1) we can them before they put our nation at risk, and 2) Huck is just as vocal for their rights as for hers.
In fairness to Christians, though, do you really think the queer intitials people would focus on a Muslim license clerk or whatever in the same position? Or a Muslim owned bakery refusing a gay marriage cake?
Let's be honest here.
-
Her first marriage ended in divorce; she has two daughters by Dwain Wallace - but then conceived twins with lover Thomas McIntyre
Their relationship turned stormy - he 'called her a w****' - and she obtained a restraining order because of 'violence' then married Joe Davis
But that ended in divorce and she returned to her 'violent' lover and married him - before divorcing him after a year and going back to Joe
Two of her weddings have been Godless, with number three conducted by 'universal life church' minister and number four by a judge
From
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3228324/Anti-gay-marriage-court-clerk-Kim-Davis-conceived-twins-adulterous-affair-lover-married-Godless-wedding-got-restraining-order-claiming-violent-man-called-w.html
-
In fairness to Christians, though, do you really think the queer intitials people would focus on a Muslim license clerk or whatever in the same position? Or a Muslim owned bakery refusing a gay marriage cake?
Let's be honest here.
Heck no.
-
Her first marriage ended in divorce; she has two daughters by Dwain Wallace - but then conceived twins with lover Thomas McIntyre
Their relationship turned stormy - he 'called her a w****' - and she obtained a restraining order because of 'violence' then married Joe Davis
But that ended in divorce and she returned to her 'violent' lover and married him - before divorcing him after a year and going back to Joe
Two of her weddings have been Godless, with number three conducted by 'universal life church' minister and number four by a judge
From
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3228324/Anti-gay-marriage-court-clerk-Kim-Davis-conceived-twins-adulterous-affair-lover-married-Godless-wedding-got-restraining-order-claiming-violent-man-called-w.html
What's the point here?
-
What's the point here?
I think the rest of us know. Some choose to live in denial.
-
I think the rest of us know. Some choose to live in denial.
::)
-
Heck no.
Of course not.
Where was LGBYZ here? Selective outrage for sure.
-
Of course not.
Where was LGBYZ here? Selective outrage for sure.
nothing selective here
this comedian who made this "hidden camera" video just needs to sue this baker (like the actual gay couples did) and then this particular denial might get some traction if it becomes an ongoing story over a couple of years
all kinds of people are no doubt denied civil rights in all aspects of life (employment, housing and freshly baked cakes) all the time in this country.
Just because some clown makes a video and posts it on the internet doesn't mean it's going to get the same attention as an actual gay couple who sued someone and it became a story that unfolded over a couple of years.
-
Of course not.
Where was LGBYZ here? Selective outrage for sure.
Thats an easy one.
The rules doesnt apply to muslims.
-
Of course not.
Where was LGBYZ here? Selective outrage for sure.
Definitely selective outrage. I've seen that clip before. The liberal/MSM fascination with ISLAM is very curious.
-
Definitely selective outrage. I've seen that clip before. The liberal/MSM fascination with ISLAM is very curious.
Thats an easy one.
The rules doesnt apply to muslims.
nonsense
this is a comedian making a video and posting it to youtube
it's not the same as an actual gay couple who sued and the court agreed that they were discriminated against
The involvement of the court was what made that other case a story
if this comedian (yes, just a comedian trying to get some publicity) wants the same response from the media then he just needs to sue this bakery and over the next two years he may get the same exposure
-
Fucking A, this shit is still going on?
-
Of course not.
Where was LGBYZ here? Selective outrage for sure.
This is true. I'm for free speech and expression for everyone. Even hate speech. Let these folks turn away gay people just as the Christians did. It's their business and if you don't like it, boycott. When bigots start going out of business, maybe they'll wake up.
