Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

As free individuals, we come together in society, we choose to live under the laws established by society, or we remove ourselves from that society.

The same Constitution that acknowledges our freedoms is the same one that protects them.

Freedom is being protected in Kentucky from the manipulated choices of one individual lady.

I have no ire, personally, at Kim Davis ... I feel for her. In a few weeks, no one will remember her name.

a reply to: stargatetravels

You're misunderstanding beezzer's position.

a reply to: stargatetravels

She is a government representative who abused her authority.

She was dictating who could and could not get married. She had no right to do so.

It is up to the individual(s) themselves to determine whom they should and should not marry.

The individual has the right to self determine.

Not her, a person who abused her role as a representative of government.

originally posted by: stargatetravels

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 governmentf or 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 actingon behalf of the government, she when rogue and broke the law.
Stop spouting complete BS.

Personal comments are not needed or welcomed here. You will find that Beezzer is one of the more reasonable and passionate voices here for his beliefs. You are mistaken in underestimating his intellect because you don't agree with what he says.

IN my opinion.

originally posted by: xuenchen
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.

But exactly - so one rogue employee is now being used by beezer to paint a picture with an extremely broad brush, that this woman is now acting out the will of the government and controlling people's lives and wishes.
It's pure fantasy.

If one Dr refuses to treat a Christian because the Dr hates religious folks, would that be seen as 'The medical profession are now persecuting Christians' ? Would it heck.
One person going rogue and illegally going against the law and constitution does not mean that the entire group,body or organization feels the same way.
Unless the group or body or organization is the one INSTRUCTING the discrimination.

It's completely fallacious to suggest it is.

a reply to: stargatetravels

He doesn't really mean it's "the government". He means Davis is abusing her government authority. He didn't say it clearly at first, but he has been more clear in recent posts.

Maybe she'll meet a nice lady in jail who can educate her on the rights and wrongs of how to treat gay couples.

originally posted by: beezzer

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.

Yes we all know that and agree with that.
you are however, saying that this woman is why government should have no say in anything to do with our lives and government is evil and bullying etc.

It is a nonsense argument and you're using one isolated incident to justify your own beliefs and opinion on government.

originally posted by: introvert
And the SCOTUS ruling replaced the existing law with what?

It said the existing law was un-Constitutional and not enforcebale, the reuslt of which is af the law never existed.

a reply to: stargatetravels

It is up to the individual(s) whether they should or should not be married.

Period.

It should never have been a determination made by government.

A woman ABUSED ( see that word?) her position of authority to determine who should or should not be married.

The individual should be the only one making any determination in their life what they should or should not do, as long as it never infringes upon the rights of another.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Maybe she'll meet a nice lady in jail who can educate her on the rights and wrongs of how to treat gay couples.

See, I can understand frustration with Ms. Davis.

I have to admit though, I can't understand the ... animosity (?) I see being directed at her.

I have hopes that she gets some good legal advice from someone, realizes that doing her job and obeying the laws of KY and the US DO NOT conflict with her Christian faith ... and moves on from this dramatization.

There are much better targets for our real animosity than this person; in my opinion.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Technically, the 14th amendment invalidated Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriages before Kentucky's law was even written! LOL!

Exactly. You do not have to pass a new law anytime that another new law is overturned. The premise is absurd.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Technically, the 14th amendment invalidated Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriages before Kentucky's law was even written! LOL!

Exactly. You do not have to pass a new law anytime that another new law is overturned. The premise is absurd.

That's not what I said.

a reply to: stargatetravels

I don't think Beezzer's argument is nonsense; it is idealistic.

Some folks really believe that we can live with little or no government.

That is not my experience; but, hey, I'd like to see us all in an economy where no one ever went hungry, thirsty, had to sleep on the street, or had to go without medical care.

We all have our idealism.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: stargatetravels

He doesn't really mean it's "the government". He means Davis is abusing her government authority. He didn't say it clearly at first, but he has been more clear in recent posts.

Well if that's the case then ok.
I swear to God I felt like I was going mad or being trolled - maybe I was.
After every "she has no right blah blah" post there was an addition of "And this is why government has no right to make laws or tell us what we can do etc etc"
It just seemed opportunistic and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Very subtle but it's there in his posts.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: stargatetravels

It is up to the individual(s) whether they should or should not be married.

Period.

It should never have been a determination made by government.

A woman ABUSED ( see that word?) her position of authority to determine who should or should not be married.

The individual should be the only one making any determination in their life what they should or should not do, as long as it never infringes upon the rights of another.

Yes but it is - it's called law, permits, government etc
Government shouldn't be able to tell people that they can't grow a particular plant or you know, many other things - but this is the world and country we live in - these are the rules we play by.
Using one lone lunatic to say "See everyone Da gubment is ebil" is wrong.
Make a thread about why there should be a smaller or no government.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have to admit though, I can't understand the ... animosity (?) I see being directed at her.

I'll go one further and say that I understand the animosity, but I feel sympathy for her. I feel sorry for her. IMO, we have to be somewhat sympathetic for people who feel that "the gays" and liberals are taking religion away or something... They're wrong, but it's how they feel.

MANY who profess this religious conviction ARE just trying to cause trouble and deny others' rights, but I really don't think that's the case here. She's being used by her legal counsel. She doesn't know any better. That's my take at this time, anyway.

Why I'm not sure? She could have stepped down OR allowed her deputies to issue licenses. She is trying to control the situation and it's simply not within her authority to do so.

This topic has been going on for 30+ pages.

If you lefties are ever going to convince the "conservatives" or the "Christians" that the woman was wrong, then AS a conservative, and AS a Christian, you could simply put it in terms of individual rights.

2 gay men getting married will never infringe on the rights of anyone else. Ever.

Government screwed up by denying these rights for over 2 centuries.

Period.

Politicians like Cruz and Huckabee (etc) are wrong also.

They feel it is the right of government to impose what individuals can and cannot do.

My flurry of posts have been to illustrate how paramount individuality, individualism is and how it is neglected or ignored.

originally posted by: introvert
That's not what I said.

You asked what the existing law was replaced with.

It does not need to be replaced with anything, it is as if the law never existed.

originally posted by: beezzer
This topic has been going on for 30+ pages.

If you lefties are ever going to convince the "conservatives" or the "Christians" that the woman was wrong, then AS a conservative, and AS a Christian, you could simply put it in terms of individual rights.

2 gay men getting married will never infringe on the rights of anyone else. Ever.

Government screwed up by denying these rights for over 2 centuries.

Period.

Politicians like Cruz and Huckabee (etc) are wrong also.

They feel it is the right of government to impose what individuals can and cannot do.

My flurry of posts have been to illustrate how paramount individuality, individualism is and how it is neglected or ignored.

Unfortunately Beezer, someone tried that within the first couple of pages, and as with most facts, it had no effect on the talking points of the far right fringe.