CDZ Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

[Boss]

Yes she is inflicting pain and is inflicting denials of Rights ...the videos show humans in pain because of her..

Not because of her. She had nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling. The pain is the result of Anthony Kennedy's shortsighted ruling which did not take Davis' 1st Amendment rights into consideration.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yes she is inflicting pain and is inflicting denials of Rights ...the videos show humans in pain because of her..

Not because of her. She had nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling. The pain is the result of Anthony Kennedy's shortsighted ruling which did not take Davis' 1st Amendment rights into consideration.

Go to Court and prove it...do not inflict Church of the Apostolic rule on America

 

[Stephanie]

OK, stop throwing out all the BS that we've all heard before. she's forcing her religion blaa blaa blaaa.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Maybe Kim Davis can move to Uganda where her views on Gays are enshrined in law..............

 

[Statistikhengst]

as was Adolph Hitler.......

actually you are incorrect on that

No, he is quite correct. True, in 1932, the NSDAP did not get a plurality in the German popular vote, but that's not how their system works. It's a coalition formula to get, with two or more parties together, to 48.6% of the popular vote, which is considered absolute majority in Germany. So, actually, yes, although I find it quite distasteful, Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected in the 1932 parliamentary elections and his party was one of the two which formed the winning coalition. And in the next parliamentary election, the NSDAP came in around 98%. Sad, but true.

German electoral politics of then and also of now did not / do not work like our electoral politics.

you know hitler seized control as well as everyone else ( or at least you should know it)

stop with your stupid games

That is also not true, not in the electoral sense of the word. In the 1932 parliamentary elections, the two strongest parties were Hindeburg's (represented by von Papen) and the NSDAP. Yes, through backdoor maneuvering, Hitler got the post of Chancellor, which is usually reserved for the stronger of the two parties that form the winning coalition. But it doesn't change the fact that Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected because they get enough votes to be part of a ruling coalition.

It's pure numbers, and not stupid games.

Do I find it distasteful and gross? Yes, I do.

stop with your stupidity

So, you don't understand German electoral history.

Oh, and we are in the CDZ, btw.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, he is quite correct. True, in 1932, the NSDAP did not get a plurality in the German popular vote, but that's not how their system works. It's a coalition formula to get, with two or more parties together, to 48.6% of the popular vote, which is considered absolute majority in Germany. So, actually, yes, although I find it quite distasteful, Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected in the 1932 parliamentary elections and his party was one of the two which formed the winning coalition. And in the next parliamentary election, the NSDAP came in around 98%. Sad, but true.

German electoral politics of then and also of now did not / do not work like our electoral politics.

you know hitler seized control as well as everyone else ( or at least you should know it)

stop with your stupid games

That is also not true, not in the electoral sense of the word. In the 1932 parliamentary elections, the two strongest parties were Hindeburg's (represented by von Papen) and the NSDAP. Yes, through backdoor maneuvering, Hitler got the post of Chancellor, which is usually reserved for the stronger of the two parties that form the winning coalition. But it doesn't change the fact that Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected because they get enough votes to be part of a ruling coalition.

It's pure numbers, and not stupid games.

Do I find it distasteful and gross? Yes, I do.

stop with your stupidity

So, you don't understand German electoral history.

Oh, and we are in the CDZ, btw.

stop with your stupidity

hitler was appointed chancellor January 30th 1933

I am going to do this one more time, very slowly.

Hitler's party, the NSDAP, was ALREADY part of the ruling coalition and already had "cabinet" seats in Hindeburg's "cabinet". Only, it was customary for the party with the larger plurality to pick the Chancellor, and the secondary party to pick the Vice-Chancellor. He was appointed because he did a dirty end-run around van Papen, but the NSDAP itself was already entrenched in the upper echelons of Hindenburg's government. It's not as if Hitler came from being a nobody in German politics of 1932 and then suddenly was picked by Hindenburg to be the Chancellor. Hindenburg was the Reichspräsident, which was mostly a ceremonial figure, it still is today (now called Bundespräsident).

German electoral politics does not work the same way as American electoral politics. The Chancellor is NEVER directly elected. His party, if it gets the largest plurality of votes and is part of a coalition that can go over 48.6%, gets to put him up as the Chancellor, but the people in Germany never vote directly for the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor (who, in modern days, is simultaneously the foreign minister of Germany).

