Kim Davis Is Winning

[playtime]

I guess the left found another democrat that they don't like. Funny isn't it, that a democrat is alledgedly abusing her governmental power and the left hates on her. Pretty well blows away the southern strategy BS. The democrat statists stayed exactly where they belong, in the democrat party.

BTW, Zimmerman was a democrat also.

Yes, she's a Democrat. No one is denying that.

just ignoring it.

She ran as Democrat. That doesn't mean she is. Do you consider Caitlin Jenner to be a Republican?

Why not? People, I assume, make choices based on who represents their views. Maybe not 100 percent but mostly.

I'm thinking some major issues that are considered 'Democrat' policies are not even close to what Kim Davis represents. The latest being same sex marriage, but how do you think she stands on this country being secular & not a "Christian nation" ... how about the faux war on "Christians" & Christmas? Abortion? Uh-huh... I bet she is a real lefty.

 

[playtime]

Look folks, I don't like this woman Davis. She is a religious nut. But she still has the right in this country to practice her beliefs and to deal with the consequences of her actions. Thats the issue here.

Not within the walls of a Government Institution, in the official capacity of a Government employee.

you are missing the point. She has the right to practice her religious beliefs, BUT in so doing she has to expect to be punished if practicing her beliefs violates any law.

Now, why don't those same principles apply to sanctuary cities?

She has every right outside of her time on the clock as an elected official carrying out the duties on behalf of the Government.

Start a thread about sanctuary cities- but don't conflate the two unless you are saying because they exist...then her violating the law is ok?

 

[Redfish]

Look folks, I don't like this woman Davis. She is a religious nut. But she still has the right in this country to practice her beliefs and to deal with the consequences of her actions. Thats the issue here.

Not within the walls of a Government Institution, in the official capacity of a Government employee.

you are missing the point. She has the right to practice her religious beliefs, BUT in so doing she has to expect to be punished if practicing her beliefs violates any law.

Now, why don't those same principles apply to sanctuary cities?

She has every right outside of her time on the clock as an elected official carrying out the duties on behalf of the Government.

Start a thread about sanctuary cities- but don't conflate the two unless you are saying because they exist...then her violating the law is ok?

I never said that her viiolation of law was ok. Never.

But you dems and libs consistently say that its ok for sanctuary cities to violate the law. I am pointing out your hypocrisy. If you want a thread on sanctuary cities and why you think they should exist, start one.

 

[playtime]

Look folks, I don't like this woman Davis. She is a religious nut. But she still has the right in this country to practice her beliefs and to deal with the consequences of her actions. Thats the issue here.

Not within the walls of a Government Institution, in the official capacity of a Government employee.

you are missing the point. She has the right to practice her religious beliefs, BUT in so doing she has to expect to be punished if practicing her beliefs violates any law.

Now, why don't those same principles apply to sanctuary cities?

She has every right outside of her time on the clock as an elected official carrying out the duties on behalf of the Government.

Start a thread about sanctuary cities- but don't conflate the two unless you are saying because they exist...then her violating the law is ok?

I never said that her viiolation of law was ok. Never.

But you dems and libs consistently say that its ok for sanctuary cities to violate the law. I am pointing out your hypocrisy. If you want a thread on sanctuary cities and why you think they should exist, start one.

Actually, I never said such a thing fishdude- in fact I have said more than once on more than one thread that I think sanctuary cities should have every penny of fed $$$ cut off as long as they are doing such a thing. So there you go. NOW what have ya got?

 

[Silhouette]

I never said that her viiolation of law was ok. Never.

But you dems and libs consistently say that its ok for sanctuary cities to violate the law. I am pointing out your hypocrisy. If you want a thread on sanctuary cities and why you think they should exist, start one.

On the contrary, she was following law. God's highest law: which as told even by peace-loving Jesus through Jude is not to screw with God's matrix by introducing homosexual cultures into any society. It isn't the individual homosexual that God has such a mortal beef with. It's using society's vehicles to propel their behaviors as a new cultural standard straight into the heart of a society. One such vehicle: Marriage.

I'd LOVE to see scores and scores and scores of people breaking "the law". For one thing, no Amercian has to abide by an unconstitutional law. Creating a new class of "just some deviant sexual behaviors" as protected...so they could complete their coup on marriage (society) is outside the scope of SCOTUS' powers. That law had to have been added to the Constutition as a brand new provision by Congress. That wasn't done. So there is no law forcing Kim Davis or anyone else to perform, aid or abet so-called "gay marriage"..

 

[bodecea]

Look folks, I don't like this woman Davis. She is a religious nut. But she still has the right in this country to practice her beliefs and to deal with the consequences of her actions. Thats the issue here.