-
This is true. I'm for free speech and expression for everyone. Even hate speech. Let these folks turn away gay people just as the Christians did. It's their business and if you don't like it, boycott. When bigots start going out of business, maybe they'll wake up.
the issue is that they are operating their business in the public domain and have to follow all the laws just like everyone else
this particular hidden camera video could have been a real story had the the "offended party" chose to sue but I suspect he wasn't actually offended at all and I guess his point is that he found a Muslim who is as bigoted and ignorant of the law as his fellow fundie conservatives
just making a video and throwing it up on yours website and then complaining no one is treating it "seriously" is just stupid and honestly typical of right wing activist (which is apparently what this guy is among other things)
-
Definitely selective outrage. I've seen that clip before. The liberal/MSM fascination with ISLAM is very curious.
youre right. FOX never touches the subject.
*gag*
-
the issue is that they are operating their business in the public domain and have to follow all the laws just like everyone else
this particular hidden camera video could have been a real story had the the "offended party" chose to sue but I suspect he wasn't actually offended at all and I guess his point is that he found a Muslim who is as bigoted and ignorant of the law as his fellow fundie conservatives
just making a video and throwing it up on yours website and then complaining no one is treating it "seriously" is just stupid and honestly typical of right wing activist (which is apparently what this guy is among other things)
Wait, you don't think this Kentucky inbred was specifically targeted by activists?
-
Even her attorney is a dumb ass apparently.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/09/29/3706790/liberty-counsel-kim-davis-retraction/
As if there would ever be 100,000 people at a Kim Davis prayer rally.
-
Wait, you don't think this Kentucky inbred was specifically targeted by activists?
targeted how?
Are you referring to gay couples who came from out of the area or out of state to get marriage licenses AFTER finding out that she was refusing to do her job
If so, I don't see any problem with that at all
She already chose to defy the law and a court order and make this all about herself so she made herself a target and all these people are asking her to do is her job so not exactly a huge demand on their part
Davis was given many different options and instead she chose to make herself the focus and brought this all on herself
-
targeted how?
Are you referring to gay couples who came from out of the area or out of state to get marriage licenses AFTER finding out that she was refusing to do her job
If so, I don't see any problem with that at all
She already chose to defy the law and a court order and make this all about herself so she made herself a target and all these people are asking her to do is her job so not exactly a huge demand on their part
Davis was given many different options and instead she chose to make herself the focus and brought this all on herself
Yeah, guess I don't either, not if the first couple was local. Wasn't sure.
-
repubs need heroes so badly.
a democrat with 4 marriages, history of infidelity, fat and lazy overpaid govt worker = 2 presidential candidates begging to praise her for blowing off the constitution when she feels like cherry picking what she likes from it.
pathetic.
-
Wait, you don't think this Kentucky inbred was specifically targeted by activists?
Remember, it wasn't just gay couples she refused to give licenses to. There was just as many straight couples that didn't receive theirs either. So really can't consider them activists.
-
Remember, it wasn't just gay couples she refused to give licenses to. There was just as many straight couples that didn't receive theirs either. So really can't consider them activists.
"what is it you say you actually do here?"
-
Remember, it wasn't just gay couples she refused to give licenses to. There was just as many straight couples that didn't receive theirs either. So really can't consider them activists.
Good point. I forgot about that
-
Remember, it wasn't just gay couples she refused to give licenses to. There was just as many straight couples that didn't receive theirs either. So really can't consider them activists.
Now I'm confused. If she's rejecting everyone, where does "against my faith" and whatnot come into play? This just sounds like shitty customer service.
-
is this for real?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-met-with-pope-francis-1.2372732 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-met-with-pope-francis-1.2372732)
Yes, she met with the Antichrist. ;D
-
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/02/pope-francis-throws-kim-davis-bigotry-bus.html
Uggghhh. Can't they just stop this from blowing up in their faces for just one week?
