Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: matafuchs
What law are they protected from? Again, there is no law.

Each state's Marriage Laws.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment or endorsement of religion by government but it also protects your right to belief and that the government should pass no law to restrict your religious freedoms.

The government didn't pass any new laws. And her religious freedom has not been restricted. If you say it has, tell me HOW. What freedom is she being denied?

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
That said, if God would have this done to a man for just collecting wood on the Sabbath, what would he do to two gay people who got married?

Are you serious??? That's your take on the situation???

God commands Moses and his followers to Stone an innocent man to death for collecting wood and that's what you say about it???

Why not, "Holy Sh*t that's just f**ked up. God seems like a real A-Hole. All the guy did was collect wood. Probably to heat his home or cook food for his family." or maybe, "WTF. God commands everyone stone a man to death for collecting wood??? Maybe I shouldn't be following such an unbelievable pricks advice when he's obviously just a manic psychopath who enjoys killing and torturing anyone for any reason!!"

Do you enjoy living a life of fear???

a reply to: mOjOm

LOL! The hypocrisy is rich! So, Christians are using that story to justify their homophobia? Moses, according to God's law, stones a man for gathering firewood on the Sabbath, a day that Christians have abolished!

HAHA!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: matafuchs
What law are they protected from? Again, there is no law.

Each state's Marriage Laws.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment or endorsement of religion by government but it also protects your right to belief and that the government should pass no law to restrict your religious freedoms.

The government didn't pass any new laws. And her religious freedom has not been restricted. If you say it has, tell me HOW. What freedom is she being denied?

So no new legislative law passed, then why is she jailed? Judicial Fiat trumps her religious belief that gay marriage is a sin she cannot participate in lest she be part of the sin. Under what grounds is she jailed for other than defying a Fed judge who deems her actions going against a court ruling inventing a new federal right out of thin air!

a reply to: windword

Can you imagine the mental gymnastics you have to do to make that story seem ok???

Plus, how many of them drive their cars to church on Sunday?? Afterwards probably go home and cook a meal on modern stoves, maybe watch some tv later or whatever. Can you imagine what God's gonna do to them for that???

That guy just walked into the forest and collected some wood and got stoned to death by a mob including Moses. I don't want to know what the punishment is for driving your car to church!!

a reply to: Phoenix

Let's look closely. The 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states' power to make laws is limited by the 14th amendment. Marriage laws that don't equally apply to ALL citizens equally are PROHIBITED by the constitution.

No new rights have been invented. The 14th amendment (which you didn't mention) is what guarantees all citizens (including gays) equal protection under the state marriage laws.

originally posted by: Phoenix
I can sue and win a case where the county clerk denied a marriage license for my 10 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, further I should be able to have that clerk jailed if they refuse based on their personal religious beliefs.

You can sue, but you'd lose. The state marriage law treats ALL children equally. None of them are permitted to marry. If white children could marry, but black children couldn't, you'd have a great case!

On the other hand to be fair I stand completely in favor of individual states determining their own laws and fate per the Constitution.

Even if they violate an amendment? (the 14th)

No one handed over power to the Feds. It's the Constitution that determined this ruling.

a reply to: mOjOm

Plus, how many of them drive their cars to church on Sunday??

Or, for that matter, were out partying till 2 AM Sunday morning!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: mOjOm

Plus, how many of them drive their cars to church on Sunday??

Or, for that matter, were out partying till 2 AM Sunday morning!

Or for that matter, the pastor cutting his sermon short so they can all go home and watch football.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Yep! I though about that too!

Rich hypocrisy!

a reply to: windword

or for that matter, know that sunday isn't sabbath???

sunday's the first day of the week, saturday is the 7th, the jews and the muslims hold the sabbath from friday after sundown to saturday till sundown.

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: matafuchs
What law are they protected from? Again, there is no law.

Each state's Marriage Laws.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment or endorsement of religion by government but it also protects your right to belief and that the government should pass no law to restrict your religious freedoms.

The government didn't pass any new laws. And her religious freedom has not been restricted. If you say it has, tell me HOW. What freedom is she being denied?

So no new legislative law passed, then why is she jailed? Judicial Fiat trumps her religious belief that gay marriage is a sin she cannot participate in lest she be part of the sin. Under what grounds is she jailed for other than defying a Fed judge who deems her actions going against a court ruling inventing a new federal right out of thin air!

No one created a new federal right, instead it was said by the SC that continued discrimination against a particular group was not going to be allowed to continue. All men are created equal, and freedoms apply to all, why do you want to continue to deny constitutional rights to other americans, because if you do want to continue, that would make you a bigot.

a reply to: kaylaluv

ISIS and gay marriage. Never thought those two would meet. It is the 'law' to allow them to worship. A murder is a criminal offense. Big difference here.

