Understanding What Kim Davis' Legal Argument Will Be..

[Silhouette]

Of course she already had a lawyer or a team of them before she went to jail. But there seems to be quite a rukkus and misunderstanding of religion when it comes to how her attorneys will frame their argument. Here is a spot to debate Kim Davis' flaws and how they will weigh in on her arguments at trial(s) and on appeal to the US Supreme Court, probably by about late 2016 or early 2017.

The following comment sparked this topic:

Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock. Is that true? I can smell the hypocrisy.

Yes, she is a sinner. And that's why she is a Christian. It's a requirement to walk through the door of a church. You don't approach Christianity from a perspective of perfection, you approach it saying "I am a flawed being, I'm struggling, I need help". That's how it works.

On the topic of adultery and the famous story in the Bible of the stoning incident with Jesus, he said "let any of you who is without sin cast the first stone". His point was twofold: 1. To save the poor stoning victim and 2. To really seat in the minds of the angry mob that we are all sinners and must not judge; judgment is for God.

That being said, Jude 1 spells out that a Christian (who is also a sinner, remember) must reach out to homosexuals with compassion, "making a difference". But that to promote them as a group mentality into the fabric of any society is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. This message exists in the New Testament and in Jesus' teachings as I recall, there are very few examples of of him saying "Oh yeah, you know that Old Testament law and the shit that went down then with God casting people into Hell for eternity? Yeah, this one's like that. It's for realsies." Yet that's what we find in Jude 1.

And it makes sense if you understand sociology. When it comes to human behaviors and mimickry in youth, trends have a way of catching fire in any society. And what do we see today after 30 years of nonstop campaigning by LGBT cult to the youth in media? That's right, hordes of "bi-curious" or "gay" youth popping up like a dandelion-epidemic in a lawn that used to be relatively weed free. God's OK with his lawn having occasional dandelions but not the whole lawn being taken over with time. God remembers Ancient Greece and you don't. So he is wiser than you. God remembers Sodom and you don't. So he is wiser than you.

God teaches us to love the sinner but hate the sin. And that's what Jude 1 is all about. Jesus also extended compassion to prostitutes, thieves and lepers. Does that mean that anyone against or refusing to participate in promoting prostitution, robbery or coming down with leprosy is a "hater"? NO! Of course not! So, Kim Davis is in God's favor. The Bible's New Testament isn't all roses and hippy love fest. There are some hard rules and one of the hardest is not to tamper with God's lawn by helping to seed it with weeds. Otherwise the good grass will be choked out and wouldn't have a chance to grow in that enviroment even if it wanted to desperately. THAT is why the punishment for promoting homosexuality using God's sacred vehicle of the family (marriage) is such a pisser for God. And you will get eternity in the slammer if you fail to heed Jude 1's warning.

So, any lawyer coming forward saying "she's an adulterer! How can she object?!!" is flat out of line. Kim Davis isn't the Bible. Kim Davis is a flawed sinning Christian doing her level best to abide by the Bible in this particular instance. She has read the warnings in Jude 1, presumably. So she knows she must choose between eternal peril or jail. She has chosen wisely. But the people who put her in jail have not chosen wisely. They will be judged twice. Once here on earth in the dank and dusty courtooms. And a second time as they foolishly try to enter the Pearly Gates.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution protects the exercise of religion. It does so not for a building or a group of people, but for an individual following a known and accepted faith (not a cult). The differences between a sublime religion and a cult are determined by society, not one judge or a small panel of them. Christians were who founded our country. And it's going to be a long day in court for an attorney trying to argue how a Johnny-Come-Lately deviant sex cult has a "right" to force a Christian to their knees to bow at a new rainbow colored altar.

The 9th Amendment of the Constitution says that no law may come along and dilute the potency of the 1st Amendment. So Ms. Davis can use the 9th to drive a big fat nail in the wall and hang her 1st Amendment hat on it. "Public Accomodation" must and will take a back seat to the 1st Amendment. Public accomodation is a brand new concept of forcing people to go along with in this case, behaviors they object to.

There was a flawed premise at the very start of all this. And it was/is "behaviors = race". A waffling group of deviant sex behaviors who don't even understand themselves completely, cannot dictate to our nation's sublime stalwart religion since day one (Christians) that they will now have to essentially tear out sections of the Bible and burn them as newly-irrelevant.

 

[bendog]

How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?

 

[Silhouette]

How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?

