Understanding What Kim Davis' Legal Argument Will Be..

[Jantje_Smit]

....Let me be quite plain here> It is STRICTLY forbidden by the New Testament of Jesus Christ for ANY Christian to normalize homosexuality AT ALL, in any way, shape or form. So, Kim Davis affixing her signature to those marriage certificates was not one iota different from her affixing her signature in a contract with the Devil.....

I think I can see the problem, it's called the Constitution of the United States, not the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

Very confusing I'll admit, but there's still a difference

Kim Davis should have realized that before selling her soul to the devil for $80,000 a year

 

[Silhouette]

....Let me be quite plain here> It is STRICTLY forbidden by the New Testament of Jesus Christ for ANY Christian to normalize homosexuality AT ALL, in any way, shape or form. So, Kim Davis affixing her signature to those marriage certificates was not one iota different from her affixing her signature in a contract with the Devil.....

I think I can see the problem, it's called the Constitution of the United States, not the New Testament of Jesus Christ....Very confusing I'll admit, but there's still a difference...Kim Davis should have realized that before selling her soul to the devil for $80,000 a year..

For that to be true, Kim Davis needed to be a psychic seer. Because when she took her oath there was no requirment that she also sign a contract with the Devil. That requirement (which isn't legal) became "law" in June 2015. She started working there as Clerk before that. So she violated nothing. The new "law" violated her instead.

And, will it now be required that for Christians to work in a public office that has anything to do with promoting "gay marriage", they have to abdicate their faith or will there be "Christians need not apply" signs posted outside of public offices with "help wanted" signs out front?

 

[Montrovant]

....Let me be quite plain here> It is STRICTLY forbidden by the New Testament of Jesus Christ for ANY Christian to normalize homosexuality AT ALL, in any way, shape or form. So, Kim Davis affixing her signature to those marriage certificates was not one iota different from her affixing her signature in a contract with the Devil.....

I think I can see the problem, it's called the Constitution of the United States, not the New Testament of Jesus Christ....Very confusing I'll admit, but there's still a difference...Kim Davis should have realized that before selling her soul to the devil for $80,000 a year..

For that to be true, Kim Davis needed to be a psychic seer. Because when she took her oath there was no requirment that she also sign a contract with the Devil. That requirement (which isn't legal) became "law" in June 2015. She started working there as Clerk before that. So she violated nothing. The new "law" violated her instead.

And, will it now be required that for Christians to work in a public office that has anything to do with promoting "gay marriage", they have to abdicate their faith or will there be "Christians need not apply" signs posted outside of public offices with "help wanted" signs out front?

Are you advocating that any public official who is employed when the law changes need not follow that law?

It is my understanding that Mrs. Davis not only would not grant marriage licenses, she prevented her employees from doing so as well. That is going well beyond passively asserting her religious beliefs.

You can claim that same sex marriage isn't legal all you like. Unfortunately for you, the highest court in the land disagrees. Until that same court changes their opinion or a constitutional amendment is passed it most certainly is legal.

 

[mdk]

....Let me be quite plain here> It is STRICTLY forbidden by the New Testament of Jesus Christ for ANY Christian to normalize homosexuality AT ALL, in any way, shape or form. So, Kim Davis affixing her signature to those marriage certificates was not one iota different from her affixing her signature in a contract with the Devil.....

I think I can see the problem, it's called the Constitution of the United States, not the New Testament of Jesus Christ....Very confusing I'll admit, but there's still a difference...Kim Davis should have realized that before selling her soul to the devil for $80,000 a year..

For that to be true, Kim Davis needed to be a psychic seer. Because when she took her oath there was no requirment that she also sign a contract with the Devil. That requirement (which isn't legal) became "law" in June 2015. She started working there as Clerk before that. So she violated nothing. The new "law" violated her instead.

And, will it now be required that for Christians to work in a public office that has anything to do with promoting "gay marriage", they have to abdicate their faith or will there be "Christians need not apply" signs posted outside of public offices with "help wanted" signs out front?

Are you advocating that any public official who is employed when the law changes need not follow that law?

It is my understanding that Mrs. Davis not only would not grant marriage licenses, she prevented her employees from doing so as well. That is going well beyond passively asserting her religious beliefs.

You can claim that same sex marriage isn't legal all you like. Unfortunately for you, the highest court in the land disagrees. Until that same court changes their opinion or a constitutional amendment is passed it most certainly is legal.