-
First the pray rally for Kim Davis photo was exposed as fake. Then the so called private meeting and conversation with the Pope has been exposed as fevered exaggeration and desperation.
http://reverbpress.com/discovery/spiritual/kim-davis-caught-lie-sex-couple-actually-got-secret-meeting/
Kim Davis should consider firing Liberty Counsel. They are making her look bad.
-
First the pray rally for Kim Davis photo was exposed as fake. Then the so called private meeting and conversation with the Pope has been exposed as fevered exaggeration and desperation.
http://reverbpress.com/discovery/spiritual/kim-davis-caught-lie-sex-couple-actually-got-secret-meeting/
Kim Davis should consider firing Liberty Counsel. They are making her look bad.
Liberty Counsel; must be the same group that supplied the 'information' at the PP hood hearing.
-
The kicker is that there is a photograph of the Pope meeting and speaking with a gay couple in private just a day before Kim Davis, errr... I mean Liberty Counsel claimed that the she had a private audience with the Pope.
-
Kim Davis officially caves, will no longer deny same-sex marriage licenses
Source: Examiner
For the better part of the last two months, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has been in and out of the news for her opposition to same-sex marriage in the state. After much push back from the legal system, Davis appears to be throwing in the towel.
Davis made headlines after denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples earlier this summer. After four couples filed a lawsuit against the Kentucky clerk, Judge David Bunning found Davis in contempt of court, and sentenced her to time in a county jail. When she was released five days later, Davis was greeted by hundreds of supporters, while vowing to continue to deny marriage licenses. As NBC News reported on Oct. 14, Davis' lawyer has made it clear that his client will no longer try to overturn licenses that have been given out in Rowan County.
In the time since she was sent to jail, the clerk's office had approved marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which Davis and her legal team attempted to have voided in court. Once she returned to work, Davis had been accused of altering marriage forms by removing her name and the county name from the official paperwork. Now after presenting court filings on Tuesday, Davis' lawyers has acknowledged that the licenses are legal and will no longer be challenged.
"Marriage licenses are being issued in Rowan County, which (Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear) and Kentucky attorney general have approved as valid, which are recognized by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and which are deemed acceptable by the couples who received them," Davis' legal team wrote. "The Kentucky governor and Kentucky attorney general both inspected the new licenses and publicly stated that they were valid and will be recognized as valid by the Commonwealth of Kentucky."
Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/kim-davis-officially-caves-will-guy-deny-same-sex-marriage-licenses
-
Apparently her -hahahah- legal counsel has thrown in the towel as well and declared all licenses are indeed valid whether or not it has her signature on them.
-
Apparently her -hahahah- legal counsel has thrown in the towel as well and declared all licenses are indeed valid whether or not it has her signature on them.
Where's 333386 with his "VINDICATED" posts?
I miss that dude!
-
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin Removes Names Of Clerks From Marriage Licenses
12/22/2015
Associated Press
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky Republican Gov. Matt Bevin has ordered the state to prepare new marriage licenses that do not include the names of county clerks in an attempt to protect the religious beliefs of Kim Davis and other local elected officials.
In a news release Tuesday, Bevin said he has issued an executive order directing the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives to issue the revised marriage license forms to all county clerks. The order comes after Davis, the Rowan County clerk, spent five days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-gay-marriage_5679b858e4b06fa6887f15b7
-
It's unclear to me how this protects anyone's religious freedom, but hey...
I look forward to campaigning for and being elected to a menial position in the county where I reside, before asserting that performing the functions of that office violates my religious beliefs.
-
Or you can run around the country filing lawsuits whenever you see any kind of religious symbol on public property, claiming you have suffered emotional distress.
-
Or you can run around the country filing lawsuits whenever you see any kind of religious symbol on public property, claiming you have suffered emotional distress.
Except that doesn't bother me very much. And also, it's tiring. It's big ass country!
-
Except that doesn't bother me very much. And also, it's tiring. It's big ass country!
Doesn't stop atheists from doing it. It's like a full-time job. Baby Jesus and "Merry Christmas" causing emotional distress all over the country.