There is no theocracy here. She is not trying to rule the county by imposing religious laws. It is a belief that she has that she feels should protect her from having to do this. It is a choice she is making and it may have dire consequence but she believe in it. 2 other counties in the state are doing the same thing. This woman has conviction so she is singled out. It does not matter if she has been married before, is a recent convert, or anything else it is a belief system she has that is protected by your constitutional rights.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: kaylaluv

ISIS and gay marriage. Never thought those two would meet. It is the 'law' to allow them to worship. A murder is a criminal offense. Big difference here.

There is no theocracy here. She is not trying to rule the county by imposing religious laws. It is a belief that she has that she feels should protect her from having to do this. It is a choice she is making and it may have dire consequence but she believe in it. 2 other counties in the state are doing the same thing. This woman has conviction so she is singled out. It does not matter if she has been married before, is a recent convert, or anything else it is a belief system she has that is protected by your constitutional rights.

Her office is required to allow people to legally marry, which has many benefits due to federal and state law. She has refused to issue marriage licenses since June, denying other American citizens their legal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She was ordered by a federal judge to issue those licenses and refused, therefor her hypocritical behind is sitting in the slammer under US law, why is this so hard to understand?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

BH, I appreciate your response however you are wrong headed!

In citing that the 14th as a cover-all amendment for all situations, especially in practice. If that were the case then all gun laws state to state would be the same, all age restrictions on marriage age would be the same..............in other words Federal law would apply everywhere equally and supersede all local and state laws that differ from federal law by this amendment. That done what's use of state legislature and its laws anyway? Why not just do away with them and have a federal dictatorship.

However if you're a federal judge or an agenda driven supporter of newly invented rights you get to pick and choose - right?

The 14th Amendment,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An amendment specifically passed post civil war to prevent discrimination against former slaves and blacks is used out of context to enable the invention of rights and deny rights reserved by earlier amendments to the states and the people. Yup that works - not.

Had the post civil war era politicians known how their amendment would be abused, which I have no doubt about, they would have worded it much more specifically.

One has to completely ignore intent and history to use the 14th as it is being used right now.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: matafuchs
What law are they protected from? Again, there is no law.

Each state's Marriage Laws.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment or endorsement of religion by government but it also protects your right to belief and that the government should pass no law to restrict your religious freedoms.

The government didn't pass any new laws. And her religious freedom has not been restricted. If you say it has, tell me HOW. What freedom is she being denied?

So, is the federal government telling states that they have to abide by this ruling? If so, then the 'states' law are out the window. No matter what they vote the federal government is telling them otherwise which is not how our country was founded. It was created to protect the rights of the states but here, without passing a law, the federal government is telling states that it is illegal to NOT support, not enforce, gay marriage.

She is being denied the ability to live according to her belief system. When she was elected, there was nothing in her beliefs that would have prevented her from performing her duties, Now, after a SCOTUS judgement, the rules have changed. So, her beliefs were ok until she did not want to do something against them. See my point?

It is not about not allowing them, it is about those who are affected when a new rule comes into affect. The world should not change because same sex unions are seen as legal to the SCOTUS. It should incorporate to include ALL races, religions, and, as it stands now, sexual orientation.

Really trying to go out on a limb and explain this. My religious belief is that I must sacrifice a virgin at the height of every full moon, how many moons will go by before I am facing a lethal injection?

My defense, you are infringing on my religious beliefs.

Everyone, and rightfully so, would be howling for my head on a stick.

Sorry for the graphic scene, but after 38 pages, I am not sure how to get a point across .

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I understand it. But I think it sets a scary precedent across the board. I think many of you are so blinded by "YEAH FOR SAME SEX MARRAIGE' you do not see the bigger picture here on how else it can be applied and strip the core citizens not only of simple rights but if they interpret this one way, why not other laws? For 100's of years the right to bear arms is guaranteed but if the SCOTUS decides different then we ALL have to obey....

Again, I am for same sex marriage. It will bring jobs and pump money into the economy and start a totally new line of same sex divorce lawyers. go economy!

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Because then every kind of so-called bigotry would become legal as determined by the federal courts depending on political winds and whims.

Many not agreed by the people of each state by legislative action which is where these subjects belong.

a reply to: matafuchs

Yes, yes we all understand she has a deep seated belief that she should be able to keep her job and not do her job.


I wonder how long she will adhere to that belief.

a reply to: matafuchs

So take out the slippery slope part of that post and you have,

Again, I am for same sex marriage. It will bring jobs and pump money into the economy and start a totally new line of same sex divorce lawyers. go economy!

Good deal!