This is the last time that I treat your rudeness and ignorance with kindness. Learn from this moment.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you know hitler seized control as well as everyone else ( or at least you should know it)

stop with your stupid games

That is also not true, not in the electoral sense of the word. In the 1932 parliamentary elections, the two strongest parties were Hindeburg's (represented by von Papen) and the NSDAP. Yes, through backdoor maneuvering, Hitler got the post of Chancellor, which is usually reserved for the stronger of the two parties that form the winning coalition. But it doesn't change the fact that Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected because they get enough votes to be part of a ruling coalition.



It's pure numbers, and not stupid games.

Do I find it distasteful and gross? Yes, I do.

stop with your stupidity

So, you don't understand German electoral history.

Oh, and we are in the CDZ, btw.

stop with your stupidity

hitler was appointed chancellor January 30th 1933

I am going to do this one more time, very slowly.

Hitler's party, the NSDAP, was ALREADY part of the ruling coalition and already had "cabinet" seats in Hindeburg's "cabinet". Only, it was customary for the party with the larger plurality to pick the Chancellor, and the secondary party to pick the Vice-Chancellor. He was appointed because he did a dirty end-run around van Papen, but the NSDAP itself was already entrenched in the upper echelons of Hindenburg's government. It's not as if Hitler came from being a nobody in German politics of 1932 and then suddenly was picked by Hindenburg to be the Chancellor. Hindenburg was the Reichspräsident, which was mostly a ceremonial figure, it still is today (now called Bundespräsident).

German electoral politics does not work the same way as American electoral politics. The Chancellor is NEVER directly elected. His party, if it gets the largest plurality of votes and is part of a coalition that can go over 48.6%, gets to put him up as the Chancellor, but the people in Germany never vote directly for the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor (who, in modern days, is simultaneously the foreign minister of Germany).

This is the last time that I treat your rudeness and ignorance with kindness. Learn from this moment.

yes i understand that

that is why it is dishonest to make the claim that hitler was elected

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933. This was the result of backroom dealing and power politics, not any kind of popular vote. It is true that after Hitler was already ensconced as chancellor, the Nazis subsequently won the March 1933 elections. But this was in the wake of the Reichstag fire, when the government had passed an emergency law that sharply restricted the activities of left-of-center parties (including the arrest of many Communist leaders). Thus it is difficult to claim that these were “free and fair” elections.

No, Hitler Did Not Come to Power Democratically

 

[paperview]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

She ordered the clerks not to comply, therefore dictating her ideas on religion to others, which would violate the clerks freedom to choose what actions they would take...

Long and short of it. ^

 

[Statistikhengst]

That is also not true, not in the electoral sense of the word. In the 1932 parliamentary elections, the two strongest parties were Hindeburg's (represented by von Papen) and the NSDAP. Yes, through backdoor maneuvering, Hitler got the post of Chancellor, which is usually reserved for the stronger of the two parties that form the winning coalition. But it doesn't change the fact that Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected because they get enough votes to be part of a ruling coalition.



It's pure numbers, and not stupid games.

Do I find it distasteful and gross? Yes, I do.

stop with your stupidity

So, you don't understand German electoral history.

Oh, and we are in the CDZ, btw.

stop with your stupidity

hitler was appointed chancellor January 30th 1933

I am going to do this one more time, very slowly.

Hitler's party, the NSDAP, was ALREADY part of the ruling coalition and already had "cabinet" seats in Hindeburg's "cabinet". Only, it was customary for the party with the larger plurality to pick the Chancellor, and the secondary party to pick the Vice-Chancellor. He was appointed because he did a dirty end-run around van Papen, but the NSDAP itself was already entrenched in the upper echelons of Hindenburg's government. It's not as if Hitler came from being a nobody in German politics of 1932 and then suddenly was picked by Hindenburg to be the Chancellor. Hindenburg was the Reichspräsident, which was mostly a ceremonial figure, it still is today (now called Bundespräsident).

German electoral politics does not work the same way as American electoral politics. The Chancellor is NEVER directly elected. His party, if it gets the largest plurality of votes and is part of a coalition that can go over 48.6%, gets to put him up as the Chancellor, but the people in Germany never vote directly for the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor (who, in modern days, is simultaneously the foreign minister of Germany).

This is the last time that I treat your rudeness and ignorance with kindness. Learn from this moment.

yes i understand that

that is why it is dishonest to make the claim that hitler was elected

So, you missed the point, I see...

