PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #581
For the young ones she has to issue, or she has to be out of the county, like back in jail one county over. Either works for me, but not her...
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kim Davis...and the Judge's "mistake"
- Thread starter nat4900
- Start date
For the young ones she has to issue, or she has to be out of the county, like back in jail one county over. Either works for me, but not her...BTW:That's a lie, read the KY law on who MAY ISSUE marriage licenses. It's already been discussed at length in this and other threads. The law does not say "shall issue", with ONE MINOR exception.
402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application
in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
Effective:
July 13, 1984
History:
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984.
--
Amended
1980 Ky. Acts ch. 74, sec. 1, effective Ju
ly 15, 1980.
--
Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch.
384, sec. 518, effective June 17, 1978.
--
Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 14.
--
Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1.
--
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1,
effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec
. 2105
Fucks you pretty darnn good, and her even moreso...
Sure, if it ended at your bold, it doesn't. Of course you already knew that.
What ever, nite.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #583
Spanked ya again. See ya. And next time, do your homework...For the young ones she has to issue, or she has to be out of the county, like back in jail one county over. Either works for me, but not her...BTW:That's a lie, read the KY law on who MAY ISSUE marriage licenses. It's already been discussed at length in this and other threads. The law does not say "shall issue", with ONE MINOR exception.
402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application
in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
Effective:
July 13, 1984
History:
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984.
--
Amended
1980 Ky. Acts ch. 74, sec. 1, effective Ju
ly 15, 1980.
--
Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch.
384, sec. 518, effective June 17, 1978.
--
Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 14.
--
Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1.
--
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1,
effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec
. 2105
Fucks you pretty darnn good, and her even moreso...
Sure, if it ended at your bold, it doesn't. Of course you already knew that.
What ever, nite.
I had a Revelation...
It does not have to be one way or the other.
There is such a thing as COMPROMISE, although it seems like this is something of the Ancient Past....
This is a fairly new ruling by the SC and States need to work out what they can do, to satisfy BOTH sides.
Easy peasy, it can be worked out if level heads prevail.
This woman was picked to be the case that gets spotlighted, or she volunteered to be the case...lawyer-ed up.... this was inevitable, someone had to do it and get the law cleared up on this State's end, and other states will follow with an organized rule or legislative rule, on how to handle clerks who object for religious reasons, while still accommodating the citizens who want marriage licenses in their own county.
She won't be fired, she won't be indefinitely jailed, she won't have to quit, she, personally, won't have to sign the marriage license....
It does not have to be one way or the other.
There is such a thing as COMPROMISE, although it seems like this is something of the Ancient Past....
This is a fairly new ruling by the SC and States need to work out what they can do, to satisfy BOTH sides.
Easy peasy, it can be worked out if level heads prevail.
This woman was picked to be the case that gets spotlighted, or she volunteered to be the case...lawyer-ed up.... this was inevitable, someone had to do it and get the law cleared up on this State's end, and other states will follow with an organized rule or legislative rule, on how to handle clerks who object for religious reasons, while still accommodating the citizens who want marriage licenses in their own county.
She won't be fired, she won't be indefinitely jailed, she won't have to quit, she, personally, won't have to sign the marriage license....
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
I had a Revelation...
It does not have to be one way or the other.
There is such a thing as COMPROMISE, although it seems like this is something of the Ancient Past....
This is a fairly new ruling by the SC and States need to work out what they can do, to satisfy BOTH sides.
Easy peasy, it can be worked out if level heads prevail.
This woman was picked to be the case that gets spotlighted, or she volunteered to be the case...lawyer-ed up.... this was inevitable, someone had to do it and get the law cleared up on this State's end, and other states will follow with an organized rule or legislative rule, on how to handle clerks who object for religious reasons, while still accommodating the citizens who want marriage licenses in their own county.
She won't be fired, she won't be indefinitely jailed, she won't have to quit, she, personally, won't have to sign the marriage license....
The couples that sued don't want her jailed or fined...they wanted a fucking license. As long as her office is issuing the licenses, there's no problem. She doesn't have to do a damn thing and a reasonable accommodation for her can be made. She chose not to allow the reasonable accommodation. She wouldn't let anyone else in her office issue the license. This was all on Davis and her alone.
Yes, I did read something on this Board about this, but I believe I also read that the finite law, makes her sign the marriage certificates if she is in the county....and it is THIS part of the law that needs to be changed or rewritten with more clarity or something of the sort....I had a Revelation...
It does not have to be one way or the other.
There is such a thing as COMPROMISE, although it seems like this is something of the Ancient Past....
This is a fairly new ruling by the SC and States need to work out what they can do, to satisfy BOTH sides.
Easy peasy, it can be worked out if level heads prevail.
