Kim Davis is the result of judicial activism

[bodecea]

Honest question...So each one here says different things. Maybe I havent read enough to take it all in context...is each issue a personal decision?
I could have easily issued a license and stayed a Christian. It was her job...I had issue when someone wanted those bakers to actually write a statement of support
...that type of thing I would fight against.

If shes willing to go through it all...more power to her. I just dont think I would have done that.

I applaud her conviction and I think she has a valid right to do what she did. No one is obligated to bow to authority when the authority is wrong. Nothing requires any of us to be obedient to authority when it contradicts our principles and convictions, especially our religious ones.

If the people of Kentucky don't like what she did, they can vote her out... it's not like she has a lifetime appointment. Her oath of office was to her State, not some rogue activist Court Upon High!

Yeah...she followed in the footsteps of her Mommy and she's grooming her son in her office to take over when she retires.....can you say Nepotism?

 

[Boss]

She refused to do this, and made the decision to be jailed as a consequence.

Yes, she refused to do something fundamentally against her religious beliefs.

She was jailed for that.

Shameful!

 

[Boss]

Yeah...she followed in the footsteps of her Mommy and she's grooming her son in her office to take over when she retires.....can you say Nepotism?

Well... She's a Democrat, what can you expect?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Next they will be putting Pastors behind bars for refusing to marry Sodomites to one another. That is where this is going. The Christians in America had better wake up!

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and slippery slope fallacy.

This is also a lie – gay Americans are not 'sodomites,' nor will anyone seek to place clerics 'in jail' because of their religious beliefs, the notion is idiocy.

There are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake, Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

That you and others on the social right would seek to contrive and propagate such a lie is indeed reprehensible.

Obviously lying is no longer considered a sin by Christians.

 

[mdk]

I was wondering when Jeremiah was going to use Bunning's Catholicism to attack his ruling. It may have happened earlier but I missed it. Too funny.

 

[Boss]

Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

It is prohibiting the free exercise of her religion to demand she sign her name consenting to something that she doesn't believe is right according to her religion. It's akin to demanding a Muslim sign an endorsement for pork products.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah...she followed in the footsteps of her Mommy and she's grooming her son in her office to take over when she retires.....can you say Nepotism?

Well... She's a Democrat, what can you expect?

Possible. So you would say that nepotism is only to be found with democrats?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

She refused to do this, and made the decision to be jailed as a consequence.

Yes, she refused to do something fundamentally against her religious beliefs.

She was jailed for that.

Shameful!

She went to jail of her own free will, she could be home by next week if she so desires.

Davis is not being 'punished,' nor does this have anything to do with religious beliefs.

She received a lawful and Constitutional court order to issue marriage licenses to those eligible to marry in her jurisdiction, including same-sex couples.

If she believes this conflicts with her religious beliefs, her only appropriate recourse was to resign her position; interfering with the lawful issuance of marriage licenses was not an option.

This only thing shameful is the ignorance and lies you seek to propagate, and your efforts to contrive a 'controversy' where none in fact exists.

 

[bodecea]

Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

It is prohibiting the free exercise of her religion to demand she sign her name consenting to something that she doesn't believe is right according to her religion. It's akin to demanding a Muslim sign an endorsement for pork products.

No one is forcing her to sign her name. One of her clerks can do it. No, wait. Her clerks told the judge that she wouldn't let them under pain of losing their jobs.

 

[mdk]

Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

It is prohibiting the free exercise of her religion to demand she sign her name consenting to something that she doesn't believe is right according to her religion. It's akin to demanding a Muslim sign an endorsement for pork products.

She refused to allow her staff to do so as well. Five of the six employees in her office told the judge they would do so. She didn't have to sign a damn thing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your God says this, His God says that.... What makes one God's opinion more important than the others?

God is an illegal alien and can't vote so his opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Next they will be putting Pastors behind bars for refusing to marry Sodomites to one another. That is where this is going. The Christians in America had better wake up!

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and slippery slope fallacy.

