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: 39
76
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs

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.


IT IS NOT A NEW RULE, the homophobic rule that was passed was ruled unconstitutional and invalidated. I suppose you will still argue against inter-racial marriage under the same argument.




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Yesterday her Liberty Council lawyer was saying that all she wanted was for her name (as clerk) to not be on the licenses.

Now her assistants are issuing licenses without her name on them and she is announcing through her lawyer that these aren't valid licenses.

Proof positive that this goes beyond her claims of being forced to do something that violates her personal beliefs. She wants to use the power of her office to impose her religious beliefs on others by dictating who can get a license even when she is off the hook as far as her personal involvement.



In KY, the executive judge of the county court can issue marriage licenses if the clerk is unable.

I would think being in jail qualifies as unable to issue licenses.

Now her supporters claim that because the Judge put her there it does not apply. I cannot believe how obtuse they are getting.
What happens when/if the attorney general files official misconduct charges, as the county attorney general is requesting? What argument are they going to come up with to claim the license are invalid at that point ?

Politicians are just using this to stir up the anti-gay constituency. If this issue continues through the election cycle next year, I am betting after the election not a single politician will give two craps about this anymore.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

they can't that's what the separation of church and state is all about.
they can't say that your belief against homosexuality is genuine and worthy and mine, whatever it is... if they do, they are promoting one belief system above another.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The Fourteenth Amendment covers all Americans. This is what many on the right hate about it.

If it had been intended only to cover Black Americans they would have stated that in 1877 1868.

The right has realized the 14th is never going to be repealed (which many are still after) and that the argument that it was never enacted is just well ... backward.

The Fourteenth is and has been an integral part of American life and American justice for more than 125 years.

And its meaning and foresight continues to correct injustices even today. (Or more exactly, last June)
edit on 18Fri, 04 Sep 2015 18:14:08 -050015p062015966 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
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 .


Not graphic, and I understand your point. Religious slaughter of animals has actually be voted on and is protected for a few religions. No matter what other people think, or if they do not want to see it, it is allowed. Protected. So, if you are into sacrificing virgins on the full moon take it to the SCOTUS you just might win...



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
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!


I am not understanding the scary precedent. This SCOTUS decision stripped no one of any rights, Kim Davis still has the right to worship as she pleases, however what the court has said, she does not have the ability to deprive others of their rights. That is the big picture I am seeing, from slightly left of center. I will add, based on past personal experiences, and public events going on right now, I have a very poor opinion of evangelical christians.

I will say most evangelical chritians, I have known some good ones, as well as good atheists, jews, muslims, well have been fortunate to know some good people.
edit on 9/4/2015 by BubbaJoe because: needed to clarify



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
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!


Not true. SCOTUS cannot CHANGE the Constitution, only INTERPRET it. They have interpreted the Equal Protection clause to mean that gay people can get married. SCOTUS could NOT eliminate the 2nd Amendment.

Now, imagine some hippy liberal was elected the County Clerk and her religious belief was that guns were evil, and she would not issue licenses for anyone to be able to purchased guns.

What would you think about that? Would she be doing her job or would she be doing something illegal? Would you want to see her in contempt of court and sent to jail (so that other hippie's couldn't pay her fine for her). Would it be okay if it was in defense of the 2nd Amendment that this hippy liberal woman was sentenced and would remain in jail until she resigned OR did her job and issued licenses for gun ownership?

Think about it...let me know.

- AB



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The 14th Amendment WAS created to protect the civil rights of all and directly...slaves.

(and for the record, getting married does not provide life, liberty or property. Sometimes it is just a drinking problem, a weight problem and too much reality TV....)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

they can't that's what the separation of church and state is all about.
they can't say that your belief against homosexuality is genuine and worthy and mine, whatever it is... if they do, they are promoting one belief system above another.



The Courts have ruled on many occasions that so-called religious beliefs are not superior to the laws of the land.

I.e. Obarth (previously Peter Jones), a worshipper of Zighathrapep, Lord of the Nineteenth Abyss, does not have the right to sacrifice blue-eye girls to his dark god.

Murder is illegal, independent of any religion.

Obarth, for example is the only adherent "on this plane" that continues to worship the Master of Jagged Fangs (Zighathrapep). He originally created this god for his D&D campaign, but then realized that he was receiving messages from this dark demon in "real life." There are books of scripture, rituals, and even a 1/20th scale model on his personal altar.

Should we "respect Obarth's beliefs" and allow him to send blue-eyed sacrifices to his dark Lord?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

If she did this with a gun license, I would, honestly, feel the same way. If she has the balls to stand up for some reason then, hey, good for her. In the end, it will be done one way or the other. But she stayed true to herself which I feel is hurting our nation today.

I am not anti same sex marriage. I am against continuance interpretation till we get what we want based on who is in office of control of the SCOTUS. Lobbyists pressed this to pass to get votes in 2016. Baaaaaa...sheep...hahahaha. It is a joke and should not even be an issue. These arguments have been around in the courts since the 60's and who stopped it then? Democrats.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

The 14th Amendment WAS created to protect the civil rights of all and directly...slaves.



Pssst... gay people fall under that "all" part.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

The 14th Amendment WAS created to protect the civil rights of all and directly...slaves.

(and for the record, getting married does not provide life, liberty or property. Sometimes it is just a drinking problem, a weight problem and too much reality TV....)


or spending time on ATS.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

The 14th Amendment WAS created to protect the civil rights of all and directly...slaves.