You would have better luck explaining these truths to a cat or a tree branch. lol

 

[Jantje_Smit]

For that to be true, Kim Davis needed to be a psychic seer. Because when she took her oath there was no requirment that she also sign a contract with the Devil. That requirement (which isn't legal) became "law" in June 2015. She started working there as Clerk before that. So she violated nothing. The new "law" violated her instead.

I thought the federal government was the devil.

And when you take an oath to faithfully do the work of the devil (the constitution) you really can't complain about it later. That's why you get $80,000 a year.

And, will it now be required that for Christians to work in a public office that has anything to do with promoting "gay marriage", they have to abdicate their faith or will there be "Christians need not apply" signs posted outside of public offices with "help wanted" signs out front?

Yes, that's a scary prospect. Unfortunately that's a consequence of giving the evil gays equal rights, it makes true christians unequal. But it can get worse, if the gay maffia gets what it wants all you christians will be made to wear a yellow cross and be put in FEMA camps.

 

[mdk]

The logic of Davis is obviously flawed. She thinks her name on the licences, whether she signs it or not, is tantamount to an endorsement. Using that silliness as the standard, she has endorsed every singe marriage and divorce that has come through her office, whether it was Biblically sanctioned or not. Suddenly she is concerned about it when it comes to queers. Sorry girl, not buying it and neither are the courts. Her 15 mins. are just about up. Poor dear.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

....Her 15 mins. are just about up. Poor dear.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, that's what everybody thought about Palin when McInsane lost the selections

I predict a very lucrative future for her as a religious consultant, marriage counseler or something like that

 

[Bonzi]

I'm not sure Kim Davis is doing any service to the Lord God.
In fact, I'm starting to believe she is doing this for attention, because she's ugly and irrelevant.... and is an attention whore (like most people are if they want to be REALLY real with themselves).....

Someone standing up for God will be Godly. That means with meekness and love for others, standing for God but not "showing off" about it - the Pharisees did that, you know what Jesus thought of them.....

 

[mdk]

....Her 15 mins. are just about up. Poor dear.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, that's what everybody thought about Palin when McInsane lost the selections

I predict a very lucrative future for her as a religious consultant, marriage counseler or something like that

I am sure she will make the speaking rounds at CPAC and the Values Voter Summit but most people won't give a shit what this charlatan has to say.

 

[JoeB131]

But the court order isn't legal if it requires her to abandon her 1st Amendment rights.

I'm not going to wade through this- AGAIN.

She has a first Amendment right to believe in whatever backward ass, silly superstition she wants.

She does not have a right to break the law or refuse to do her job.

If she really, really feels that she can't give a gay couple a marriage license without endangering her imaginary soul, she can QUIT HER JOB.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you advocating that any public official who is employed when the law changes need not follow that law? .

Yes. If we were talking about a law that was passed requiring each and every hospital to perform abortions and a catholic charity hospital's adminstrator refused on religious grounds, then that hospital even though it was "breaking the law" cannot be required to perform those abortions or be driven out of business or forced to close their doors because of that refusal to comply.

Short answer: Yes.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

TLDR

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you advocating that any public official who is employed when the law changes need not follow that law? .

Yes. If we were talking about a law that was passed requiring each and every hospital to perform abortions and a catholic charity hospital's adminstrator refused on religious grounds, then that hospital even though it was "breaking the law" cannot be required to perform those abortions or be driven out of business or forced to close their doors because of that refusal to comply.

Short answer: Yes.

Some laws should be broken. Particularly unjust laws. Like the law that allows this president to spy on all americans and kill them with a pen.

 

[Montrovant]

Are you advocating that any public official who is employed when the law changes need not follow that law? .

Yes. If we were talking about a law that was passed requiring each and every hospital to perform abortions and a catholic charity hospital's adminstrator refused on religious grounds, then that hospital even though it was "breaking the law" cannot be required to perform those abortions or be driven out of business or forced to close their doors because of that refusal to comply.

Short answer: Yes.

You do realize that a Catholic charity is not a government run institution, don't you? You do realize that Mrs. Davis was acting in her capacity as county clerk, don't you?

So if the law changes the age of consent to marry in a state, you think that any county clerks who were already employed before that change should be able to give out marriage licenses to people based on the previous law? Or how about this, let's stick with the theme of gays : you think that any police who were employed prior to the SCOTUS ruling that sodomy laws are unconstitutional should have been allowed to continue to arrest gays for having consenting sex? You think judges should have continued to convict those homosexuals despite the law being ruled unconstitutional?

Of course you are. Until there's a ruling you agree with; then I'm sure you'll happily tell everyone that the rule of law must be followed.