Baby Jesus, "Merry Christmas" banner removed from VA hospital
By Todd Starnes
Published December 21, 2015
FoxNews.com
A manger and a banner reading “Merry Christmas” were removed from a public area of a VA hospital in Texas after someone complained about “overly religious and offensive” decorations.
“They ruined our decorations,” Vietnam veteran Ethel Holloway told television station KENS. “They threw them out.”
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch – a must-read for conservatives!
Holloway said she had been putting up decorations at the Audi Murphy VA Hospital for 33 years – without any problems. This year, her yuletide banner turned out to be problematic.
“They literally took pieces from the middle of a whole train set, because the middle said ‘Merry Christmas,’” helper Grace Martinez told the television station.
The South Texas Veterans Health Care System admits they removed not only Holloway’s “Merry Christmas” banner, but also a manger along with a “specific scripture decoration.”
“During the removal of a manger and specific scripture decoration, a Merry Christmas decoration was accidentally removed and damaged,” read a statement from the VA to Fox News. “The remaining decorations were removed by the decoration donor and her representatives.”
The VA hospital said they have offered to reimburse her for the damaged decorations.
“We acknowledge that the corrective action should have been to display the faith-specific holiday decoration along with multiple religious faith symbols,” the statement read. “We are currently ensuring that our staff are educated and aware of the national policy and how it relates to decorations throughout the facility.”
So the VA destroys a brave veteran’s Christmas decorations – and their response is “oops – our bad”?
“The faith specific symbols were displayed in a public area without other specific religious symbols being included,” their statement read.
I’d like to know what happened to the manger scene and the other “overly religious and offensive” decorations.
Were they returned to donors? Were they stored in a closet? Were they tossed to the curb?
The VA hospital told me they have no idea what became of Joseph, Mary and the Baby Jesus. There was no room for them in the inn or apparently the Audie Murphy VA Hospital.
It’s not the first time the VA has tried to cleanse its hospitals of Christmas cheer.
A VA hospital in Salem, Virginia banned Christmas greetings, “religious” carols, and Christmas trees from all public areas earlier this year.
After hospital employees staged a revolt, the VA relented and agreed to allow Christmas trees – provided the trees were accompanied by symbols of Kwanzaa and Hanukkah.
However, hospital employees are still prohibited from wishing veterans a “Merry Christmas” or playing “religious” Christmas music – even in their personal work space, according to The Becket Fund.
“I like ‘Jingle Bells’ as much as the next person, but the government can’t ban ‘religious’ Christmas carols any more than it can ban ugly sweaters or egg nog,” said Kristina Arriaga, executive director of The Becket Fund.
The Becket Fund, a religious liberty advocacy group, recently awarded the Sale VA hospital its “Ebenezer Award” “for the most ridiculous affront to the Christmas and Hanukkah seasons.”
“Our veterans stare down the most hostile threats to freedom the world has ever known,” Arriaga said in a statement. “But I’m pretty sure the words ‘Merry Christmas’ are not one of them.”
Amen, ma’am.
I reached out to the VA hospital one last time to find out what was so “overly offensive” about the manger scene. I’m still waiting on a reply.
But I suspect it had something to do with a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/21/baby-jesus-merry-christmas-banner-removed-from-va-hospital.html
-
"I reached out to the VA hospital one last time to find out what was so “overly offensive” about the manger scene. I’m still waiting on a reply"
I think the answer is in his own article. It's not that it was offensive, that is a red herring, it is that there were no other religions represented in the government facility. They admitted their error in not including other religious trappings rather than removing those.
-
"I reached out to the VA hospital one last time to find out what was so “overly offensive” about the manger scene. I’m still waiting on a reply"
I think the answer is in his own article. It's not that it was offensive, that is a red herring, it is that there were no other religions represented in the government facility. They admitted their error in not including other religious trappings rather than removing those.
