Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[mudwhistle]

Good. Woman is an idiot.

Can you spell "MARTYR"?

Yes I can. If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.

I know this is way out in left field.....but there are some actual Christians that believe in following their convictions. They aren't all out to get the Gheys or throw black people in jail. If this woman was a Muslim this would never be questioned. But because she's a Christian she has to obey the law from the most corrupt city in our country. (Washington D.C.)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's put this in terms everyone can understand.

Kim Davis has all rights to believe what she wants to believe. But she cannot "exercise" her religion as an employee of the Government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is unconstitutional! FACT.

The Constitution forbids government from endorsing religion or engaging in any behavior that does so. When you do what Kim Davis has done, you have breached the Constitution. What I see people doing is clinging onto one part of the First Amendment while ignoring the other. "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." FACT.

The Government also has rights under the constitution. You cannot make government endorse religious beliefs. It has a constitutional right not to endorse religion in its administration, and is obligated not to. FACT.

When you swear an oath of office which involves doing so impartially, you must do so impartially. If you have been elected to office, you have been elected by and on the good faith of your constituents. When you violate that good faith, when you stop fulfilling your duties for which you have been elected, you breach the oath you swore to them to uphold the law and that office. FACT.

By all merit, Kim Davis not allowing her deputies to issue licenses was her imposing her religious beliefs on her deputies, which is unconstitutional and a breach of oath. FACT.

The law (Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution) that Davis was sworn to obey was not crafted with any caveats, it was crafted to ensure obedience. She broke that law. FACT.

There is no law which says anyone has a right to marry, but there are laws forbidding government from endorsing the marital practices of one religion over others. FACT.

The 14th Amendment comes into play here. You cannot make laws which benefit one group while disparaging another. People born and naturalized in the United States shall be subject to its jurisdiction and that of the states wherein they reside. When you deny licenses to gay couples you violate the 14th Amendment. In general if you deny straight couples licenses, you are doing likewise. FACT.

There are no First or 14th Amendment issues at stake; no government – Federal, state, local – is seeking to disadvantage Davis because of her faith or who she is.

The only Constitutional issue in play is Article VI and its jurisprudence – that's what everyone needs to understand.

 

[Kondor3]

Talked to hubby about this last night, he said she needs to stop, she's giving Christians a bad name....

A Christian that refuses to give-in to Wiickedness and stands-up for Righteousness can never give Christians a bad name. Your husband is wrong. And so are you.

 

[Kondor3]

Let's put this in terms everyone can understand.

Kim Davis has all rights to believe what she wants to believe. But she cannot "exercise" her religion as an employee of the Government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is unconstitutional! FACT.

The Constitution forbids government from endorsing religion or engaging in any behavior that does so. When you do what Kim Davis has done, you have breached the Constitution. What I see people doing is clinging onto one part of the First Amendment while ignoring the other. "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." FACT.

The Government also has rights under the constitution. You cannot make government endorse religious beliefs. It has a constitutional right not to endorse religion in its administration, and is obligated not to. FACT.

When you swear an oath of office which involves doing so impartially, you must do so impartially. If you have been elected to office, you have been elected by and on the good faith of your constituents. When you violate that good faith, when you stop fulfilling your duties for which you have been elected, you breach the oath you swore to them to uphold the law and that office. FACT.

By all merit, Kim Davis not allowing her deputies to issue licenses was her imposing her religious beliefs on her deputies, which is unconstitutional and a breach of oath. FACT.

The law (Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution) that Davis was sworn to obey was not crafted with any caveats, it was crafted to ensure obedience. She broke that law. FACT.

There is no law which says anyone has a right to marry, but there are laws forbidding government from endorsing the marital practices of one religion over others. FACT.

The 14th Amendment comes into play here. You cannot make laws which benefit one group while disparaging another. People born and naturalized in the United States shall be subject to its jurisdiction and that of the states wherein they reside. When you deny licenses to gay couples you violate the 14th Amendment. In general if you deny straight couples licenses, you are doing likewise. FACT.

There are no First or 14th Amendment issues at stake; no government – Federal, state, local – is seeking to disadvantage Davis because of her faith or who she is.

The only Constitutional issue in play is Article VI and its jurisprudence – that's what everyone needs to understand.

It's all a matter of spin... the approach-vector... the angle of attack...

 

[sealybobo]

Good. Woman is an idiot.

If she just quits this all goes away. She can go back to destroying her 4th marriage.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.

Slippery slope says it will happen. Gay agenda has said 14th trumps the 1st amendment and whacko liberal judges will enforce it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
People can and do break the law.
If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.

We are not puppets.

This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not.

