Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: xuenchen

That statement is disingenuous.

She had ordered all of her employees not to perform their jobs as well.

She doesn't dictate the laws; she follows them.

Congressman Massie trying to defend her actions.

www.cincinnati.com... /news/politics/2015/09/02/paul-clerks-gay-marriage-defiance-american-way/71584648/

“When Mrs. Davis was elected, she swore an oath to Kentucky's Constitution which, as in 29 other states, contained a provision to protect traditional marriage,” Massie, R-Ky., said in a statement to the Enquirer.

“The spurious and un-American way in which the law, and therefore her job description, abruptly changed mid-term gives Mrs. Davis a moral, if not legal, defense for her actions until her next election and until a legitimate rewriting of Kentucky's marriage laws occurs during a legislative session with elected officials," Massie said.

This guy couldn't be more wrong. He is trying to say that she can continue the follow KY law until they have "a chance" to re-write legislation? I dont think so.

a reply to: introvert

You are correct in that she didn't violate any specific state or local law, however she was sued, and the court ruled against her, based on the Supreme Court ruling that laws banning same sex marriage were unconstitutional. So, the court used constitutional law as their basis for the ruling, and ordered her to either start issuing the licenses or resign (or go to jail for contempt).

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

That statement is disingenuous.

She had ordered all of her employees not to perform their jobs as well.

She doesn't dictate the laws; she follows them.

She apparently has an "Authoritarian" complex.

She's really not being a Christian, she's simply being a horrible person. Hateful, intolerant, spiteful, and (if you really believe in Biblical stuff) a hypocrite. Anyone who is sympathetic to her stance is also being a horrible person.

She is a public servant who has failed to execute her duties. Her belief system is absolutely irrelevant to the situation.
If her belief system dictates that she cannot perform her function as a public servant she should resign.

originally posted by: beezzer
I hope this type of resistance and protest against government, and government representatives continues.

People need to rise up and tell government and government representatives that they, the individuals, determine what they can and cannot do with their lives, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the life of another!

But this woman wasn't representing the Gov's wishes nor enforcing their law, the polar opposite in fact.
She used her own prejudice and bigotry to discriminate illegally against citizens going about their lawful business.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

That statement is disingenuous.

She had ordered all of her employees not to perform their jobs as well.

She doesn't dictate the laws; she follows them.

She apparently has an "Authoritarian" complex.

As I said, my belief is that she is being misused by outside interests.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

That statement is disingenuous.

She had ordered all of her employees not to perform their jobs as well.

She doesn't dictate the laws; she follows them.

She apparently has an "Authoritarian" complex.

She's a perfect example of government trying to impose it's will upon an individual's right to self-expression.

No-one from government should ever be able to tell a person how to live their life, what to do with their life.

originally posted by: Badgered1
She's really not being a Christian, she's simply being a horrible person. Hateful, intolerant, spiteful, and (if you really believe in Biblical stuff) a hypocrite. Anyone who is sympathetic to her stance is also being a horrible person.

She is a public servant who has failed to execute her duties. Her belief system is absolutely irrelevant to the situation.
If her belief system dictates that she cannot perform her function as a public servant she should resign.

The Bible tells its followers SPECIFICALLY to obey the magistrates in Titus 3:1-2.

She is not only outside of US and Kentucky law, she is in disobedience to God's Book.

originally posted by: beezzer

She's a perfect example of government trying to impose it's will upon an individual's right to self-expression.

No-one from government should ever be able to tell a person how to live their life, what to do with their life.

All laws involve telling a person how to live their life. Are you going down the path that government has no authority to write and enforce laws?

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: beezzer
I hope this type of resistance and protest against government, and government representatives continues.

People need to rise up and tell government and government representatives that they, the individuals, determine what they can and cannot do with their lives, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the life of another!

But this woman wasn't representing the Gov's wishes nor enforcing their law, the polar opposite in fact.
She used her own prejudice and bigotry to discriminatei illegally against citizens going about their lawful business.

She was a respesentative of government abusing her authority.

No-one from government should ever be able to mandate or dictate what a free individual(s) should or should not do!

They represent government, they are public servants. They provide a service.

If a couple chooses to marry, then no-one from government should be able to dictate or mandate to them (the individuals) what they want to do with their lives.

The laws enacted by the People "tell us what to do with our lives."

Those in Law Enforcement, as servants of the People, enforce those laws.

While antinomian fantasies are amusing, they don't work out very well in real life.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: xuenchen

As I said, my belief is that she is being misused by outside interests.

I agree she may not be acting alone.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: beezzer

She's a perfect example of government trying to impose it's will upon an individual's right to self-expression.

No-one from government should ever be able to tell a person how to live their life, what to do with their life.

All laws involve telling a person how to live their life. Are you going down the path that government has no authority to write and enforce laws?

As long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another, then do you need to dictate what another person does?

Should government?

People should be free to marry whom they wish. Government should be there to facilitate and provide a license.

Nothing more.

originally posted by: beezzer

She's a perfect example of government trying to impose it's will upon an individual's right to self-expression.

No-one from government should ever be able to tell a person how to live their life, what to do with their life.

Why do you keep saying this, it's completely disingenuous.
This is not a case of 'The Tyrannical Government' imposing its will or telling people what to do.
This is one lone, religious nutjob acting completely at odds with her employers wishes and with the constitution which she vowed to uphold.
Your agenda is transparent.

a reply to: stargatetravels

Any time a government official goes awry, it creates a dilemma for government authority.

It's not easy to micro-manage government.

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: beezzer

She's a perfect example of government trying to impose it's will upon an individual's right to self-expression.

No-one from government should ever be able to tell a person how to live their life, what to do with their life.

Why do you keep saying this, it's completely disingenuous.
This is not a case of 'The Tyrannical Government' imposing its will or telling people what to do.
This is one lone, religious nutjob acting completely at odds with her employers wishes and with the constitution which she vowed to uphold.
Your agenda is transparent.

She used her beliefs as a respresentative of government to dictate what a couple should and should not conform to.

She was in the wrong.

As a respresentative of government it was her job to simply provide a service if that is what the individuals wanted.

originally posted by: beezzer


Government should be there to facilitate and provide a license.

And a government worker in charge of that duty, Ms. Davis was preventing that from happening, thus the lawsuit, ruling, and subsequent jail time.

originally posted by: beezzer


She was a respesentative of government abusing her authority.

No-one from government should ever be able to mandate or dictate what a free individual(s) should or should not do!

They represent government, they are public servants. They provide a service.

If a couple chooses to marry, then no-one from government should be able to dictate or mandate to them (the individuals) what they want to do with their lives.

You're not the brightest spark are you?
You are blaming the government for this woman's actions when the government instructed her to her job she refused.
She's now going to jail.
This isn't a case of 'The Government' doing ANYTHING - it's one woman refusing to act in the proper and legal manner that the government and law actually instructed her too.

She is anti government - she is not acting on behalf of the government, she went ogue and broke the law.
Stop spouting complete BS.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer


Government should be there to facilitate and provide a license.

And a government worker in charge of that duty, Ms. Davis was preventing that from happening, thus the lawsuit, ruling, and subsequent jail time.

She was in the wrong, she was filtering her own beliefs into her duties instead of simply facilitating what free individuals requested.

Her job was to "serve".

She is a public servent.