Not within the walls of a Government Institution, in the official capacity of a Government employee.

you are missing the point. She has the right to practice her religious beliefs, BUT in so doing she has to expect to be punished if practicing her beliefs violates any law.

Now, why don't those same principles apply to sanctuary cities?

She has every right outside of her time on the clock as an elected official carrying out the duties on behalf of the Government.

Start a thread about sanctuary cities- but don't conflate the two unless you are saying because they exist...then her violating the law is ok?

I never said that her viiolation of law was ok. Never.

But you dems and libs consistently say that its ok for sanctuary cities to violate the law. I am pointing out your hypocrisy. If you want a thread on sanctuary cities and why you think they should exist, start one.

Where has any of us said it was ok for sanctuary cities to "violate the law"? Link to such claims.

 

[bodecea]

I never said that her viiolation of law was ok. Never.

But you dems and libs consistently say that its ok for sanctuary cities to violate the law. I am pointing out your hypocrisy. If you want a thread on sanctuary cities and why you think they should exist, start one.

On the contrary, she was following law. God's highest law: which as told even by peace-loving Jesus through Jude is not to screw with God's matrix by introducing homosexual cultures into any society. It isn't the individual homosexual that God has such a mortal beef with. It's using society's vehicles to propel their behaviors as a new cultural standard straight into the heart of a society. One such vehicle: Marriage.

I'd LOVE to see scores and scores and scores of people breaking "the law". For one thing, no Amercian has to abide by an unconstitutional law. Creating a new class of "just some deviant sexual behaviors" as protected...so they could complete their coup on marriage (society) is outside the scope of SCOTUS' powers. That law had to have been added to the Constutition as a brand new provision by Congress. That wasn't done. So there is no law forcing Kim Davis or anyone else to perform, aid or abet so-called "gay marriage"..

Christian Sharia....right there.

 

[tigerred59]

Didn't she marry 1 guy twice? Fn weird.

yes she married Joe Davis twice ...he is in the picture wearing the hayseed couture.....

Hate to say it but they represent the best of Kentucky. I'm sure there are some good people in Kentucky but based on the people they elect good sane people are a minority.

Kentucky did do one of the better jobs in using the Affordable Care Act to expand Medical services to more folks...credit where credit is due
Kentucky's success makes a mockery of GOP Obamacare foes

One good thing about Ky....they know to keep republicans out of the governor's house.....Dem's rule in that state!! One reason, it rocks!!

 

[Jantje_Smit]

On the contrary, she was following law. God's highest law......

You christian nuts do "logic" in the same way as the Taliban, you simply cannot see the difference between secular law and your holy book. In your eyes they're the same and everyone who doesn't see it that way is an enemy of god (if you grow a beard and kill your enemies than you will be exactly the same as the Taliban)

 

[Silhouette]

Christians have faith. Secular logic isn't going to trump that.

 

[Silhouette]

She has every right outside of her time on the clock as an elected official carrying out the duties on behalf of the Government.
Start a thread about sanctuary cities- but don't conflate the two unless you are saying because they exist...then her violating the law is ok?

There are no known conditions under which the 1st Amendment rights an American citizen enjoys are suspended. So says the 9th Amendment.

 

[Freewill]

Didn't she marry 1 guy twice? Fn weird.

yes she married Joe Davis twice ...he is in the picture wearing the hayseed couture.....

Hate to say it but they represent the best of Kentucky. I'm sure there are some good people in Kentucky but based on the people they elect good sane people are a minority.

She's a democrat what do you expect?

 

[playtime]

Christians have faith. Secular logic isn't going to trump that.

It already has.

 

[playtime]

She has every right outside of her time on the clock as an elected official carrying out the duties on behalf of the Government.
Start a thread about sanctuary cities- but don't conflate the two unless you are saying because they exist...then her violating the law is ok?

There are no known conditions under which the 1st Amendment rights an American citizen enjoys are suspended. So says the 9th Amendment.

She was denying the 14thA to any homogay couple due to her religious convictions while being in the role of & being paid by the government... thus violating the Establishment Clause.

Why did she take an oath to uphold & abide by the Constitution, when it's against her religion?

Why did she disrespect the "authority of the Government" & go against what is dictated by her religion - which is to be respectful of it?

The odds are pretty high that some of the hetero people who came seeking a marriage license were previously married, so why did she thereby sanction what is considered adultery in her God's eye by issuing those licenses?

Why does she want to continue collecting a paycheck even though she is in dereliction of duty- thereby breaking a Commandment- "Thou shall not steal"?

 

[Slyhunter]

It wasn't law when she took her oath therefore she didn't break her oath.

 

[Debra K]

Kim Davis is expected to return to work tomorrow. Who wants to predict what she will do? Does she have power to do anything?

