It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

page: 11
76
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

All laws are based on morality.

A politicians opinion of it.

What should be legal, and what shouldn't be.

There is NO difference.




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: dawnstar




???? no it doesn't it just means that we are a secular society and therefore not subject to christian beliefs. and well if you break those laws, you end up paying a price.


Why yes government 'morality' is so much cooler than religious.

Although one would be hard pressed to differentiate between the two.


You have to ask yourself this question. She could have any number of religious ideas or beliefs.

So why should her religion stop me or anyone I know or hinder anyone I know from getting married? That's forcing your religion on someone and we don't do that here in America. The land of the Free...except her office.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




I have a legal Right to be FREE FROM RELIGION.


Try reading the 1st, and 14th amendments of again.

'Freedom Of, and the PRACTICE of'

'Freedom FROM religion is a misnomer.




I 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.


www.law.cornell.edu...
edit on 3-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
They don't want to follow the rules but expect everyone else to follow theirs.


That's my problem with this whole situation. I support her having strong beliefs. I support her first amendment religious rights. I support her refusing to do something against her beliefs (IF that's why she's doing it, which I have my own doubts about). But I do NOT support her attempts to FORCE her beliefs down the throats of her employers! They do not answer to her.

She thinks her name on the form means she "approves" of the marriage! She's got quite an ego there... That's a power she does not have. Her job is not to "approve" the marriages of Rowan County. Her job is to issue licenses, maintain vital statistics, register voters, etc., whether she approves or not.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sycomix

What are you talking about? First, there is likely only ONE county clerk in that county, so there is no "other line" for someone to get into. Second, she is an elected official, NOT an employee of some business or company. She was elected to do a job, if she can't do it, then she needs to step down. Third, your point about Muslims getting away with not handling pork or serving alcohol is a red herring since that is between the company the Muslim works for and the Muslim himself and NOT the government.


Don't care a hoot, if the muzzie can get away with all manner of crap for religious reasons so can she. She can not be forced to act against her beliefs, me personally give no care one way or the other. I am an ordained reverend and do same sex weddings, but then again I feel they have the same right to domestic misery as anyone. By the by, she is paid a salary right??? Then she is employed by some body that doles out a pay check, so yeah the whole pork and alcohol thing stands.


Muslims don't get away with anything more than Christians who don't get away with anything more than Jews and so on and so on.

Stop making things up. And no, don't post some poor source confirming your made up beliefs.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
And people don't forgets CLinton's RFRA.



The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage[2]—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.




therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[5]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
All laws are based on morality.


No they're not. Morality is too subjective to base law solely on morality. They're based on keeping Order and Control.

Dog leash laws have nothing to do with Morality. They have to do with safety. Traffic laws have nothing to do with morality either. Neither do about a million other laws.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




No they're not. Morality is too subjective to base law solely on morality. They're based on keeping Order and Control.


Yeah they are. They are based on nothing of real substance.

Especially when we have one body 'interpreting' the laws written, and another one creating them out of 'opinion polls'.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
'Freedom FROM religion is a misnomer.


But, I, too, have freedom of religion. And if I have to adhere to any of the religious beliefs of any religion, then I don't have the freedom to practice my religious beliefs. So, yes, inherent in freedom of religion is freedom from religion.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

Try reading the 1st, and 14th amendments of again.

'Freedom Of, and the PRACTICE of'

'Freedom FROM religion is a misnomer.


Fine. Because Practicing My Religion exempts me from having to practice Your Religion. So it makes no difference.

Practicing My Religion, whatever it may be, means I am FREE FROM OTHER RELIGIONS.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

Pointing out hypocrisy is bashing?

Care to look in the mirror then.


Nah, don't try being coy. When the conversation goes beyond what this woman is doing and starts into an interpretation of religious dogma, then the bashing begins.

But play with your hate.

Not going to participate.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

well, if they are adhering to that other part of the bible, ya know, the one that says we should be obeying the laws, well, they should, by all means disobey her, just like she did the judge....
because their beliefs also trump her civil authority....
if you don't want your authority undermined, then don't go undermining the authorities above you!
otherwise, well, it can get to be a free for all...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I would assume,
that the Red States Are going to have a Hard Time
adjusting to new laws,

Sadly

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper
en.wikipedia.org...


"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

a catch 22 !




lol !! SO FUNNY !


Davis cites her Christian beliefs as an Apostolic Christian and "God's authority" for the refusals. She claims that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is a matter of "Heaven or Hell," The Washington Post reported.



www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Yeah they are. They are based on nothing of real substance.

Especially when we have one body 'interpreting' the laws written, and another one creating them out of 'opinion polls'.


No they are not. I just gave you examples of Laws that are written that have nothing to do with Morality.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Exactly. She expects her clerks to follow her order while she chooses not to follow orders given to her.

But people like her don't care about double standards because of their pride. One of the 7 deadly sins she should know not to do according to her own religion.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

If that were the case, she wouldn't be there, would she?

This is exactly what should happen to her.

If she feels that she is unable to do the job as required she should resign.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: mOjOm




I have a legal Right to be FREE FROM RELIGION.


Try reading the 1st, and 14th amendments of again.

'Freedom Of, and the PRACTICE of'

'Freedom FROM religion is a misnomer.




I 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.


www.law.cornell.edu...


the framers deliberately left it vague....it does not say the "practice" of....precisely for the reason that those "practices" might interfere with someone else's religious freedom.....remember that the rights of the first amendment have to do with personal rights..in other words, if her religion tells her that marriage is only for 1 man to 1 woman, or, if her religion says that she can only marry 1 man that is Caucasian, then the government cannot force HER to marry differently from what her own religion teaches her...that would be against her constitutional 1st amendment right pertaining to "freedom of religion"



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
She swore on a bible to uphold the Constitution; not the other way around. I am beyond pleased that the judge saw things the same way!


Unfortunately, the judge is wrong.

The judge has just violated article "six" of the U.S. constitution.

Remind all who can read and understand what the text says,



The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


With his order, the judge has effectively declared that to work for the US Government, a person must hold religious beliefs consistent with his orders, and marry gays and lesbians. That is a religious test.



edit on 3-9-2015 by AMPTAH because: fixed quote



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Are you saying laws should be based in religion?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

There was no religious test performed.

The judge has NO SAY over her beliefs, but he does have a say if she breaks the law, which she did.

She doesn't marry ANYONE, she simply gives them a license.

There is no religious test.
edit on 9/3/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join