It's not a red herring. That's exactly what the person complained about:
A manger and a banner reading “Merry Christmas” were removed from a public area of a VA hospital in Texas after someone complained about “overly religious and offensive” decorations.
-
I stand corrected. That it was not inclusive of all the religions possibly represented in the hospital should have been the reason. Offensive.. only to the extent it excluded others..
-
Doesn't stop atheists from doing it. It's like a full-time job. Baby Jesus and "Merry Christmas" causing emotional distress all over the country.
And that's relevant to me because... why?
It's not a red herring. That's exactly what the person complained about:
A manger and a banner reading “Merry Christmas” were removed from a public area of a VA hospital in Texas after someone complained about “overly religious and offensive” decorations.
I consider the removal silly, but just because someone complained that it's "overly religious and offensive" doesn't mean that it was actually removed for being offensive.
You may also want to consider that there are a number of people who believe there's a "War on Christmas" so fervently that they feel obligated to wage the War themselves. I know one such Christian who actually calls to complain about such displays in an effort to prove a point that the War on Christmas is real when whoever she complains to tries to accomodate her bogus complaint. Not saying that's the case here, but this is a thing.
-
I stand corrected. That it was not inclusive of all the religions possibly represented in the hospital should have been the reason. Offensive.. only to the extent it excluded others..
No worries.
-
The hospital released an initial statement saying it had received a number of complaints about Ms. Holloway’s decorations being “overly religious and offensive.”
“Veterans entered the military to protect our freedoms, including the freedom to practice a religion of our choice,” the hospital said. “At VA, it is our duty to uphold and respect the honor and sacrifice of all Veterans, from all faiths and backgrounds.”
The South Texas Veterans Health Care System later told Fox News that officials meant to remove only the Nativity scene and that part of the train was damaged in the process.
“During the removal of a manger and specific scripture decoration, a Merry Christmas decoration was accidentally removed and damaged,” the VA said in a statement. “The remaining decorations were removed by the decoration donor and her representatives.”
The VA hospital said it has offered to reimburse Ms. Holloway for the damaged decorations, Fox News reported.
“We acknowledge that the corrective action should have been to display the faith-specific holiday decoration along with multiple religious faith symbols,” the statement read. “We are currently ensuring that our staff are educated and aware of the national policy and how it relates to decorations throughout the facility.”
Seems reasonable to me...
-
And that's relevant to me because... why?
I consider the removal silly, but just because someone complained that it's "overly religious and offensive" doesn't mean that it was actually removed for being offensive.
You may also want to consider that there are a number of people who believe there's a "War on Christmas" so fervently that they feel obligated to wage the War themselves. I know one such Christian who actually calls to complain about such displays in an effort to prove a point that the War on Christmas is real when whoever she complains to tries to accomodate her bogus complaint. Not saying that's the case here, but this is a thing.
If you're not offended, then it isn't relevant to you. Wasn't really directing the comments to you individually.
There is a War on Christmas, but I only find it mildly irritating. I know there is a thread on here somewhere about it, but I haven't updated it in a while. Lots of Grinches who are simply incapable of enjoying the most wonderful time of the year.
-
The hospital released an initial statement saying it had received a number of complaints about Ms. Holloway’s decorations being “overly religious and offensive.”
“Veterans entered the military to protect our freedoms, including the freedom to practice a religion of our choice,” the hospital said. “At VA, it is our duty to uphold and respect the honor and sacrifice of all Veterans, from all faiths and backgrounds.”
The South Texas Veterans Health Care System later told Fox News that officials meant to remove only the Nativity scene and that part of the train was damaged in the process.
“During the removal of a manger and specific scripture decoration, a Merry Christmas decoration was accidentally removed and damaged,” the VA said in a statement. “The remaining decorations were removed by the decoration donor and her representatives.”
The VA hospital said it has offered to reimburse Ms. Holloway for the damaged decorations, Fox News reported.
