10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

[mdk]

stephanie, an exception for those who conscientiously object has been given to her, but kim has CHOSEN to not accept it.

When she chose to force her religion on to her employees by threatening to fire them if they did their job, and on to the citizens, it was no longer her personal religious objection, it was infringing on the rights of others.

where did she threaten to fire them? She couldn't do that even if she wanted to. It seems like everyday there is more nonsense added onto this case to make it all right to treat people who disagrees with homosexual as a crime. and that is a dangerous line we are walking. And it's shameful to see so many of you who I thought were more upstanding people to side with the Jailing of this person all over some piece of paper. I don't know, but this whole thing has turned me off to being asked to be accepting of homosexuals when they aren't going to be accepting of others in the country.

Oh, girl please. Suddenly this case has turned you off of accepting gay people. lol. You can lie to yourself until the cows come home but don't expect the rest of us to buy into your mummer's farce.

 

[bodecea]

Yes but this law goes against her religious beliefs and came out of the blue.

Would you support a Muslim woman being FORCED to remove her headwear in a courtroom if ordered by a judge just because?

Yes. If there is a legal requirement to remove headgear in the court room.

 

[Care4all]

stephanie, an exception for those who conscientiously object has been given to her, but kim has CHOSEN to not accept it.

When she chose to force her religion on to her employees by threatening to fire them if they did their job, and on to the citizens, it was no longer her personal religious objection, it was infringing on the rights of others.

where did she threaten to fire them? She couldn't do that even if she wanted to. It seems like everyday there is more nonsense added onto this case to make it all right to treat people who disagrees with homosexual as a crime. and that is a dangerous line we are walking. And it's shameful to see so many of you who I thought were more upstanding people to side with the Jailing of this person all over some piece of paper. I don't know, but this whole thing has turned me off to being asked to be accepting of homosexuals when they aren't going to be accepting of others in the country.

it was in the news the first day this thing became a story...she refused to allow her other employees to issue the marriage licenses....and THAT is taking a step too far and over and above her own religious objection and exemption.

I don't agree with the trashing the right wing has done and I certainly don't agree with the character assassination some on the left have done with pics and cartoons and high fiving when a win goes in their favor to rub it in the right wing's face.... there was no need to dish back what was given....turning the cheek would have been the right thing to do and not lowering themselves to the level some have, especially because THEY WILL LEGALLY win this, and licenses will be issued in her county to all....

 

[bodecea]

Yes but this law goes against her religious beliefs and came out of the blue.

Would you support a Muslim woman being FORCED to remove her headwear in a courtroom if ordered by a judge just because?

Yes. If there is a legal requirement to remove headgear in the court room.

Oh...and "out of the blue"? We've been working on this for years and years. And even tho the case decision wasn't announced til the end of June, everyone knew it was on the docket and most everyone knew it was a slamdunk for legalized marriage for gay and straight.

 

[RodISHI]

The judiciary is taking down the rights of the American people one bite at a time.

Actually, the Judiciary just struck down a law that was withholding equal rights for your fellow citizens. You should be happy for Freedom.....but some people aren't happy unless somewhere someone is treated as "less".

I disagree behavioral abnormalities are not a protected right to ride over or rule over religious rights (WHICH ARE PROTECTED RIGHTS). When the judiciary called Obama care a tax when insurance is being forced upon a multitude the court showed it is FULLY incompetent or does not give a crap upon the law or citizens constitutional rights in this country. Forcing any type of commerce upon the people is not freedom; it is a form of slavery.

 

[bodecea]

The judiciary is taking down the rights of the American people one bite at a time.

Actually, the Judiciary just struck down a law that was withholding equal rights for your fellow citizens. You should be happy for Freedom.....but some people aren't happy unless somewhere someone is treated as "less".

I disagree behavioral abnormalities are not a protected right to ride over or rule over religious rights (WHICH ARE PROTECTED RIGHTS). When the judiciary called Obama care a tax when insurance is being forced upon a multitude the court showed it is FULLY incompetent or does not give a crap upon the law or citizens constitutional rights in this country. Forcing any type of commerce upon the people is not freedom; it is a form of slavery.

I see you have defaulted to your ODS Happy Place.

 

[RodISHI]

The judiciary is taking down the rights of the American people one bite at a time.

Actually, the Judiciary just struck down a law that was withholding equal rights for your fellow citizens. You should be happy for Freedom.....but some people aren't happy unless somewhere someone is treated as "less".

I disagree behavioral abnormalities are not a protected right to ride over or rule over religious rights (WHICH ARE PROTECTED RIGHTS). When the judiciary called Obama care a tax when insurance is being forced upon a multitude the court showed it is FULLY incompetent or does not give a crap upon the law or citizens constitutional rights in this country. Forcing any type of commerce upon the people is not freedom; it is a form of slavery.