Will she reinstate her "no marriage license" policy? Even if she tries to do so, Deputy Clerk Brian Mason said he would not obey her ... he would obey the Court's order.

Will she fire Brian Mason? Even if she tries to do so, that will last about two seconds. Mason's court-appointed attorney would immediately report the violation to the court ... and she'll be back in jail.

Will she lay off all deputy clerks and close the county clerk's office for the next several months until the legislature convenes and gives her what she wants? I don't think she has the power to do that either.

I don't think she has the power to do anything. What do you think?

 

[Silhouette]

Christians have faith. Secular logic isn't going to trump that.

It already has.

I meant at the SCOTUS level, where this is en route as we speak.

 

[playtime]

It wasn't law when she took her oath therefore she didn't break her oath.

Yes, she certainly did break that oath, because she took an oath to uphold the Constitution, & the Constitution is a living document, which means that anytime it is amended or interpreted for the inclusion or exclusion of any specific person, or idea- then she still must follow it. & she must do so without religious bias.

A Living Document
The creators of the U.S. Constitution knew that the document might have to be changed in the future. They even included the rules for making changes right in the Constitution. In all, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. This time line highlights some of the most important amendments.
1865.......The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery in the U.S.
1868.......The 14th Amendment says that the Bill of Rights protects all citizens equally. 1870.......The 15th Amendment says that a person cannot be denied the right to vote because of race.
1920.......The 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote.
1951........The 22nd Amendment limits the President to two four-year terms in office
1967.......The 25th Amendment says that the President can appoint a new Vice President (with the approval of Congress) if the Vice President dies or leaves office.
1971........The 26th Amendment lowers the voting age to 18.

https://constitutionday.aclu.org/docs/alivingdocument.pdf

Why is the Constitution called a living document (amendments process)?

The Constitution is referred to as a living document because it is open to constant change whether by ratifying the Constitution with a new amendment or by repealing an existing amendment. Consequently, as time goes on and new issues and concerns arise, the Constitution can be changed to meet the demands of the present and future.

Additionally, the Constitution is open to constant interpretation by the Supreme Court. Hence, even though abortion and automatic weapons were not issues during the Constitution's conception over 200 years ago, the Constitution can be interpreted to protect or restrict rights on a variety of issues.

Why is the Constitution called a living document


For example, at one point, the Court ruled that separate institutions for black and white citizens were perfectly legal and constitutional, as long as the institutions were equal in power and efficacy — the "separate but equal" doctrine. In this century, the Supreme Court turned this doctrine on its ear by declaring that separate cannot mean equal, and segregation was unconstitutional.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q93.htmlhttp://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q93.htm



http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[Silhouette]

Then she didn't break her oath because nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee anyone the right to marry anyone they want. And since not anyone can marry anyone they want Constitutionally, the states by default are the only ones who can decide who can marry, outside the 14th guarantees.

Nowhere in the 14th are "just some deviant sex behaviors" covered or mentioned. So...yeah. Kim Davis defied no law at all, because none as we understand the making of laws exists.

 

[playtime]

Then she didn't break her oath because nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee anyone the right to marry anyone they want. And since not anyone can marry anyone they want Constitutionally, the states by default are the only ones who can decide who can marry, outside the 14th guarantees.

Nowhere in the 14th are "just some deviant sex behaviors" covered or mentioned. So...yeah. Kim Davis defied no law at all, because none as we understand the making of laws exists.

Nowhere in the 14th amendment did it say interracial couples could marry either & at one time that was thought of as going against natural law. But guess what? When it became lawful... the world didn't come to an end now did it- except perhaps to those barely standing upright who still scrape their knuckles along the ground.

Mildred and Richard Loving

On July 11, 1958, newlyweds Richard and Mildred Loving were asleep in bed when three armed police officers burst into the room. The couple were hauled from their house and thrown into jail, where Mildred remained for several days, all for the crime of getting married. At that time, 24 states across the country had laws strictly prohibiting marriage between people of different races. Five weeks earlier, the longtime couple had learned Mildred was pregnant and decided to wed in defiance of the law. In order to evade Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act, the pair had traveled to Washington, D.C. for the ceremony. Upon their return to Virginia, they were arrested and found guilty, with the judge informing Mildred that “as long as you live you will be known as a felon.” The Lovings moved to the relative safety of Washington, but longed to return to their home state.

In 1963, they approached the American Civil Liberties Union to fight their case in court. After an extensive legal battle, the Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Although such laws officially remained on the books in several states, the Lovings’ landmark victory rendered them effectively unenforceable, ensuring nobody else would have to endure the same treatment. The last law officially prohibiting interracial marriage was repealed in Alabama in 2000.

Interracial Relationships that Changed History | PBS