“We acknowledge that the corrective action should have been to display the faith-specific holiday decoration along with multiple religious faith symbols,” the statement read. “We are currently ensuring that our staff are educated and aware of the national policy and how it relates to decorations throughout the facility.”
Seems reasonable to me...
I think it's unreasonable to pull decorations that have been used for over 30 years because a handful of people find it offensive.
-
If you're not offended, then it isn't relevant to you. Wasn't really directing the comments to you individually.
Oh, that's why you quoted my posted when replying... because you weren't directing the comments to me. ::)
There is a War on Christmas, but I only find it mildly irritating.
The only "War on Christmas" is the one that those who think there's a War on Christmas imagine.
Lots of Grinches who are simply incapable of enjoying the most wonderful time of the year.
There's nothing wrong with not being interested in enjoying the "most wonderful time of the year" for retailers.
-
I think it's unreasonable to pull decorations that have been used for over 30 years because a handful of people find it offensive.
I think as we evolve and better education is available to more people, it's just natural that things we thought were cool, upon reflection, may not be as cool as we thought. So I think as time goes on.. more and more people will find the government meddling in religion to be not such a good thing. But yeah.. I'm not to the point that I feel the need to whine about Christmas decorations depicting Jesus
-
I think it's unreasonable to pull decorations that have been used for over 30 years because a handful of people find it offensive.
And some might find it offensive that 30 year old decorations are still being used... ;D
-
And some might find it offensive that 30 year old decorations are still being used... ;D
good point
-
Oh, that's why you quoted my posted when replying... because you weren't directing the comments to me. ::)
The only "War on Christmas" is the one that those who think there's a War on Christmas imagine.
There's nothing wrong with not being interested in enjoying the "most wonderful time of the year" for retailers.
Like I said, it wasn't really directed to you individually.
-
I think as we evolve and better education is available to more people, it's just natural that things we thought were cool, upon reflection, may not be as cool as we thought. So I think as time goes on.. more and more people will find the government meddling in religion to be not such a good thing. But yeah.. I'm not to the point that I feel the need to whine about Christmas decorations depicting Jesus
I don't think we should evolve to the point where we degrade the First Amendment. The First Amendment is actually designed to protect, not prohibit, things people find offensive. In fact, that's primarily where it comes into play. Nobody really complains about things they like.
-
And some might find it offensive that 30 year old decorations are still being used... ;D
Only if they are in bad taste. :)
-
Only if they are in bad taste. :)
To be fair, most seasonal decorations are!
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/v8jxc.jpg)
-
To be fair, most seasonal decorations are!
A lot of them are, although I like all of them. This is a happy time, bad taste and all.
-
Or you can run around the country filing lawsuits whenever you see any kind of religious symbol on public property, claiming you have suffered emotional distress.
unless it's muslim stuff on public property. i think we apply different standards when it's a religion we dislike, right?
-
unless it's muslim stuff on public property. i think we apply different standards when it's a religion we dislike, right?
::)
-
Exactly. Eye rolls means you don't have a valid argument.
If you're at work in a public place, show up and do the job. Decorate your car, home, but not public property, unless you're cool with Muslims, Buddhists, satanists and atheists decorating too.
-
::) ::) Eye roll reserved in large part for stupid comments. You liberals are always pandering to Muslims for some strange reason. The issue was a Christmas display and the words "Merry Christmas." Had nothing to do with Islam.
-
It seems that while some people whine about "christian persecution", they have an issue with the Founding Fathers and the Bill or Rights. This display at the Texas Capitol was ordered to be removed by the Texas Governor because according to him, among other things, "the exhibit deliberately mocks Christians and Christianity".
(http://i.imgur.com/bpsvBxL.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/7AnN2w2.jpg)
-
Christmas? Poor Jesus. Can't even have a holiday of his own. He has to share it with a more popular fat white man that children love more and parents go out of their way to re enforce the existent of that myth. Maybe Jesus should make appearances at malls and in parades then.
