Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Last time I checked divorce and adultery are no no's. Where are her firmly held convictions there.

To be fair, she is a RECENT convert to Christianity and all her divorces happened before she got Jesus.

To me, that's like a woman who has had 3 abortions, finding Jesus, and becoming a rabid anti-abortionist.

It's still hypocritical because Davis thinks HER beliefs should apply to everyone, but she willingly issues marriage licenses to sinners of ALL ilks. That's the hypocrisy. She issues marriage licenses to liars, adulterers, fornicators, etc., and never asks for proof that they live by her beliefs...

To get technical, she really doesn't know for sure about straight couples if they are not outwardly and obviously sinning while they walk in to her office, or at home every day, but she does know for a fact that a gay couple does violate her beliefs.. See how that works now? It is really a very simple deduction... Not popular these days, but it is what it is.

I personally am not a part of what other people do and so I don't judge hoping that I might not also be judged. I wouldn't hope for judgment upon my worst enemy.

I'm sure she is knowingly giving licences to divorced heterosexuals who are remarrying which is adultery according to the teachings of Jesus.

According to something I read yesterday, she even gave a marriage license to a transman after accepting him at face value, and not asking for a birth certificate, will try to find a link, but was reported in a couple of places.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Did the laws exist when they got the job? All your examples are bad comparisons because the laws where in place when they got the job. If a Muslim gets a job at the DMV, say in Saudi Arabia as an example... and they just legalized women DL's after he had been working there a while ... then the situation would be similar. Since women could already drive here the Muslim would have no ground to stand on considering he would have to have known before getting the job... if it was illegal for women to drive and he got the job and then they changed the law... now you have a comparison.

After prohibition was nullified by the supreme court alcohol became legal... did people all sell it across the country ? No. Was someones feelings hurt when they couldn't buy it and the supreme court said it was ok? Probably. Did people demand store clerks be imprisoned and/or fired? Not anywhere near what we are seeing over this.

I find your lack of logic disturbing.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

but, I know for a fact that there are other christians who believe that the old testament is to be obeyed just as the new testament is to be!
so which form of baptism is right, should one be dunked, or is a light sprinkling on the head sufficient? can it be done at birth, or should one wait until they make a conscious decision?
or more importantly....
do you want the freedom to make that decision yourself and follow through, or should the gov't decide that a light sprinkling is sufficient and ban submersing people because of the risk of drowning?

it seems that the christians have no problem with the gov't intervening when it comes to protecting their religious freedoms, at the expense of other people's freedoms, but well, they don't seem to realize that by doing this they are also allowing them to decide what beliefs aren't worthy of this protection.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: dawnstar
but well she was just obeying what the bible said when she stoned the kid, how was that wrong??

or are we picking and chosing what we wish to believe that the bible says?

but I of agree with EternalSolace. it wouldn't have hurt to have the legislators brought in to resolve this.

Not picking and choosing anything. There are two parts to the Bible. The Old Testament and the New Testament. The "New" Testament is a revision of the Old one, and the Bible started anew. Jesus was the "new" covenant,what you speak of is in the Old Testament.

Jesus said that the laws of Moses was to be followed as well.

That's cool, I am going to go out on a limb here and say Moses, most likley never stoned anyone in the face...or God would not have chosen him. That would be just another common thug.

Are you joking? If not see Numbers 15:

While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

but, I know for a fact that there are other christians who believe that the old testament is to be obeyed just as the new testament is to be!
so which form of baptism is right, should one be dunked, or is a light sprinkling on the head sufficient? can it be done at birth, or should one wait until they make a conscious decision?
or more importantly....
do you want the freedom to make that decision yourself and follow through, or should the gov't decide that a light sprinkling is sufficient and ban submersing people because of the risk of drowning?

it seems that the christians have no problem with the gov't intervening when it comes to protecting their religious freedoms, at the expense of other people's freedoms, but well, they don't seem to realize that by doing this they are also allowing them to decide what beliefs aren't worthy of this protection.

Christians are not the only ones who have won battles because of the government. Ever seen Wall Street?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Arresting her, imo, was overkill. I don't understand why this became
a police or criminal matter.

It'll be interesting to see what the charges are / what city / state / or federal
law she allegedly broke.

I think simply revoking her license and having her effectively fired would have
been quite sufficient.

And this is coming from a gay man.

IDK, maybe the judge wants her to keep her license and thinks a few
days in jail would make an example of her.

I would be very surprised if she's convicted of any kind of a crime.

Rebel 5

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

??? I've spent all that time posting, I believe three messages concerning what you are claiming, and that is all you have to say...
please explain how that is even relevant??

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: dawnstar
but well she was just obeying what the bible said when she stoned the kid, how was that wrong??

or are we picking and chosing what we wish to believe that the bible says?

but I of agree with EternalSolace. it wouldn't have hurt to have the legislators brought in to resolve this.