(and for the record, getting married does not provide life, liberty or property. Sometimes it is just a drinking problem, a weight problem and too much reality TV....)


Where do you find that denotation regarding "slaves" in the 14th? I've read it many times, and I've never noticed that restriction.

Perhaps that's because there were no "slaves" when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified ... see the Thirteenth Amendment, ratified Dec. 6, 1865.

Marriage is a contractual agreement between two adults offered by State governments that are not allowed to treat Americans differently under the law.

All Americans, all laws, no difference.


edit on 18Fri, 04 Sep 2015 18:17:09 -050015p062015966 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

The 14th Amendment WAS created to protect the civil rights of all and directly...slaves.


Pssst... gay people fall under that "all" part.


Apparently not, for some people at least!



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: AboveBoard

If she did this with a gun license, I would, honestly, feel the same way. If she has the balls to stand up for some reason then, hey, good for her. In the end, it will be done one way or the other. But she stayed true to herself which I feel is hurting our nation today.

I am not anti same sex marriage. I am against continuance interpretation till we get what we want based on who is in office of control of the SCOTUS. Lobbyists pressed this to pass to get votes in 2016. Baaaaaa...sheep...hahahaha. It is a joke and should not even be an issue. These arguments have been around in the courts since the 60's and who stopped it then? Democrats.



I used a couple of examples earlier in this thread, if a muslim DMV official refused licenses to women, a jewish USDA inspector refused to certify hog farms, or a hindu inspector refused to license slaughter houses because of cows, the religious right would be in a total uproar and rightfully so, only they would want the death penalty, and not jailed for contempt. You really do have to look at the big picture, and try to keep centered, without putting on blinders.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Exactly, conservative Christians are only for religious freedom when it benefits and protects Christianity. They would be screaming bloody murder if a Muslim DMV worker refused to process a woman's DL. They'd be calling for that DMV worker to resign/quit.

If the Christian right is so hell bent on religious freedom, I think people of all other faiths ought to start finding reasons to not do their jobs because of their religious beliefs, lets see how far down this rabbit hole America wants to go before the madness stops?

If I was allergic to shellfish, I wouldn't apply for a job in a seafood department. If I worked in a grocery store's meat department and the company suddenly started selling seafood, I'd ask to be transferred or look for another job. I wouldn't just stand around all day not doing my job.

In addition to freedom of religion, we also have the freedom to work where we can/want. Just like how some conservatives tell low-paid people to educate themselves and find better jobs if they're unhappy -- religious folks can and should find jobs that are conducive to their religious beliefs.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I wonder what these people that are for her, what would they say if her ideals told her it was wrong to give out guns to certain people...like people she deemed mentally ill..etc .

What do people say if a Muslim did the same thing..and they were American?

Do all you arguments still stand or are you going to be selective on what is wrong?


edit on 4-9-2015 by lucifershiningone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Knowing she couldn't do her job, why didn't she just resign? Hmmm? I know if I had a job that required me to do something I didn't want to, I would just quit. Why didn't she just quit? Because she wanted to control what happened in her county. That's a little different than just not wanting to do something against her religion. She thought she could rule over her county and stop same sex marriage there. That was her goal. Queen Kim Davis - ruler of her Kentucky county.

Since she has to be impeached and not just fired, she thought that because impeachment proceedings typically take so long, that she she could continue to stop same sex marriage in her county in the meantime. Nice try, but the judge was on to her, hence the jail sentence. Sorry, her county is not a theocracy, she doesn't get to rule over it. She doesn't get to decide that same sex marriage licenses aren't gonna happen in her county.


She took a job with one set of rules and the rules were changed. She decided not to. She should have been fired for her religious beliefs. I guess no one had the guts to do that...so she was put in jail. Think about that. No one had the guts to tell her that she was fired BECAUSE OF HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. So they put her in jail.

You don't see any problem there I guess??? Amazing. And by the way...I don't believe in God and am not religious. Just pointing out something that was wrong.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I mistakenly believed as a young person (age 18) that I had the right to move out of a state that was very liberal, religiously abhorrent, high tax, anti-jobs, pro-union, pro-immigrant, legal and illegal, inclusive to the point of bankruptcy, welfare to all and elected politicians who benefitted from that whole corrupt system and embraced every special interest group to continue the charade - into states that believed in the right to work, low taxes, low welfare roles, legal immigration, against illegal immigration, anti-union right to work, low corruption and conservative politically.

Yup at age 18 I voted with my feet and moved the heck out of the North East as was my right for political and economic reasons.

This was my birthright to do so per the Constitution of the United States as taught in school at a young age. (I don't believe this is any longer taught nor the reasons)

I have done my best to get away from liberal group thought and so-called progressive believers to the point of moving to other states as I recognized the downfall you folks create in society, economics and morals in the name of "invented" rights and inclusiveness.

Call me what names you will, label me as you will, just leave my state alone and I'll leave yours alone as I did long ago.

Quit trying to force your morals upon me and my brethren in other states not in agreement with your corrupt ways, keep them in your state if you may but don't force them upon me.

Best take on the slippery slope I've seen,

Just Unfriend Me Now


When you argue for enforcement under power of alleged law, complete with criminal and civil penalties and the ability to use force, up to and including lethal force, to compel compliance when no delegation of power exists for said alleged law what you are arguing for is an explicitly unlawful act undertaken by a mob that you happen to belong to and associate with.






edit on 4-9-2015 by Phoenix because: add content



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Do have any issue with her forcing her beliefs onto others?

She is holding a public office, where beliefs are to be held in check and to do a job she signed up for.



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join