This is also a lie – gay Americans are not 'sodomites,' nor will anyone seek to place clerics 'in jail' because of their religious beliefs, the notion is idiocy.

There are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake, Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

That you and others on the social right would seek to contrive and propagate such a lie is indeed reprehensible.

Obviously lying is no longer considered a sin by Christians.

The original term was Sodomites. Not homosexuals. Not gays, Luddley. There is nothing "gay" about the sin of Sodomy. That is the truth although some people may not want to hear the truth because knowing the truth requires doing something about it. There are people in the world that do not want to depart from sin because their hearts have become hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A lot of conservatives seem to want to disband the supreme court these days. Scary stuff.

I want them to stop legislating liberal activism from the bench.

You want Apostolic Christian Sharia law to replace the Constitution.

 

[Derideo_Te]

She refused to do this, and made the decision to be jailed as a consequence.

Yes, she refused to do something fundamentally against her religious beliefs.

She was jailed for that.

Shameful!

She works for the secular government of We the People. She could have simply resigned instead of admitting herself to jail.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

It is prohibiting the free exercise of her religion to demand she sign her name consenting to something that she doesn't believe is right according to her religion. It's akin to demanding a Muslim sign an endorsement for pork products.

She is free to resign her position and find work more in line with her beliefs.

 

[David_42]

Next they will be putting Pastors behind bars for refusing to marry Sodomites to one another. That is where this is going. The Christians in America had better wake up!

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and slippery slope fallacy.

This is also a lie – gay Americans are not 'sodomites,' nor will anyone seek to place clerics 'in jail' because of their religious beliefs, the notion is idiocy.

There are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake, Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

That you and others on the social right would seek to contrive and propagate such a lie is indeed reprehensible.

Obviously lying is no longer considered a sin by Christians.

The original term was Sodomites. Not homosexuals. Not gays, Luddley. There is nothing "gay" about the sin of Sodomy. That is the truth although some people may not want to hear the truth because knowing the truth requires doing something about it. There are people in the world that do not want to depart from sin because their hearts have become hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Man, why do you nutters hate anal so much? To tight for you?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Next they will be putting Pastors behind bars for refusing to marry Sodomites to one another. That is where this is going. The Christians in America had better wake up!

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and slippery slope fallacy.

This is also a lie – gay Americans are not 'sodomites,' nor will anyone seek to place clerics 'in jail' because of their religious beliefs, the notion is idiocy.

There are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake, Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

That you and others on the social right would seek to contrive and propagate such a lie is indeed reprehensible.

Obviously lying is no longer considered a sin by Christians.

The original term was Sodomites. Not homosexuals. Not gays, Luddley. There is nothing "gay" about the sin of Sodomy. That is the truth although some people may not want to hear the truth because knowing the truth requires doing something about it. There are people in the world that do not want to depart from sin because their hearts have become hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

But then who cares what the original term was in ENGLISH, IN HEBREW OR IN GREEK! It is irrelevant to this thread. Wait until tomorrow and I'll start a nit-pick deflection thread just for you and your brethren.

I noticed you didn't respond to my post #33 a couple of hours ago after being shown your error! Instead you go off and start attacking others of whom you disapprove. How very, very Christian of you! But I'll leave that to the High Judge to discuss with you later in your journey!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I do not approve of foul language used to express one's outrage and passion on the subject but the fact remains that Kim Davis was unjustly accused and put in jail. The Roman Catholic judge who incarcerated her and charged her with contempt of court was clearly wrong. The laws in Kentucky clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman. She enforced the laws. If the law had been same sex marriage she still would have been within her rights as a Christian to refuse to participate by issuing a license to them.

You are in error!