Easter is even worse. He has to share it with a more popular rabbit that hides eggs in people's yards.
-
Christmas? Poor Jesus. Can't even have a holiday of his own. He has to share it with a more popular fat white man that children love more and parents go out of their way to re enforce the existent of that myth. Maybe Jesus should make appearances at malls and in parades then.
Easter is even worse. He has to share it with a more popular rabbit that hides eggs in people's yards.
Got to make it appealing to the masses
-
Got to make it appealing to the masses
Yeah, you can't expect the country to want to celebrate a Middle Easter refugee's birthday.
-
Kim Davis Reflects on Her Role in Same-sex Marriage Debate
Wednesday, 23 Dec 2015
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who spent five days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, said she prayed for those who disagreed with her and feels the pace of social change has "awakened" Christians across the country.
In an interview with The Associated Press about her year at the center of one of the biggest social changes in decades, Davis described it as "a very emotional and a very real situation to all people." But she said simply telling others about her faith was not "going to make anybody believe anything." And so she put her faith in action by refusing to issue the licenses.
"No one would ever have remembered a county clerk that just said ... 'Even though I don't agree with it, it's OK. I'll do it,'" Davis said. "If I could be remembered for one thing, it's that I was not afraid to not compromise myself."
Davis spoke with The Associated Press on Tuesday morning. By that afternoon, Kentucky Republican Gov. Matt Bevin had issued an executive order removing the names of county clerks from marriage licenses — which Davis' lawyer described as a Christmas gift. The issue was one of the most prominent disagreements between Bevin and Democratic nominee Jack Conway in the November election.
Bevin spoke at a rally at the Graves County Detention Center on the day Davis was released from jail. But Davis said she did not think her actions handed the election to Bevin by galvanizing conservative voters across the state.
"I think he truly won on his own merit," Davis said. "I wouldn't take anything away from him."
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June effectively legalized same-sex marriage across the country. But Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses the day after the ruling, saying it would be a sin for her to license a same-sex couple.
Gay and straight couples sued her. A federal judge ordered Davis to issue the licenses, but she refused, citing "God's authority." U.S. District Judge David Bunning then put Davis in jail and ordered her deputy clerks to issue the licenses. The clerks did so, and Bunning released Davis after five days.
Her actions inspired praise and derision across the country as they tested the limits of the court's ruling. And they opened Davis up to criticism for her personal life, including the revelation that she had been married three times, which some said made her a hypocrite.
"How ironic that God would use a person like me, who failed so miserably at marriage in the world, to defend it now," Davis said Tuesday. "The Lord picks the unlikely source to convey the message."
Since her release from jail, Davis' office has issued altered marriage licenses that do not include her name or the name of the county. The American Civil Liberties Union has asked Bunning to order Davis to reissue the licenses, but Bunning has made no decision. For the couples that sued Davis, the case is not over.
"It makes me uncomfortable to hear people using God ... to justify their bigotry," said 39-year-old David Moore, who with now-husband David Ermold sued Davis in federal court. "I don't' see how that makes her a victim or a hero. She really just had a job to do, and she just needs to do her job."
Davis' days in the spotlight are not over, either. Next month, the Kentucky legislature is expected to update the state's marriage laws and will consider a provision exempting county clerks from having to issue them. Davis said Kentucky's marriage laws have been "completely eviscerated" by the Supreme Court's ruling and said she would be willing to come to the state Capitol to testify about any changes.
And in two years, Davis will be up for re-election in what is surely to be one of the most publicized county clerk races in decades. She said she did not know whether she would run for re-election, noting that "a lot of things could happen between now and then." A lifelong Democrat, Davis recently switched to the Republican party as the GOP continues to make historic gains across the state.
She dismissed the notion that she could run for higher office given her name recognition throughout the state.