This woman was picked to be the case that gets spotlighted, or she volunteered to be the case...lawyer-ed up.... this was inevitable, someone had to do it and get the law cleared up on this State's end, and other states will follow with an organized rule or legislative rule, on how to handle clerks who object for religious reasons, while still accommodating the citizens who want marriage licenses in their own county.
She won't be fired, she won't be indefinitely jailed, she won't have to quit, she, personally, won't have to sign the marriage license....
The couples that sued don't want her jailed or fined...they wanted a fucking license. As long as her office is issuing the licenses, there's no problem. She doesn't have to do a damn thing and a reasonable accommodation for her can be made. She chose not to allow the reasonable accommodation. She wouldn't let anyone else in her office issue the license. This was all on Davis and her alone.
Oh, no doubt in my head that she was CHOSEN or VOLUNTEERED to be the case/martyr....I read an article last night that was written in June that had interviews with Kentucky County Clerks and how they were going to handle the SC ruling if it ruled against their State, (their State was one of the States that had their case making it to the Supreme Court)....anyway there were county clerks that were fine, other than worrying about how to get all of their paperwork changed that mentioned female/male as the couple being married, BUT there were several County Clerks that said they would need to reread their contracts, the finite laws, and consult with their lawyers....
So this has been in the MAKING for quite some time....
It was STAGED in my humble opinion...and that's sad in a way.... it's too bad this all could not have been worked out by their legislature BEFORE they went on vacation and right after the ruling came down....but it seems the legislature was digging in it's heels and upset about the ruling and maybe even planned this Kim Davis thingy, to happen while they were gone....so that it would make it in to the courts and they could continue to whine about the ruling or whatever....
And pit us all against one another....
Sad, indeed.
thanatos144
Gold Member
Seeing as it is her faith that drive her to be so brave why haven't you? The founders were not afraid of faith why are you?In a discussion of faith, her faith, ignoring the teachings of her Lord is not an option. And if you call yourself a Christian but you don't agree with the teachings of Jesus, then you aren't one so don't bother...It hardly matters whether you want to go there or not. Jesus was entirely clear on the matter and you rejecting his teachings means you are rejecting, for most Americans, their God...The hell it can't, obviously.
An no, you don't agree with Jesus on serving two masters? Well, that explains a great deal. You and Davis are loony birds of a feather...
And NO, I ain't going there.
You're assuming shit not in evidence, so get off the religious BS, my opinions one way or the other are none of your concern.
You're not paying attention, I haven't mentioned her faith once, if you have questions about her faith, ask her.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
thanatos144
Gold Member
A court opinion is not law. The court does not make law. one of the times the court did something like this it caused well over 50 million dead babiesI had a Revelation...
It does not have to be one way or the other.
There is such a thing as COMPROMISE, although it seems like this is something of the Ancient Past....
This is a fairly new ruling by the SC and States need to work out what they can do, to satisfy BOTH sides.
Easy peasy, it can be worked out if level heads prevail.
This woman was picked to be the case that gets spotlighted, or she volunteered to be the case...lawyer-ed up.... this was inevitable, someone had to do it and get the law cleared up on this State's end, and other states will follow with an organized rule or legislative rule, on how to handle clerks who object for religious reasons, while still accommodating the citizens who want marriage licenses in their own county.
She won't be fired, she won't be indefinitely jailed, she won't have to quit, she, personally, won't have to sign the marriage license....
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Spanked ya again. See ya. And next time, do your homework...For the young ones she has to issue, or she has to be out of the county, like back in jail one county over. Either works for me, but not her...BTW:That's a lie, read the KY law on who MAY ISSUE marriage licenses. It's already been discussed at length in this and other threads. The law does not say "shall issue", with ONE MINOR exception.
402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application
in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
Effective:
July 13, 1984
History:
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984.
--
Amended
1980 Ky. Acts ch. 74, sec. 1, effective Ju
ly 15, 1980.
--
Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch.
384, sec. 518, effective June 17, 1978.
--
Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 14.
--
Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1.
--
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1,
effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec
. 2105
Fucks you pretty darnn good, and her even moreso...
Sure, if it ended at your bold, it doesn't. Of course you already knew that.
What ever, nite.
In your dreams, BTW no young ones involved in this case. Sucks to be you.
- Banned
- #590
She forced her version of faith onto her employees. That's religious tyranny. You ok with that?Seeing as it is her faith that drive her to be so brave why haven't you? The founders were not afraid of faith why are you?In a discussion of faith, her faith, ignoring the teachings of her Lord is not an option. And if you call yourself a Christian but you don't agree with the teachings of Jesus, then you aren't one so don't bother...It hardly matters whether you want to go there or not. Jesus was entirely clear on the matter and you rejecting his teachings means you are rejecting, for most Americans, their God...And NO, I ain't going there.
You're assuming shit not in evidence, so get off the religious BS, my opinions one way or the other are none of your concern.
