Kim Davis loses again...

[nat4900]

The Constitution supports her right to freedom of religion and her job has no right to change the rules midstream and force her to go against her own conscience and her own faith,

Well, if Davis opted to quit her job but was compelled to stay, THEN, you'd be correct.
Since the job's duties are no longer compatible with her [supposedly] religious beliefs, her duty to herself is to QUIT and not demand that her job description be changed to suit her religion.

Keep in mind that her duties also entail giving out liquor licenses..

 

[Statistikhengst]

She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.

Her faith demands of her to discriminate against other people in a job that is a SECULAR job? Really?

 

[Dante]

She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.

Such STUPIDITY.........Davis took an oath which specifically stated that her duties entailed issuing marriage licenses.....She no longer can say that she is just a private citizen and she did NOT campaign for the job stating that she would not perform SOME of her duties.

The best part of the arguments of the crazies is the law was different BEFORE she swore her oath.

Imagine a Mayor, a Governor, or a President saying they did not have to obey the law of the land because it changed AFTER they swore their oath?

Madness

It is a perverse and wicked law and if the founding fathers were alive they would wholeheartedly agree with Kim Davis's refusal to participate, Dante.

I think you know very little about how the founders and framers thought

There is no perverseness or wickedness here. Lady Liberty is blind. It's the law. Miss Davis is a public official and in that capacity her religion is none of the state's business

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The Constitution supports her right to freedom of religion and her job has no right to change the rules midstream and force her to go against her own conscience and her own faith,

Well, if Davis opted to quit her job but was compelled to stay, THEN, you'd be correct.
Since the job's duties are no longer compatible with her [supposedly] religious beliefs, her duty to herself is to QUIT and not demand that her job description be changed to suit her religion.

Keep in mind that her duties also entail giving out liquor licenses..

You should see this:

I. Davis Has A Strong Likelihood Of Succeeding On The Merits Of Her Claims Against Gov. Beshear And Commr. Onkst. Davis’ inability to personally authorize and approve SSM licenses bearing her imprimatur against her religious conscience is protected by the United States and Kentucky Constitutions, along with the Kentucky RFRA.

See U.S. CONST., amend I; KY. CONST., §§ 1, 5; KY. REV. STAT. § 446.350.

The Kentucky RFRA, which was enacted by an overwhelming majority in 2013 over Gov. Beshear’s veto, protects a Case: 15-5961 Document: 25-1 Filed: 09/07/2015 Page: 7 (7 of 82) 6 person’s4 “right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief,” and this religious freedom right “may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.”

KY.REV. STAT. §446.350 (emphasis added); see also Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 427 (6th Cir. 2002) (Free Exercise Clause “protects not only the right to hold a particular religious belief, but also the right to engage in conduct motivated by that belief.”).

.5 The statute thus protects not only a person’s beliefs but also a person’s actions (or non-actions) based thereon, and subjugates to the strictest scrutiny any governmental action (be it legislative or regulatory scheme, or executive action) infringing religiously-motivated actions (or non-actions)

.6 4 The Kentucky RFRA protects the religious freedom of all “persons” in Kentucky. While “person” is not defined in the Kentucky RFRA, it is defined in Kentucky’s general definitions statute to include “individuals,” and publicly elected officials are not excluded.

See KY. REV. STAT. § 446.010(33).

5 Because Davis’ free exercise claim is combined with a free speech claim, her free exercise claim is also subject to strict scrutiny. See Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881 (1990).

6 The Kentucky RFRA is housed under Chapter 446 of Kentucky’s statutes, which is entitled “Construction of Statutes,” and includes such other generally applicable provisions as “Definitions for Statutes Generally,” “Computation of Time,” “Severability,” “Titles, Headings, and Notes,” KY. REV. STAT. §§ 446.010, 446.030, 446.090, 446.140. Even more specifically, the Kentucky RFRA is included under a section of Chapter 446 reserved for “Rules of Codification.”

continue reading on link -
https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/..._and_Motion_for_Injunction_Pending_Appeal.pdf

 

[Statistikhengst]

It says, Pending an appeal.

appeal away.