 

[Mac1958]

Davis is a public official, her office and salary are paid for with taxpayer money, and it has an absolute monopoly on the services it provides.

This isn't a cake shop or a florist. There is nowhere else for people to go, AND this is a legal matter.

This is the wrong fight, and playing the martyr will only work to a point.
.

 

[Stephanie]

this article is from July when all this started.

SNIP:
The lawsuit is the first of its kind in the country and could serve as a harbinger for dozens of other officials seeking to test the limits of the Supreme Court’s historic ruling.

But US District Judge David Bunning suspended the hearing until next Monday at the earliest because attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union have still not formally notified Davis of the lawsuit against her.

‘‘The ACLU. . . aren’t really concerned in the marriages of their clients. The plaintiffs can get married in at least 117 if not 118 counties in the state of Kentucky if they want to,’’ said Roger Gannam, Davis’s attorney and the senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, a group that defends religious freedom.

‘‘This case was about targeting a person of faith to make a point that everyone must comply with the agenda to impose same-sex marriage on all of America,’’ Gannam said.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Dan Cannon said his clients are not targeting anyone; they simply want to get a marriage license in the county where they live and pay taxes.

April Miller, who lives in Morehead, said that when she heard Davis was refusing to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs, she and her partner of 11 years went to the courthouse to ‘‘see if it was true.’’

They were denied a license by both Davis and the county judge executive, who said state law only allows him to issue marriage licenses if the clerk is absent. The couple have not tried to get a license from another county.

‘‘It would be degrading to have to go somewhere else to get our license because of this,’’ Miller said. (wtf? it would be "degrading")

Another gay couple, David Ermold and David Moore, made news last week when they were denied a marriage license in Rowan County and posted a video of their attempt online that has been viewed more than 1.7 million times on YouTube. The couple filed a separate lawsuit against Davis on Friday, court records show.

But Jonathan Christman, an attorney for Davis, said Kentucky law does not require couples to get a marriage license in Rowan County and that other options are available, including going to a neighboring county or asking the judge executive. He argued that the county clerk’s religious beliefs essentially rendered her ‘‘absent,’’ thus giving the judge executive authority to issue a license.

Meanwhile, forcing Davis to issue the marriage license would mean requiring her to sign her name in four different places to ‘‘bless’’ or approve the marriage, Christman said.

‘‘When you take office, you don’t suddenly shed your constitutional liberties at the door of the courthouse,’’ Christman said.

Bunning said that isn’t necessarily true. He said that he sees a conflict between the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection for everyone under the law. He noted that US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed this out in his dissent to the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

Bunning questioned attorney Bill Sharp on why the couples wouldn’t be satisfied with one of Davis’s deputies issuing the marriage license or going to a nearby county where the clerk does not have a religious objection. Sharp replied that it would be ‘‘offensive’’ for couples to accommodate the beliefs of one county clerk. (there it is folks: it would be OFFENSIVE for couples to accommodate THE BELIEFS of one county clerk. I hope because of this and those two so called, women this turns this whole thing on its head. would serve them right)

FROM
US court deciding whether Ky. clerk can refuse same-sex marriage licenses - The Boston Globe

 

[Stephanie]

Davis is a public official, her office and salary are paid for with taxpayer money, and it has an absolute monopoly on the services it provides.

This isn't a cake shop or a florist. There is nowhere else for people to go, AND this is a legal matter.

This is the wrong fight, and playing the martyr will only work to a point.
.

The plaintiffs can get married in at least 117 if not 118 counties in the state of Kentucky if they want to,’’ said Roger Gannam, Davis’s attorney
US court deciding whether Ky. clerk can refuse same-sex marriage licenses - The Boston Globe

 

[Boss]

Davis is a public official, her office and salary are paid for with taxpayer money, and it has an absolute monopoly on the services it provides.

This isn't a cake shop or a florist. There is nowhere else for people to go, AND this is a legal matter.

This is the wrong fight, and playing the martyr will only work to a point.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter or did SCOTUS make it one?

I understand the argument that she is an official of government and sworn to uphold duties as such, but... like I said earlier, it is no different than if the SCOTUS ruled any number of unethical or immoral things to be legal. For example, what if SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional to steal from wealthy people... you just need a license issued by the County Clerk? Would Kim Davis be obligated to put her name on such authorization? What if SCOTUS ruled it was okay to kill black people? You just need a hunting licence issued and signed by Kim Davis... does her official capacity require her to put her name on such authorizations? Can we throw her in jail for refusing to cooperate?