I see you have defaulted to your ODS Happy Place.

You really have not seen anything. Maybe one day you will though.

 

[Stephanie]

stephanie, an exception for those who conscientiously object has been given to her, but kim has CHOSEN to not accept it.

When she chose to force her religion on to her employees by threatening to fire them if they did their job, and on to the citizens, it was no longer her personal religious objection, it was infringing on the rights of others.

where did she threaten to fire them? She couldn't do that even if she wanted to. It seems like everyday there is more nonsense added onto this case to make it all right to treat people who disagrees with homosexual as a crime. and that is a dangerous line we are walking. And it's shameful to see so many of you who I thought were more upstanding people to side with the Jailing of this person all over some piece of paper. I don't know, but this whole thing has turned me off to being asked to be accepting of homosexuals when they aren't going to be accepting of others in the country.

it was in the news the first day this thing became a story...she refused to allow her other employees to issue the marriage licenses....and THAT is taking a step too far and over and above her own religious objection and exemption.

I don't agree with the trashing the right wing has done and I certainly don't agree with the character assassination some on the left have done with pics and cartoons and high fiving when a win goes in their favor to rub it in the right wing's face.... there was no need to dish back what was given....turning the cheek would have been the right thing to do and not lowering themselves to the level some have, especially because THEY WILL LEGALLY win this, and licenses will be issued in her county to all....

very good of you Care. but I'm still confused over this ruling and if the supreme court could even do this. They've made it a law over the States which I didn't think they are able to make laws. they can only review them and if they abide the constitution. And I'm not upset over this because it would give same sex marriage. I just don't feel they have this power to declare this and then to think they can FORCE all the States to abide it. that was the case of the clerk in Kentucky. She is asking that same thing and wasn't going to sign something that wasn't clear about this ruling. So all the hate directed at her could be over hyped for the fact we don't if this is going to stand from the Supreme court. That is why I've been asking a lot of question on it. but I'm glad to hear you didn't agree with all the hate and vengeful people on here and in the country.

 

[Care4all]

Yes but this law goes against her religious beliefs and came out of the blue.

Would you support a Muslim woman being FORCED to remove her headwear in a courtroom if ordered by a judge just because?

see, this isn't for ''just because'' with Kim, and not religious headgear, that affects no one else...the muslim is not forcing others to wear the headgear, she only wants to wear it herself, like a nun who wears a habit... but as mentioned, if it was a law that no one in the courtroom can wear headgear, then yes, the woman should comply.

kim has the right to conscientiously object, but not the right to prevent citizens from getting a license they legally can get.

 

[bodecea]

The judiciary is taking down the rights of the American people one bite at a time.

Actually, the Judiciary just struck down a law that was withholding equal rights for your fellow citizens. You should be happy for Freedom.....but some people aren't happy unless somewhere someone is treated as "less".

I disagree behavioral abnormalities are not a protected right to ride over or rule over religious rights (WHICH ARE PROTECTED RIGHTS). When the judiciary called Obama care a tax when insurance is being forced upon a multitude the court showed it is FULLY incompetent or does not give a crap upon the law or citizens constitutional rights in this country. Forcing any type of commerce upon the people is not freedom; it is a form of slavery.

I see you have defaulted to your ODS Happy Place.

You really have not seen anything. Maybe one day you will though.

Oh, I see you and yours quite clearly. You are nothing new under the sun, Sweetie.

 

[RodISHI]

The judiciary is taking down the rights of the American people one bite at a time.

Actually, the Judiciary just struck down a law that was withholding equal rights for your fellow citizens. You should be happy for Freedom.....but some people aren't happy unless somewhere someone is treated as "less".

I disagree behavioral abnormalities are not a protected right to ride over or rule over religious rights (WHICH ARE PROTECTED RIGHTS). When the judiciary called Obama care a tax when insurance is being forced upon a multitude the court showed it is FULLY incompetent or does not give a crap upon the law or citizens constitutional rights in this country. Forcing any type of commerce upon the people is not freedom; it is a form of slavery.

I see you have defaulted to your ODS Happy Place.

You really have not seen anything. Maybe one day you will though.

Oh, I see you and yours quite clearly. You are nothing new under the sun, Sweetie.

Not your sweetie but you already know that.

 

[Stephanie]

The judiciary is taking down the rights of the American people one bite at a time.

Actually, the Judiciary just struck down a law that was withholding equal rights for your fellow citizens. You should be happy for Freedom.....but some people aren't happy unless somewhere someone is treated as "less".