We are a nation of laws, not of people, religious faiths, or gods

Stat left that part out. As he said in his OP -
This graphic tells it all:

I felt he should have included that piece of information. I'm merely pointing out that it says, Pending an appeal.......

Uhm, no.

I don't have to write disclaimers all over the place.

Besides, I knew someone would come by and bitch about this little side-fact.

So, thanks.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Constitution supports her right to freedom of religion and her job has no right to change the rules midstream and force her to go against her own conscience and her own faith,

Well, if Davis opted to quit her job but was compelled to stay, THEN, you'd be correct.
Since the job's duties are no longer compatible with her [supposedly] religious beliefs, her duty to herself is to QUIT and not demand that her job description be changed to suit her religion.

Keep in mind that her duties also entail giving out liquor licenses..

Liquor licenses?!??!?!?

SIN!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HenryBHough]

How is it surprising that Democrats, whose only God was a community organizer, find it incredible that some folks have principles that aren't negotiable?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.

Her faith demands of her to discriminate against other people in a job that is a SECULAR job? Really?

No. The Constitution protects her from discrimination and being targeted for persecution at her workplace. The same sex couple were not put in jail. Kim Davis was, Stat.

 

[Dante]

It says, Pending an appeal.

appeal away.

We are a nation of laws, not of people, religious faiths, or gods

If we were a nation that upheld our constitution and the law of the land the Supreme Court would never have been able to get away with overruling the will of the people and voting on a law they had no business voting on in the first place.

The same people who complain about Kim Davis I did not see respond to the duly elected Barack Obama when he ignored the immigration laws, Dante. Why?

You truly need to take a few civics lessons and learn how our system works and is supposed to work. We do NOT have a system of direct and popular democracy where the mob/majority rules. The Bill of Rights mostly protects minorities from the rule of any majorities. You actually do not like our system. The irony is stunning and sad.

The immigration laws? Executive actions? Legal arguments. If the President is wrong the Court will rule so

 

[Statistikhengst]

She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.

Her faith demands of her to discriminate against other people in a job that is a SECULAR job? Really?

No. The Constitution protects her from discrimination and being targeted for persecution at her workplace. The same sex couple were not put in jail. Kim Davis was, Stat.

Yes, she was put in jail for refusing to do her job. The gay people who came to get a marriage license were not required to do her job. See how that works?

I thought the Christians were for honesty and responsibility. My bad.

 

[nat4900]

She was targeted for her faith as a Christian. It's called persecution and it should not be happening, Dante.

Quit now, nitwit....(as Davis should have done)...As soon as you nut jobs bring up "persecution" you begin sounding like real morons.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

And then there is this:

Davis’ Religious Beliefs Are Substantially Burdened By Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate. Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, along with post-Obergefell pending legislation in Kentucky and the undisputed evidentiary record on this appeal, support the conclusion that Davis’ religious beliefs are substantially burdened by Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate forcing her to authorize SSM licenses.

Davis indisputably holds sincere religious beliefs about marriage and her inability to issue SSM licenses is motivated by those convictions. VTC, ¶¶ 17-18.

In her belief, marriage is the sacred union of a man and a woman, only. VTC, ¶ 17. The prescribed marriage license form required under Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate provides no opportunity for the religious objector (Davis) not to participate in endorsement and approval of SSM.

The specific form uses the word “marriage” at Kentucky marriage law cannot be interpreted without also considering and applying the Kentucky RFRA. Case: 15-5961 Document: 25-1 Filed: 09/07/2015 Page: 9 (9 of 82) 8 six different places, requires Davis’ name to be on the license at two different places (at least) for any license issued in Rowan County, Kentucky, and also requires her to authorize the “join[ing] together in the state of matrimony” a proposed union that she cannot approve. VTC, ¶ 11, and Exs. A, D.