I wholeheartedly REJECT this notion that we have to accept things as "law of the land" and move on! That is EXACTLY what they told the abolitionists! It's EXACTLY what they told MLK! ---NO! We do NOT have to accept it and move along! We have EVERY right to be civilly disobedient! We are NOT going to be forced by rogue courts to sign our names to things we fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis. Not today, not tomorrow, not EVER!

 

[Mac1958]

Davis is a public official, her office and salary are paid for with taxpayer money, and it has an absolute monopoly on the services it provides.

This isn't a cake shop or a florist. There is nowhere else for people to go, AND this is a legal matter.

This is the wrong fight, and playing the martyr will only work to a point.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter or did SCOTUS make it one?

I understand the argument that she is an official of government and sworn to uphold duties as such, but... like I said earlier, it is no different than if the SCOTUS ruled any number of unethical or immoral things to be legal. For example, what if SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional to steal from wealthy people... you just need a license issued by the County Clerk? Would Kim Davis be obligated to put her name on such authorization? What if SCOTUS ruled it was okay to kill black people? You just need a hunting licence issued and signed by Kim Davis... does her official capacity require her to put her name on such authorizations? Can we throw her in jail for refusing to cooperate?

I wholeheartedly REJECT this notion that we have to accept things as "law of the land" and move on! That is EXACTLY what they told the abolitionists! It's EXACTLY what they told MLK! ---NO! We do NOT have to accept it and move along! We have EVERY right to be civilly disobedient! We are NOT going to be forced by rogue courts to sign our names to things we fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis. Not today, not tomorrow, not EVER!

I mean it's a legal matter that people need a license in order to get married.

Civil disobedience is great, but when a public officer does it, it gets more complicated.
.

 

[Boss]

Davis is a public official, her office and salary are paid for with taxpayer money, and it has an absolute monopoly on the services it provides.

This isn't a cake shop or a florist. There is nowhere else for people to go, AND this is a legal matter.

This is the wrong fight, and playing the martyr will only work to a point.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter or did SCOTUS make it one?

I understand the argument that she is an official of government and sworn to uphold duties as such, but... like I said earlier, it is no different than if the SCOTUS ruled any number of unethical or immoral things to be legal. For example, what if SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional to steal from wealthy people... you just need a license issued by the County Clerk? Would Kim Davis be obligated to put her name on such authorization? What if SCOTUS ruled it was okay to kill black people? You just need a hunting licence issued and signed by Kim Davis... does her official capacity require her to put her name on such authorizations? Can we throw her in jail for refusing to cooperate?

I wholeheartedly REJECT this notion that we have to accept things as "law of the land" and move on! That is EXACTLY what they told the abolitionists! It's EXACTLY what they told MLK! ---NO! We do NOT have to accept it and move along! We have EVERY right to be civilly disobedient! We are NOT going to be forced by rogue courts to sign our names to things we fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis. Not today, not tomorrow, not EVER!

I mean it's a legal matter that people need a license in order to get married.

Civil disobedience is great, but when a public officer does it, it gets more complicated.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter for gays to marry?

It's not complicated by her being a public officer, if anything it is even more important. Do you think public officers are obligated to uphold the law even when the law contradicts their moral principles? When Hitler ordered Jews be incinerated, the officers had the obligation (in your mind) to carry out those orders even thought they knew they were wrong?

 

[David_42]

Davis is a public official, her office and salary are paid for with taxpayer money, and it has an absolute monopoly on the services it provides.

This isn't a cake shop or a florist. There is nowhere else for people to go, AND this is a legal matter.

This is the wrong fight, and playing the martyr will only work to a point.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter or did SCOTUS make it one?

I understand the argument that she is an official of government and sworn to uphold duties as such, but... like I said earlier, it is no different than if the SCOTUS ruled any number of unethical or immoral things to be legal. For example, what if SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional to steal from wealthy people... you just need a license issued by the County Clerk? Would Kim Davis be obligated to put her name on such authorization? What if SCOTUS ruled it was okay to kill black people? You just need a hunting licence issued and signed by Kim Davis... does her official capacity require her to put her name on such authorizations? Can we throw her in jail for refusing to cooperate?