You're not paying attention, I haven't mentioned her faith once, if you have questions about her faith, ask her.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
She forced her version of faith onto her employees. That's religious tyranny. You ok with that?Seeing as it is her faith that drive her to be so brave why haven't you? The founders were not afraid of faith why are you?In a discussion of faith, her faith, ignoring the teachings of her Lord is not an option. And if you call yourself a Christian but you don't agree with the teachings of Jesus, then you aren't one so don't bother...It hardly matters whether you want to go there or not. Jesus was entirely clear on the matter and you rejecting his teachings means you are rejecting, for most Americans, their God...
You're assuming shit not in evidence, so get off the religious BS, my opinions one way or the other are none of your concern.
You're not paying attention, I haven't mentioned her faith once, if you have questions about her faith, ask her.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No she didn't. She established an office policy in accordance with KY law.
airplanemechanic
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2014
- 18,017
- 13,111
- 2,415
What scares me most about this is our court system says that with the exception of the most egregious cases, anyone arrested must be offered bond. This woman was held, FOR A WEEK IN JAIL, WITHOUT BOND. Not even someone arrested for murder is held like that. And what was her offense? Refusing to sign something she didn't agree with and was imposed on her after she took the job.
The fact that liberals think this is ok is scary as hell.
And on top of that, this is a CIVIL matter. She was held in a criminal jail.
The fact that liberals think this is ok is scary as hell.
And on top of that, this is a CIVIL matter. She was held in a criminal jail.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #593
There is no bond for Contempt of Court, so don't disobey a court order.What scares me most about this is our court system says that with the exception of the most egregious cases, anyone arrested must be offered bond. This woman was held, FOR A WEEK IN JAIL, WITHOUT BOND. Not even someone arrested for murder is held like that. And what was her offense? Refusing to sign something she didn't agree with and was imposed on her after she took the job.
The fact that liberals think this is ok is scary as hell.
airplanemechanic
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2014
- 18,017
- 13,111
- 2,415
There is no contempt of court. It's a civil matter, not criminal. If shes not doing what they say is her job, you fire her. You don't lock her up.
And on top of that, Kentucky passed a law in 2013 called the freedom of religion act stating that no gov't employee had to do anything that was against their religion.
So believe me, this isn't over yet.
And on top of that, Kentucky passed a law in 2013 called the freedom of religion act stating that no gov't employee had to do anything that was against their religion.
So believe me, this isn't over yet.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #595
Not yet but it hardly matters. She's fucked, you just won't admit it.Spanked ya again. See ya. And next time, do your homework...For the young ones she has to issue, or she has to be out of the county, like back in jail one county over. Either works for me, but not her...BTW:
402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application
in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
Effective:
July 13, 1984
History:
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984.
--
Amended
1980 Ky. Acts ch. 74, sec. 1, effective Ju
ly 15, 1980.
--
Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch.
384, sec. 518, effective June 17, 1978.
--
Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 14.
--
Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1.
--
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1,
effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec
. 2105
Fucks you pretty darnn good, and her even moreso...
Sure, if it ended at your bold, it doesn't. Of course you already knew that.
What ever, nite.
In your dreams, BTW no young ones involved in this case. Sucks to be you.
All we do now is wait for her to be in Contempt and put back behind bars now. Just a few days.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #596
How is a gay marriage license against Christianity? Oh right, it isn't.There is no contempt of court. It's a civil matter, not criminal. If shes not doing what they say is her job, you fire her. You don't lock her up.
And on top of that, Kentucky passed a law in 2013 called the freedom of religion act stating that no gov't employee had to do anything that was against their religion.
So believe me, this isn't over yet.
airplanemechanic
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2014
- 18,017
- 13,111
- 2,415
Um, the bible states homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. That's plain as day. Obviously you've never read the bible.
No she didn't. She established an office policy in accordance with KY law.
There is no Constitutionally valid law in KY that limits marriage based on the gender composition of the couple.
>>>>
airplanemechanic
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2014
- 18,017
- 13,111
- 2,415
Its funny how liberals applaud Muslims for standing up for their religious beliefs but when a Christian does it, lock 'em up!
What scares me most about this is our court system says that with the exception of the most egregious cases, anyone arrested must be offered bond. This woman was held, FOR A WEEK IN JAIL, WITHOUT BOND. Not even someone arrested for murder is held like that. And what was her offense? Refusing to sign something she didn't agree with and was imposed on her after she took the job.
The fact that liberals think this is ok is scary as hell.
And on top of that, this is a CIVIL matter. She was held in a criminal jail.
1. Bond applies in criminal court cases.
2. Bond is not applicable to civil contempt of court proceedings where the purpose is to motivate an individual to comply with a legal court order.
3. Confinement for contempt of court is part of the law, 18 USC 401-403.
>>>>
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 168
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 81
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 43
- Views
- 166
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 44
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8080
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-