The 1st Amendment. Next stupid question? Passively refusing to participate in promoting a deviant sex cult isn't an assault on anyone.

The key hinge here will be behaviors do not = race. And this was the problem from the get go. Mark my words. You will see attorneys saying this for Kim Davis. They will bring up the behaviors do not = race argument. And they will point out that if 5 people in DC get to overrule states on regulating behaviors, there is not any remedy those 5 people have later to stop the flow once that dam has burst.

What makes one set of completely objectionable human deviant behaviors any more special than another when it comes to protections? Remember, the majority-rule was overruled. This is how lawyers argue. They will cite "equality!" over and over again as each new set of organized behaviors marches through the marbled halls of SCOTUS to seek their blessings and escape from majority regulation. The five sub-morons Ruling there will have nothing to come back at them with. If they do object to a new behavior most don't like, they will be accused of being bigots.

Those five people are so friggin' stupid that my pet frog would make a sharper judge. The first thing my pet frog would've asked all these professional-litigants from the LGBT camp would have been "ribbet....um...erp..what makes you gay in the first place?...brrrrribbet...erp.." And that would've been the entire first 3 days of court with dozens of expert witnesses. His next question that would take up another day or two would be "brrrribbet...have there ever been any of you who have crossed back and forth from being gay to not being gay and back again?"...followed by the point "mental confusion doesn't make a static class"..That would be the next day in court...and so on.. Gay marriage would've not even gone past a county courthouse at that point. Which is why LGBTs have tried so very very hard to make sure the fact that they are behaviors and not a static class, not come up for discussion AT ALL.

 

[daws101]

Of course she already had a lawyer or a team of them before she went to jail. But there seems to be quite a rukkus and misunderstanding of religion when it comes to how her attorneys will frame their argument. Here is a spot to debate Kim Davis' flaws and how they will weigh in on her arguments at trial(s) and on appeal to the US Supreme Court, probably by about late 2016 or early 2017.

The following comment sparked this topic:

Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock. Is that true? I can smell the hypocrisy.

Yes, she is a sinner. And that's why she is a Christian. It's a requirement to walk through the door of a church. You don't approach Christianity from a perspective of perfection, you approach it saying "I am a flawed being, I'm struggling, I need help". That's how it works.

On the topic of adultery and the famous story in the Bible of the stoning incident with Jesus, he said "let any of you who is without sin cast the first stone". His point was twofold: 1. To save the poor stoning victim and 2. To really seat in the minds of the angry mob that we are all sinners and must not judge; judgment is for God.

That being said, Jude 1 spells out that a Christian (who is also a sinner, remember) must reach out to homosexuals with compassion, "making a difference". But that to promote them as a group mentality into the fabric of any society is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. This message exists in the New Testament and in Jesus' teachings as I recall, there are very few examples of of him saying "Oh yeah, you know that Old Testament law and the shit that went down then with God casting people into Hell for eternity? Yeah, this one's like that. It's for realsies." Yet that's what we find in Jude 1.

And it makes sense if you understand sociology. When it comes to human behaviors and mimickry in youth, trends have a way of catching fire in any society. And what do we see today after 30 years of nonstop campaigning by LGBT cult to the youth in media? That's right, hordes of "bi-curious" or "gay" youth popping up like a dandelion-epidemic in a lawn that used to be relatively weed free. God's OK with his lawn having occasional dandelions but not the whole lawn being taken over with time. God remembers Ancient Greece and you don't. So he is wiser than you. God remembers Sodom and you don't. So he is wiser than you.

God teaches us to love the sinner but hate the sin. And that's what Jude 1 is all about. Jesus also extended compassion to prostitutes, thieves and lepers. Does that mean that anyone against or refusing to participate in promoting prostitution, robbery or coming down with leprosy is a "hater"? NO! Of course not! So, Kim Davis is in God's favor. The Bible's New Testament isn't all roses and hippy love fest. There are some hard rules and one of the hardest is not to tamper with God's lawn by helping to seed it with weeds. Otherwise the good grass will be choked out and wouldn't have a chance to grow in that enviroment even if it wanted to desperately. THAT is why the punishment for promoting homosexuality using God's sacred vehicle of the family (marriage) is such a pisser for God. And you will get eternity in the slammer if you fail to heed Jude 1's warning.