Not picking and choosing anything. There are two parts to the Bible. The Old Testament and the New Testament. The "New" Testament is a revision of the Old one, and started anew. Jesus was the "new" covenant,what you speak of is in the Old Testament.

So the Old Testament is null and void then?

Why is it still included in your God's Book?

Also, your point of view is not generally accepted except when someone wants to try and sidestep the horror show that is Genesis through Malachi, so, talk to your brethren and sistren, not the rational folks.

The Old Testament is indeed, null and void. It is there for historical knowledge only, and to remind people of the past, so that they will not be doomed to repeat it in their future.

No that isn't even close to true. The ten commandments is still valid and so is anything else in it. That doesn't mean that the old Jewish law should be adhered to even though it actually is today. Oh, and the other commandment which supersedes all the others, is love each other as you would yourself.

Is that one being obeyed these days?

Hmm.... You know what? you are right after all... I can't see much of it being followed either.. What a pity, doomed to fail again..

Unless each person can pull it together, stop doing bad things, and be good to everyone else.. That would mean a lot of greedy and selfish people would have to be charitable and kind, I really doubt that that will fly.

Yep, your right after all.. We are really in a world of hurt, if you will pardon the expression.

If you can make the world a better place for just one, it is a positive step.

a reply to: rebelv

She's an elected official.

She can't be fired, only impeached or she can resign.

She violated a court order, was found in contempt of court.

She could leave jail at any time if she agreed to perform the duties she was elected to do.

At least, that's my take on it.

a reply to: rebelv

that same thing has happened to journalists who have been ordered by the courts to reveal their sources and they've refused. they were thrown in jail for contempt. if they want out of jail, they have to reveal their sources or well, wait around till the judge gives up on it.
I would tend to side with the journalists for the most part on this, but well, not when it comes to a country clerk who is using the position to deny a service to the residents of the county.

a reply to: yuppa

The whole New Covenant/Old Covenent thing becomes a gimmick for "salad bar" style Christians.

Whatever they don't want to follow in the old Testament is "old Covenent."

Whatever they want to cite is still the Word of God.

You see all the usual Old Testament quotes on the posters carried by the anti-gay contingent.

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Arresting her, imo, was overkill. I don't understand why this became
a police or criminal matter.

It'll be interesting to see what the charges are / what city / state / or federal
law she allegedly broke.

I think simply revoking her license and having her effectively fired would have
been quite sufficient.

And this is coming from a gay man.

IDK, maybe the judge wants her to keep her license and thinks a few
days in jail would make an example of her.

I would be very surprised if she's convicted of any kind of a crime.

Rebel 5

She was not arrested, she was found in contempt of court for defying a court order, and the court ordered her jailed. Is there no one here that understands the legal system?

originally posted by: Volund
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Did the laws exist when they got the job? All your examples are bad comparisons because the laws where in place when they got the job. If a Muslim gets a job at the DMV, say in Saudi Arabia as an example... and they just legalized women DL's after he had been working there a while ... then the situation would be similar. Since women could already drive here the Muslim would have no ground to stand on considering he would have to have known before getting the job... if it was illegal for women to drive and he got the job and then they changed the law... now you have a comparison.

After prohibition was nullified by the supreme court alcohol became legal... did people all sell it across the country ? No. Was someones feelings hurt when they couldn't buy it and the supreme court said it was ok? Probably. Did people demand store clerks be imprisoned and/or fired? Not anywhere near what we are seeing over this.

I find your lack of logic disturbing.

Sorry for the bad comparisons, really didn't plan on having this discussion tonight. Long story short, the lady used her own personal religious beliefs to deny another US citizen their constitutional rights, and defied a court order to do so, tonight she is in jail, where she rightfully should be by US law, I am not sure where you find an argument against this. My logic is perfectly fine, nothing to be disturbed about, methinks you must be looking in the mirror as you type.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Arresting her, imo, was overkill. I don't understand why this became
a police or criminal matter.

It'll be interesting to see what the charges are / what city / state / or federal
law she allegedly broke.

I think simply revoking her license and having her effectively fired would have
been quite sufficient.

And this is coming from a gay man.

IDK, maybe the judge wants her to keep her license and thinks a few
days in jail would make an example of her.

I would be very surprised if she's convicted of any kind of a crime.

Rebel 5

She was not arrested, she was found in contempt of court for defying a court order, and the court ordered her jailed. Is there no one here that understands the legal system?

If there was, Fox News would be out of a job. How else are they going to spin this to be about this poor woman being locked up for her religious beliefs?