I disagree behavioral abnormalities are not a protected right to ride over or rule over religious rights (WHICH ARE PROTECTED RIGHTS). When the judiciary called Obama care a tax when insurance is being forced upon a multitude the court showed it is FULLY incompetent or does not give a crap upon the law or citizens constitutional rights in this country. Forcing any type of commerce upon the people is not freedom; it is a form of slavery.

that is a good example you used. I was going to let you know about a new thread I started that might relate to incompetent of the courts. but I see you've already seen it. just in case anyone else care's here it is:

the Unsoundness of judicial supremacy
The Unsoundness of Judicial Supremacy | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Well?"

A truly ignorant, inane, and failed 'argument.'

From the linked article:

'The Scriptures are clear that we have “a better possession and an abiding one,” and therefore we can gladly let goods and kindred go. Thus, as we develop and implement our theology of resistance, we ought to be ready to accept the consequences of such resistance gladly, going on our way rejoicing because we’ve been counted worthy to suffer for the Name (Acts 5:41).'

Subjective religious doctrine and dogma are devoid of legal merit.

And again, there are no First Amendment issues in play, no potential violations of the Free Exercise Clause are present, Davis remains at liberty to practice her faith as she sees fit, in any manner she sees fit, unrelated to her duties as an elected state officer, bound to uphold the Constitution and its case law, acknowledging decisions of the Supreme Court to be the law of the land.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court did not rule that there was a right to same-sex marriage. They ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar same sex couples from marrying, when you allow opposite sex couples to marry.

Correct.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where the states may not deny them access predicated solely on who they are – to do so violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

This has been settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence for well over 100 years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your saying that we should follow the law based from someone beliefs?
Islam or some Muslims beliefs that according to their god there should be NO female driving a car.
If such person works at DMV beliefs that there should be no female driving a car. Does he or she has the right to deny issuing drivers license?
Also. according to their beliefs women should not expose their face except the eyes. Then refuse to take your DL picture because you are not covering your face.
Are all of those acceptable because of someone's beliefs?

First off, you're so not getting this. See, Davis was a Christian. That's totally different than a Muslim. Muslims can't make us follow Sharia law. That's unconstitutional. But Christians can make us follow Christian dogma. That's freedom of religion.

Get it?

No one can make you follow Christians . but what you all want to do is use this GOVERNMENT and SS to FORCE everyone to follow people they might not agree with their lifestyle. First you had bakers fined and run of business, a pizza parlor received death threats because of people who are homosexual accusing them of discrimination and come to find out there wasn't any, but the damage was already done to them, and now it's come down to watching people be JAILED over the homosexual again claiming discrimination. So it's not the CHRISTIANS doing all that to you people. so you better think this through because you COULD BE NEXT

This is comprehensibly all over the map ignorant and ridiculous.

The issue has nothing to do with public accommodations laws, anyone being 'forced' to accept a given 'lifestyle,' or the religious rights of Christians.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Isn't this the 1000th thread on this kind of topic ?

What is the definition of insanity ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How long before polygamy will be legal ?

 

[Stephanie]

Isn't this the 1000th thread on this kind of topic ?

What is the definition of insanity ?

trying to get answers to questions people have is now called insanity.? no one is forcing you to participate in them are they?

 

[Freewill]

Did or did not the SCOTUS make law? Is it the COTUS duty of the SCOTUS to make law?

The answer to both is clearly Yes and no and when they do we end up with things like the Dred Scott decision. 5 old men ruling for the nation and making laws is not how it is suppose to work. Especially when two of them, if not clearly gay, clearly made their bias known before even seeing the case.

Of course none of that matters as to whether or not gay marriage should be legal. It is only a matter of following the COTUS. Several states had already amended their laws to allow gays to marry telling me that they too see that gay marriage is a redefinition of the traditional and legal definition of marriage.

I would say that gay marriage, or any marriage, is a right if it were not regulated by the state. We might as well do away with the marriage laws altogether. I would also consider gay marriage a right if people were born married.

There are lots of things the SCOTUS could have done to follow the COTUS but they choose to force their narrow view upon us all instead of letting the legislative branch finish what was already started.

What should have happened is all marriage laws became invalid because most are already discriminatory against gay marriage. But the SCOTUS didn't do that they redefined the term marriage. In all honesty who can support such a thing? Those who cry about the ruling on corporations being people then in the next breath hold up the SCOTUS as some brilliant institution? Really?

I realize that the need to win at all cost runs deep with the left wing. I understand that no matter how badly handled as long as they can claim victory the facts be damned.

But in reality, Kim Davis, by not issuing any marriage licences is doing what the SCOTUS should have actually done.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Isn't this the 1000th thread on this kind of topic ?

What is the definition of insanity ?

trying to get answers to questions people have is now called insanity.? no one is forcing you to participate in them are they?

I don't recall saying I was forced....make something else up to argue against....please.

It does not change the fact that this one of the latest in a long long looooooooooooooonng line of threads on this topic.

And it always plays out the way this one is.

Now....just why do you think that is ?