"If I were a politician, I would probably jump on that and grab it and growl. But I'm not a politician," she said. "I very much enjoy my job."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kim-davis-year-gay/2015/12/23/id/706996/#ixzz3vIMDmazt
-
So she's basically saying it was all about her.
Well isn't that Christian of her.
-
"A lifelong Democrat, Davis recently switched to the Republican party as the GOP continues to make historic gains across the state."
::)
-
"A lifelong Democrat, Davis recently switched to the Republican party as the GOP continues to make historic gains across the state."
::)
many like to pick and choose. it's okay for her to have 4 hubbies and make babies while cheating on them with each other.
BUT when 2 same-sex people want a monogamous marriage, she ain't having that bullshit.
be consistent - either marriage is important and to be honored, or it's not... but her ass being a slut, cheating in wedlock, and at the same time screaming others aren't respecting marrige? GTFO, can't have it both ways.
-
Kentucky House Passes Bill for Single Marriage License Form
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=4114597f-43f3-426a-8a14-347f5929edde&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Kentucky House Passes Bill for Single Marriage License Form Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis
Friday, 25 Mar 2016
With the blessing of Kentucky's Republican governor, the state House passed a bill to create one marriage license form for gay and straight couples in an effort to defuse controversy over gay marriages.
The proposal is a response to Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who spent five days in jail last year for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis said she could not issue the licenses because they had her name on them.
The bill that cleared the Democratic-led House without debate Friday proposes that a marriage license applicant would have the option of checking "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. It would not have the clerk's name on it.
The next step for the measure is a return to the Republican-led state Senate, which passed a starkly different version last month that proposed separate marriage license forms for gay and straight couples.
Gov. Matt Bevin, a social conservative elected last year, publicly entered the debate this week by endorsing the single-form version in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Darryl Owens, a Democrat from Louisville.
"I offer my support for a single form and look forward to signing this legislation and allowing our county clerks to follow the law without being forced to violate their own conscience," the governor wrote.
Soon after taking office, Bevin ordered the state to prepare new marriage licenses that do not include the names of county clerks. The executive order was an attempt to protect the religious beliefs of Davis and other local elected officials.
Both pieces of legislation moving through the General Assembly would remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses. Members ofthe Kentucky County Clerks Association have endorsed the single-form version, according to Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville, one of its chief advocates.
"This has taken time, but we've built the consensus around the idea that one form is the best way to go because it treats everybody equally and doesn't invite any problems," McGarvey said Friday.
Michael Aldridge, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentiucky, said the single version "ensures all loving couples can access the rights they are entitled to equally under the law."
"The bill lifts the cloud of uncertainty hanging over marriage licensing in Kentucky," he said Friday.
McGarvey sounded optimistic that the Senate's large GOP majority would endorse the one-form alternative in the final days of this year's legislative session.
"I've talked to several of my colleagues and I think that they're ready to put this in their rear view mirror and get it behind us," he said.
Senate Majority Floor Leader Damon Thayer was noncommittal.
"I want to see the bill, and I want to see what the form looks like," he said Friday.
Sen. Stephen West, the lead sponsor of the bill creating two forms, said he was open to accepting the House version.
"If the only change is going to a single form in the way that I understand that it's been changed, then personally I'll be fine for it," said West, a Republican.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kentucky-kim-davis-marriage-license/2016/03/25/id/720893/#ixzz43wnWvRw5
-
see, that wasn't so hard to figure out.
what was all the fuss about?
-
Senate Majority Floor Leader Damon Thayer was noncommittal.
"I want to see the bill, and I want to see what the form looks like," he said Friday.
Sen. Stephen West, the lead sponsor of the bill creating two forms, said he was open to accepting the House version.
"If the only change is going to a single form in the way that I understand that it's been changed, then personally I'll be fine for it," said West, a Republican.
What change is he worried about? That the bills requires the form be shaped like an erect cock or something?