Although I'm sympathetic to her wanting to follow her beliefs, her $80,000/year clerk's job requires her to issue marriage licenses. I'm sure their are many others who believe as she does who are now issuing licenses to gay couples. It's not an endorsement. The store where I used to work at one time sold Asian art. Included in the art were some pagan idols and Buddhist statues. I was cussed out by more than one person for selling them. But it was my job to sell them, and I didn't think I was APPROVING them by doing so. I wasn't asked to believe in them, just sell them. They were pretty. I think you see what I'm getting at. She is not required to get a gay marriage herself, just fill out a form.
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Volund
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Did the laws exist when they got the job? All your examples are bad comparisons because the laws where in place when they got the job. If a Muslim gets a job at the DMV, say in Saudi Arabia as an example... and they just legalized women DL's after he had been working there a while ... then the situation would be similar. Since women could already drive here the Muslim would have no ground to stand on considering he would have to have known before getting the job... if it was illegal for women to drive and he got the job and then they changed the law... now you have a comparison.

After prohibition was nullified by the supreme court alcohol became legal... did people all sell it across the country ? No. Was someones feelings hurt when they couldn't buy it and the supreme court said it was ok? Probably. Did people demand store clerks be imprisoned and/or fired? Not anywhere near what we are seeing over this.

I find your lack of logic disturbing.

Sorry for the bad comparisons, really didn't plan on having this discussion tonight. Long story short, the lady used her own personal religious beliefs to deny another US citizen their constitutional rights, and defied a court order to do so, tonight she is in jail, where she rightfully should be by US law, I am not sure where you find an argument against this. My logic is perfectly fine, nothing to be disturbed about, methinks you must be looking in the mirror as you type.

Her belief system was perfectly legal a couple weeks ago when she was doing her job. Her beliefs were legal when she ran for election. The law changed. The law wasn't in place, or even close to ever being in place, when she got the job. She didn't get a job knowing it was legal beforehand.

It isn't like she is a clerk at Target who suddenly decides not to help customers who are buying pork. And those clerks never went to jail for denying anyone their right to buy food to survive.

I am pretty sure we will be seeing a complete overhaul of many laws in the next few years. Be careful what you register as or for. Registrations make great lists of criminals when laws are repealed or changed. Just ask the jews who registered their guns/marriages/births etc in Germany.

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Arresting her, imo, was overkill. I don't understand why this became
a police or criminal matter.

It'll be interesting to see what the charges are / what city / state / or federal
law she allegedly broke.

I think simply revoking her license and having her effectively fired would have
been quite sufficient.

And this is coming from a gay man.

IDK, maybe the judge wants her to keep her license and thinks a few
days in jail would make an example of her.

I would be very surprised if she's convicted of any kind of a crime.

Rebel 5

The charge is contempt of court. The judge ordered her to start issuing marriage licenses again (to everyone). She refused.

As an elected official she can't be fired or removed on a court order. There are procedures to remove a person from office but they require the state legislature to step in, which isn't currently convened and won't be until next year. Which leaves the governors order which she ignored, and the judges order which she ignored. So yes, jail is appropriate.

a reply to: Volund

there is no legal requirement for any store to sell beer now. stores are free to chose what they hold in their inventory.
a marriage license can only be obtained at the county clerks office in this state though, so well, it's not like the person can drive down the street and pick it up, they have to go to another county to get it.
if we are to look at how employers in general are to accommodate for people's religious beliefs, we might be able to get a better understanding. employers are legally required to accommodate for people's religious beliefs, as long as the accommodations are not overly burdensome on the employer.
so well, let's consider the taxpayers as being the employer in this case...

the country clerk was given the opportunity to allow those under her to process the marriages and that wasn't acceptable for her. that was an accommodation, she wouldn't have to fill out any of the paperwork or anything, someone else could do it.
she could have just resigned.
the governor could have called the legislature called in and they could have removed her from office...he refused to because of costs...
meanwhile, this has been going on for several months I believe and the residents of this town have been having to travel to the next country if they wanted to get married. that, in my opinion is overly burdensome!
the governor said that the courts would have to take care of it and they really didn't have that many options to chose from I don't think, the judge removed her from office by throwing her in jail...
or at least that how "I understand it.
more than likely it really hasn't resolved anything and well she will be in jail until she either resigns, or agrees to hold the office and at least allow those under her to do the marriage license, or january comes and the legislators remove her from office, heck, I don't know.
what do ya want when so many seem to think that compromise is a four letter nasty word!

a reply to: Volund

Sorry to bud in, but could stop using nazy references, you have been answered nicely a few times already but you persist in trying to use the nazy card to prove whatever point it is your implying.

I personally think its overkill to jail the lady.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Volund

...snip.....

the judge removed her from office by throwing her in jail...
or at least that how "I understand it.
more than likely it really hasn't resolved anything and well she will be in jail until she either resigns, or agrees to hold the office and at least allow those under her to do the marriage license, or january comes and the legislators remove her from office, heck, I don't know.
what do ya want when so many seem to think that compromise is a four letter nasty word!

From what I saw the underling clerks can issue the licenses, 5 agree to do it but 1 refuses and may face jail as well. Whether or not they always could is unknown to me, but it seems to me that since it is the same place people register plates and everything else that they all do the same thing but she is a supervisor. It would be nice to hear from someone from that county.