And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Dimocrats should take their elected positions more seriously:

She Was Elected To Her Position: Davis, a Democrat, won a 2014 election for Rowan County clerk handily — 53 percent to 46 percent.

Here's What We Know About The Kentucky Clerk Refusing Marriage Licenses

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
People can and do break the law.
If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.

We are not puppets.

This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not.

And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.

Do mayors in sanctuary cities have the right by defy immigration laws? Name one serving jail time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

KONDOR3 SAID:

"And, having had their Will overridden by activist judges, time and again, people eventually throw up their hands, and give up, being unwilling to invest more emotion in the effort."

Nonsense.

This has nothing to do with 'activist judges,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And if the efforts of those seeking to disadvantage others through force of law are time and again having those laws invalidated by the courts, they need to realize the problem is with them, not the Constitution, its case law, or the courts.

 

[LittleNipper]

She is a ******* CLERK! Part of her ******* JOB is to comply with the laws. And THAT's the thing she has decided she cannot do?

Solution to this pressing problem jumps off the page. Get a different job.

Instead of jailing her, how about firing her?

She's an elected official. She has to be impeached.

When she was "elected" the laws in effect were DIFFERENT. Now she is expected to abide by a new set of rules that seriously transgress her beliefs.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hopefully they still fine her too. To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.

No fines, so far. The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested. Love it!

She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.

Hopefully they still fine her too. To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.

No fines, so far. The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested. Love it!

She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.

Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?

it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.

Oh my yes. Compare her to Martin Luther King. This will be wonderful.

And yet you compare marriage between people of the same sex a civil right situation rivaling slavery.

Personally, I think marriage in the gay community most likely will lead to nasty and expensive divorces in greater numbers than with straights. I'm sure you'll argue that point with me.

Why you have to be married and not just a legal partnership seems confusing to me on some levels.

Now, if you find out you can't get along with your spouse, you have to pay thousands of dollars to ditch them.

The only reason I can figure that you'd want this so bad, is because you feel in some way that it makes it socially acceptable. I guess you'll have to kill off all of the closed-minded Christians and Muslims in the world for that to happen. Include most of the Hispanics in America in that group as well. There goes your chances of winning an election, huh?

But what you have to do to others to get what you want isn't what I would call friendly and accepting.

Somebody disagrees with you and they become targets to what has become essentially domestic political terrorism. Winning hearts and minds, right?

 

[mudwhistle]

Good. Woman is an idiot.

If she just quits this all goes away. She can go back to destroying her 4th marriage.

But she doesn't have time to destroy her 4th marriage till after she quits.

 

[mudwhistle]

This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
People can and do break the law.
If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.

We are not puppets.

This has nothing to do with Commerce Clause jurisprudence or public accommodations laws, there is no similarity whatsoever; Davis does not have the 'right' to defy the Constitution, the courts, and the rule of law – whether she's willing to 'take the punishment' or not.

And it has nothing to do with 'being a puppet' - Davis or anyone else is at liberty to resign.

Do mayors in sanctuary cities have the right by defy immigration laws? Name one serving jail time.

That's different. The left can disobey any laws they feel are prejudice to protected classes.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hopefully they still fine her too. To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.

No fines, so far. The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested. Love it!

She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.

Of course she did. She knows she will be making some big bank off this fiasco.

 

[Kondor3]

KONDOR3 SAID:

"And, having had their Will overridden by activist judges, time and again, people eventually throw up their hands, and give up, being unwilling to invest more emotion in the effort."

Nonsense.

This has nothing to do with 'activist judges,' the notion is ignorant idiocy. ...

Thank you for your feedback.

...And if the efforts of those seeking to disadvantage others through force of law are time and again having those laws invalidated by the courts, they need to realize the problem is with them, not the Constitution, its case law, or the courts.

The majority of Americans who voted for Defense of Marriage -style referenda and statute in various States in recent years, are merely seeking to suppress sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) in the public life of the Nation, in order to combat the degeneracy which will set in, if this filth is allowed to fester.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...


.

What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.

What can the feds do then?

Enforce the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, an elected official refusing to do their job is a little problematic...


.

What would really be problematic is her being re-elected after all this.

What can the feds do then?

What did they do with that State Supreme Court Justice in Alabama?

Exactly.

 

[WinterBorn]

...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.

News from The Associated Press

Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner. We are no longer free Americans. The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us. The transformation is complete.

Jeez, spare us the dramatics. This is not a transformation. This is a woman who ignored court orders. That has been illegal far longer than Obama has been in office.

 

[WinterBorn]

The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible. The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.

Oh **** you. The gay couple should get some "community involvement"? Punish the gay couple because this wench CHOSE to ignore and violate the orders of the courts? Next you will call for stoning adulterers?