1. Did Ms. Davis work in the Clerks office when her mother was the Clerk and know the totality of the Clerks obligations and responsibilities? YES!
2. Was Ms. Davis ELECTED to office and thereupon take an OATH to God to faithfully discharge her duties of office & the Constitutions of Kentucky and the United States? YES!
3. Did SCOTUS render a recent decision that same sex marriage was a Constitutional right? YES!
4. Upon receiving that SCOTUS decision, did same sex marriage become a lawfully protected right and the Law of the Land? YES!
5. Does the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution enable Federal law supremacy over conflicting State laws as read in Article VI, Clause 2? YES!
6. Did Ms. Davis abide by her OATH of office before God to faithfully execute her responsibilities then refuse to follow new law established through judicial review? YES!
7. Did Ms. Davis enforce the law of the land according the to her OATH of office? NO!
8. Does the religion of the Federal Judge before whom Ms. Davis appeared have anything to do with any of the germane facts in the case? NO!
9. When ordered by the Judge to obey the Law of the Land did she comply? NO!
10. When a Christian take a solemn OATH to God to execute her job according to the law, is she then allowed to break that OATH? NO!!!!

She could have done her job or resigned. There would have been no broken OATH or no charge of contempt. She was wrong and so are you!

No, I'm not. Kentucky law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Mrs. Davis is a Christian and has the right to not be forced to go against her own Christian faith. She did enforce the laws on the books in Kentucky and that is where it happened. Correct? That settles the matter.

Note to you - You can start any thread you wish to start tomorrow (as you say) but it is no guarantee I'll read it. As for you? If you were a Christian you would say God willing I will do this or do that tomorrow - you would not presume anything. It is arrogance to presume upon the grace of God. We are given today. That's it. Are you saved? If you died tonight would you go to heaven or hell? If you do not know the answer to that question you need to get that matter settled. Read Romans 10:9,10 today. Today is the day of Salvation. TODAY.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Davis' religious liberties are not being 'violated.'

It is prohibiting the free exercise of her religion to demand she sign her name consenting to something that she doesn't believe is right according to her religion. It's akin to demanding a Muslim sign an endorsement for pork products.

Wrong.

There are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake; no government – Federal, state, or local – is seeking in any way to prohibit Davis from practicing her faith as she sees fit.

That Davis perceives doing her job in accordance with the Constitution and its case law as 'interfering' with her religious beliefs is subjective, unfounded, and devoid of merit – it is mere contrivance on her part, finding no support in First Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[G.T.]

I do not approve of foul language used to express one's outrage and passion on the subject but the fact remains that Kim Davis was unjustly accused and put in jail. The Roman Catholic judge who incarcerated her and charged her with contempt of court was clearly wrong. The laws in Kentucky clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman. She enforced the laws. If the law had been same sex marriage she still would have been within her rights as a Christian to refuse to participate by issuing a license to them.

You are in error!

1. Did Ms. Davis work in the Clerks office when her mother was the Clerk and know the totality of the Clerks obligations and responsibilities? YES!
2. Was Ms. Davis ELECTED to office and thereupon take an OATH to God to faithfully discharge her duties of office & the Constitutions of Kentucky and the United States? YES!
3. Did SCOTUS render a recent decision that same sex marriage was a Constitutional right? YES!
4. Upon receiving that SCOTUS decision, did same sex marriage become a lawfully protected right and the Law of the Land? YES!
5. Does the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution enable Federal law supremacy over conflicting State laws as read in Article VI, Clause 2? YES!
6. Did Ms. Davis abide by her OATH of office before God to faithfully execute her responsibilities then refuse to follow new law established through judicial review? YES!
7. Did Ms. Davis enforce the law of the land according the to her OATH of office? NO!
8. Does the religion of the Federal Judge before whom Ms. Davis appeared have anything to do with any of the germane facts in the case? NO!
9. When ordered by the Judge to obey the Law of the Land did she comply? NO!
10. When a Christian take a solemn OATH to God to execute her job according to the law, is she then allowed to break that OATH? NO!!!!

She could have done her job or resigned. There would have been no broken OATH or no charge of contempt. She was wrong and so are you!

No, I'm not. Kentucky law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Mrs. Davis is a Christian and has the right to not be forced to go against her own Christian faith. She did enforce the laws on the books in Kentucky and that is where it happened. Correct? That settles the matter.

Im not sure youve ever posted a single fact correctly, god damn.

Federal law trumps State law.

You knew that right?

Omg