I wholeheartedly REJECT this notion that we have to accept things as "law of the land" and move on! That is EXACTLY what they told the abolitionists! It's EXACTLY what they told MLK! ---NO! We do NOT have to accept it and move along! We have EVERY right to be civilly disobedient! We are NOT going to be forced by rogue courts to sign our names to things we fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis. Not today, not tomorrow, not EVER!

I mean it's a legal matter that people need a license in order to get married.

Civil disobedience is great, but when a public officer does it, it gets more complicated.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter for gays to marry?

It's not complicated by her being a public officer, if anything it is even more important. Do you think public officers are obligated to uphold the law even when the law contradicts their moral principles? When Hitler ordered Jews be incinerated, the officers had the obligation (in your mind) to carry out those orders even thought they knew they were wrong?

What a ridiculous example, this really illuminates the intellectual capacity of right wingers. She is a public officer, she has a duty to uphold scotus decisions, it's her damn job, to give out marriage licenses. Police officers usually uphold the law, you need to tell me what moral principle ruins this? The lady purposefully wants to deny licenses, she knew about this weeks in advance, she's a freaking moron, and you want to compare nazi germany to a bigoted women in the south? LOL.

 

[Boss]

What a ridiculous example, this really illuminates the intellectual capacity of right wingers. She is a public officer, she has a duty to uphold scotus decisions, it's her damn job, to give out marriage licenses. Police officers usually uphold the law, you need to tell me what moral principle ruins this? The lady purposefully wants to deny licenses, she knew about this weeks in advance, she's a freaking moron, and you want to compare nazi germany to a bigoted women in the south? LOL.

You can hide behind the wrong decision of SCOTUS all you like... it still doesn't make you right. She has NO duty to uphold something in contradiction with her religious beliefs. NONE! You do not have the authority to compel her to do so. NONE! Your court doesn't have that authority either.

Her actions are not "denying" any damn thing... people can still get their gay marriage license in 116 other counties across Kentucky.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Davis is a public official, her office and salary are paid for with taxpayer money, and it has an absolute monopoly on the services it provides.

This isn't a cake shop or a florist. There is nowhere else for people to go, AND this is a legal matter.

This is the wrong fight, and playing the martyr will only work to a point.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter or did SCOTUS make it one?

I understand the argument that she is an official of government and sworn to uphold duties as such, but... like I said earlier, it is no different than if the SCOTUS ruled any number of unethical or immoral things to be legal. For example, what if SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional to steal from wealthy people... you just need a license issued by the County Clerk? Would Kim Davis be obligated to put her name on such authorization? What if SCOTUS ruled it was okay to kill black people? You just need a hunting licence issued and signed by Kim Davis... does her official capacity require her to put her name on such authorizations? Can we throw her in jail for refusing to cooperate?

I wholeheartedly REJECT this notion that we have to accept things as "law of the land" and move on! That is EXACTLY what they told the abolitionists! It's EXACTLY what they told MLK! ---NO! We do NOT have to accept it and move along! We have EVERY right to be civilly disobedient! We are NOT going to be forced by rogue courts to sign our names to things we fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis. Not today, not tomorrow, not EVER!

I mean it's a legal matter that people need a license in order to get married.

Civil disobedience is great, but when a public officer does it, it gets more complicated.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter for gays to marry?

It's not complicated by her being a public officer, if anything it is even more important. Do you think public officers are obligated to uphold the law even when the law contradicts their moral principles? When Hitler ordered Jews be incinerated, the officers had the obligation (in your mind) to carry out those orders even thought they knew they were wrong?

What a ridiculous example, this really illuminates the intellectual capacity of right wingers. She is a public officer, she has a duty to uphold scotus decisions, it's her damn job, to give out marriage licenses. Police officers usually uphold the law, you need to tell me what moral principle ruins this? The lady purposefully wants to deny licenses, she knew about this weeks in advance, she's a freaking moron, and you want to compare nazi germany to a bigoted women in the south? LOL.

She is a public officer, she has a duty to uphold scotus decisions,

just as the prezbo and holder are to uphold federal drug laws

 

[RedTeamTex]

The only argument for Davis' case I found remotely interesting was that she was elected by voters to uphold the law as it was the hour of her taking office, and beyond that her duty and obligation as an elected official is to champion that expression of will at the time of that election. We assume elected officials of the executive to be responsive to changes of law during their term. To question that assumption is an interesting exploration.

I doubt it would end in a vindication for Davis, though. She's grandstanding instead of finding some other line of work in accordance with her personal ethics...which tells me all I need to know about her ethics.