But Davis cannot authorize a union of two persons which, in her sincerely-held belief, is not marriage. VTC, ¶¶ 17-18. Gov. Beshear has flatly rejected Davis’ request for religious exemption. In his view, Davis must either comply with his SSM Mandate, or resign from office. VTC, ¶¶ 28, 36. On Gov. Beshear’s own initiative, the KDLA prepared a revised marriage form in response to his SSM Mandate, which was then distributed to county clerks for them to begin using immediately, without exception, per Gov. Beshear’s directive. VTC, ¶¶ 25-26, and Ex. C.

see link for further information.
https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/..._and_Motion_for_Injunction_Pending_Appeal.pdf

 

[Statistikhengst]

It says, Pending an appeal.

Oh, and BTW, such things almost always say "pending appeal", because according to our system of justice, known adversarial, appeals are to be expected.

You do realize this, right?

 

[guno]

She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.

Such STUPIDITY.........Davis took an oath which specifically stated that her duties entailed issuing marriage licenses.....She no longer can say that she is just a private citizen and she did NOT campaign for the job stating that she would not perform SOME of her duties.

The best part of the arguments of the crazies is the law was different BEFORE she swore her oath.

Imagine a Mayor, a Governor, or a President saying they did not have to obey the law of the land because it changed AFTER they swore their oath?

Madness

It is a perverse and wicked law and if the founding fathers were alive they would wholeheartedly agree with Kim Davis's refusal to participate, Dante.

35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate


“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate

Yea really rolling over in their graves huh

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution supports her right to freedom of religion and her job has no right to change the rules midstream and force her to go against her own conscience and her own faith, Dante.

Wrong.

The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play – invoking the First Amendment is as ignorant and as ridiculous as invoking the 16th Amendment or the 22nd.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

It says, Pending an appeal.

Oh, and BTW, such things almost always say "pending appeal", because according to our system of justice, known adversarial, appeals are to be expected.

You do realize this, right?

I realize you didn't mention it which is why I did, Stat.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And then there is this:

Davis’ Religious Beliefs Are Substantially Burdened By Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate. Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, along with post-Obergefell pending legislation in Kentucky and the undisputed evidentiary record on this appeal, support the conclusion that Davis’ religious beliefs are substantially burdened by Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate forcing her to authorize SSM licenses.

Davis indisputably holds sincere religious beliefs about marriage and her inability to issue SSM licenses is motivated by those convictions. VTC, ¶¶ 17-18.

In her belief, marriage is the sacred union of a man and a woman, only. VTC, ¶ 17. The prescribed marriage license form required under Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate provides no opportunity for the religious objector (Davis) not to participate in endorsement and approval of SSM.

The specific form uses the word “marriage” at Kentucky marriage law cannot be interpreted without also considering and applying the Kentucky RFRA. Case: 15-5961 Document: 25-1 Filed: 09/07/2015 Page: 9 (9 of 82) 8 six different places, requires Davis’ name to be on the license at two different places (at least) for any license issued in Rowan County, Kentucky, and also requires her to authorize the “join[ing] together in the state of matrimony” a proposed union that she cannot approve. VTC, ¶ 11, and Exs. A, D.

But Davis cannot authorize a union of two persons which, in her sincerely-held belief, is not marriage. VTC, ¶¶ 17-18. Gov. Beshear has flatly rejected Davis’ request for religious exemption. In his view, Davis must either comply with his SSM Mandate, or resign from office. VTC, ¶¶ 28, 36. On Gov. Beshear’s own initiative, the KDLA prepared a revised marriage form in response to his SSM Mandate, which was then distributed to county clerks for them to begin using immediately, without exception, per Gov. Beshear’s directive. VTC, ¶¶ 25-26, and Ex. C.

see link for further information.

If her beliefs mean so much to her, how could she ever give a marriage license to a person who has ever mastubated? Had multiple divorces? Children out of wedlock?

Sure sounds like USDA Grade-A cherry-picking to me. Leviticus for thee, but not for me!

 

[bodecea]

How is it surprising that Democrats, whose only God was a community organizer, find it incredible that some folks have principles that aren't negotiable?

She didn't resign...apparently was negotiable.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I suspect that this thread will do well....

 

[Statistikhengst]

It says, Pending an appeal.

Oh, and BTW, such things almost always say "pending appeal", because according to our system of justice, known adversarial, appeals are to be expected.

You do realize this, right?

I realize you didn't mention it which is why I did, Stat.

Well, mention away!!!