So, any lawyer coming forward saying "she's an adulterer! How can she object?!!" is flat out of line. Kim Davis isn't the Bible. Kim Davis is a flawed sinning Christian doing her level best to abide by the Bible in this particular instance. She has read the warnings in Jude 1, presumably. So she knows she must choose between eternal peril or jail. She has chosen wisely. But the people who put her in jail have not chosen wisely. They will be judged twice. Once here on earth in the dank and dusty courtooms. And a second time as they foolishly try to enter the Pearly Gates.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution protects the exercise of religion. It does so not for a building or a group of people, but for an individual following a known and accepted faith (not a cult). The differences between a sublime religion and a cult are determined by society, not one judge or a small panel of them. Christians were who founded our country. And it's going to be a long day in court for an attorney trying to argue how a Johnny-Come-Lately deviant sex cult has a "right" to force a Christian to their knees to bow at a new rainbow colored altar.

The 9th Amendment of the Constitution says that no law may come along and dilute the potency of the 1st Amendment. So Ms. Davis can use the 9th to drive a big fat nail in the wall and hang her 1st Amendment hat on it. "Public Accomodation" must and will take a back seat to the 1st Amendment. Public accomodation is a brand new concept of forcing people to go along with in this case, behaviors they object to.

There was a flawed premise at the very start of all this. And it was/is "behaviors = race". A waffling group of deviant sex behaviors who don't even understand themselves completely, cannot dictate to our nation's sublime stalwart religion since day one (Christians) that they will now have to essentially tear out sections of the Bible and burn them as newly-irrelevant.

your poll is extremely bias and should not be answered.

 

[daws101]

How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?

The 1st Amendment. Next stupid question? Passively refusing to participate in promoting a deviant sex cult isn't an assault on anyone.

The key hinge here will be behaviors do not = race. And this was the problem from the get go. Mark my words. You will see attorneys saying this for Kim Davis. They will bring up the behaviors do not = race argument. And they will point out that if 5 people in DC get to overrule states on regulating behaviors, there is not any remedy those 5 people have later to stop the flow once that dam has burst.

the 1st amendment says just the opposite .

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
that means she can believe what ever she want's but she cannot force that pov on others.

 

[bendog]

How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?

The 1st Amendment. Next stupid question? Passively refusing to participate in promoting a deviant sex cult isn't an assault on anyone.

The key hinge here will be behaviors do not = race. And this was the problem from the get go. Mark my words. You will see attorneys saying this for Kim Davis. They will bring up the behaviors do not = race argument. And they will point out that if 5 people in DC get to overrule states on regulating behaviors, there is not any remedy those 5 people have later to stop the flow once that dam has burst.

What makes one set of completely objectionable human deviant behaviors any more special than another when it comes to protections? Remember, the majority-rule was overruled. This is how lawyers argue. They will cite "equality!" over and over again as each new set of organized behaviors marches through the marbled halls of SCOTUS to seek their blessings and escape from majority regulation. The five sub-morons Ruling there will have nothing to come back at them with. If they do object to a new behavior most don't like, they will be accused of being bigots.

Those five people are so friggin' stupid that my pet frog would make a sharper judge. The first thing my pet frog would've asked all these professional-litigants from the LGBT camp would have been "ribbet....um...erp..what makes you gay in the first place?...brrrrribbet...erp.." And that would've been the entire first 3 days of court with dozens of expert witnesses.

The first amendment allows one to break the law?

 

[Asclepias]

How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?

The 1st Amendment. Next stupid question? Passively refusing to participate in promoting a deviant sex cult isn't an assault on anyone.

That was a retarded answer. No one is keeping her from practicing her religion or protesting against gay marriage as long as she does her job.

 

[Asclepias]

How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?

The 1st Amendment. Next stupid question? Passively refusing to participate in promoting a deviant sex cult isn't an assault on anyone.

The key hinge here will be behaviors do not = race. And this was the problem from the get go. Mark my words. You will see attorneys saying this for Kim Davis. They will bring up the behaviors do not = race argument. And they will point out that if 5 people in DC get to overrule states on regulating behaviors, there is not any remedy those 5 people have later to stop the flow once that dam has burst.

What makes one set of completely objectionable human deviant behaviors any more special than another when it comes to protections? Remember, the majority-rule was overruled. This is how lawyers argue. They will cite "equality!" over and over again as each new set of organized behaviors marches through the marbled halls of SCOTUS to seek their blessings and escape from majority regulation. The five sub-morons Ruling there will have nothing to come back at them with. If they do object to a new behavior most don't like, they will be accused of being bigots.

Those five people are so friggin' stupid that my pet frog would make a sharper judge. The first thing my pet frog would've asked all these professional-litigants from the LGBT camp would have been "ribbet....um...erp..what makes you gay in the first place?...brrrrribbet...erp.." And that would've been the entire first 3 days of court with dozens of expert witnesses.

The first amendment allows one to break the law?

This is what happens when people dont pay attention in school. They get all kinds of wild ideas about what the first amendment means.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I just joined a reigion that says I have to rob people to be saved. Silhouette give me your money or you're violating my religious freedom.

 

[Silhouette]

That was a retarded answer. No one is keeping her from practicing her religion or protesting against gay marriage as long as she does her job.

Doing her job WAS keeping her from practicing her religion if she was being forced to participate in gay marriage by issuing two people of the same gender a marriage license. That's precisely the point, silly. Check the OP for the details.

 

[Silhouette]

I just joined a reigion that says I have to rob people to be saved. Silhouette give me your money or you're violating my religious freedom.

The OP covers that too, society determines what a sublime and legitimate religion is, not you or five people in DC. That's why a majority rule was so important to the founding fathers: so legal messes like this can be sorted out by the People.

Your cult has not the same legal footing as Christianity does. So says THE MAJORITY.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?

The 1st Amendment.

I must disagree. The 1st guarantees her unfettered expression of her religion, but does not guarantee her a job of choice should she choose to exercise that right within
the parameters of her elective office.

She has a choice to make.

 

[Asclepias]

That was a retarded answer. No one is keeping her from practicing her religion or protesting against gay marriage as long as she does her job.

Doing her job WAS keeping her from practicing her religion if she was being forced to participate in gay marriage by issuing two people of the same gender a marriage license. That's precisely the point, silly. Check the OP for the details.

Then she has the option of quitting her job. She has to make decisions that dont affect others in her choice of action. If she feels that doing her job is against her religion she doesnt get to change the job description. Sorry.

 

[g5000]

According to the Bible, every time Kim Davis issues a marriage license to someone who has divorced, she is helping that person commit adultery.

Not in the past. In the present. The very act of remarrying is adultery, according to the Bible.

Kim Davis is party to adultery every single working day. She gets PAID to help people commit adultery. This is ongoing, unrepentant sinning. This is not "I will do my best to sin no more". This is actively engaging in the sin of adultery.

Every. Single. Day.

Kentucky has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. Having had four marriages does not make Kim Davis exceptional. She is the norm.

And she works every day to make multiple marriages and adultery the norm.

So don't give me this BULLSHIT she is abiding by the Bible. That is a MONSTROUS LIE.

Heeeeeeeeeeere's JESUS!!!:

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

You see that? The very act of remarrying is adultery. You cannot remarry unless Kim Davis gives you the marriage certificate. Kentucky law requires a person provide a certificate of divorce to Kim Davis if they have been married before. So she knows they are breaking Biblical law. When she gives them that certificate, she is knowingly letting them commit adultery.

So the next time you hypocritical assholes shed tears of blood over Kim Davis and her fake defense of the Bible, I strongly suggest you actually READ IT.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?

. 1st Amendment protection of citizen. I don't recognize my Country anymore. Now, we are being ruled by a Party of either dictators or dick-tasters.

 

[bendog]

That was a retarded answer. No one is keeping her from practicing her religion or protesting against gay marriage as long as she does her job.

Doing her job WAS keeping her from practicing her religion if she was being forced to participate in gay marriage by issuing two people of the same gender a marriage license. That's precisely the point, silly. Check the OP for the details.

Nooo, she could have resigned, or directed one of her employees to sign off on the license.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is a theological argument, not a legal one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The courts have a long history of denying religious citizens the right to break the law. I don't see how or why that would need to change here.

 

[daws101]

That was a retarded answer. No one is keeping her from practicing her religion or protesting against gay marriage as long as she does her job.

Doing her job WAS keeping her from practicing her religion if she was being forced to participate in gay marriage by issuing two people of the same gender a marriage license. That's precisely the point, silly. Check the OP for the details.

again slapdick her job supersedes her religious belief because she's a government employee.
she was not being forced to do jack shit against practicing her faith .
that's like working in a factory and not making anything

 

[Silhouette]

Who you calling slapdick, dumass..