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: 47
76
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

Okay so you goto get a wedding license and it is refused because the person says because of who you love she will not do their job and give you that licence despite it being law to do so doesn't matter eh?.
Inconvenienced? what about their rights? the law of the land? you are wrong it is not an inconvenience it is a person denying someone else their personal rights to get married.




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: neformore

originally posted by: MrWendal
There is no real victim thus no real crime.


Try telling that to gay people who wanted to get married in her county and have had their civil liberties refused up until now - despite a supreme court ruling in their favour - on the grounds of "belief".

Or, let me put it another way - pick any thing you take for granted that the law allows you to do.

Now stop doing it because someone else thinks that people with your first name shouldn't on the grounds of belief. Just your name mind - your neighbour is fine, anyone without the same first name as you is ok. But you..Jesus said no.

How would that feel? Would you not be a victim?


No. I wouldn't.

I have had my rights violated my whole life and I do not feel like a victim. Know why? Because I do not allow myself to be.

If you really want to know the truth... the 100% unadultered, uncensored, non politically correct truth- if it was ME... I would have this women so distracted, so scared, so discombobulated that same sex marriage would be the last thing on her mind.

But I can be a very unconventional kind of guy when I need to be.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: MrWendal

Okay so you goto get a wedding license and it is refused because the person says because of who you love she will not do their job and give you that licence despite it being law to do so doesn't matter eh?.
Inconvenienced? what about their rights? the law of the land? you are wrong it is not an inconvenience it is a person denying someone else their personal rights to get married.


I agree with you on this.... 100%. It is a violation of their rights.

But is jail the answer?

Is locking up this person with killers, rapist, violent criminals, thieves, etc etc the answer to solve the problem?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74



Okay so you goto get a wedding license and it is refused because the person says because of who you love she will not do their job and give you that licence despite it being law to do so doesn't matter eh?.


YES. Do the job. Is a courthouse a church? NO. Did she swore an oath to follow and do the job? YES.

She is a freaking government employee. She snubbed at the separation of state and church.

If she doesn't like it then SHE CAN F HERSELF AND GO AWAY.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal



But is jail the answer?


Yes because people supporting her cause would have paid for the fine anyway and gave her a lot of money in donations. Is it really a punishment?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

She has put herself there.
She has been given every chance not to go to jail but has chosen jail.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Let me help some of you out.....

What this women has done is an abuse of her Office.

Know what that is called??

Maleficence in Office and it is grounds to remove a person from an elected position. What you need are people who will take a stand and call it what it is.

But we do not have that in this case. Instead you have other elected Officials, Government employees, etc etc who are dancing around the problem cause they are scared to piss off the group of people who actually support this foolish women.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal



Maleficence in Office and it is grounds to remove a person from an elected position. What you need are people who will take a stand and call it what it is.


That's for the worst of the worst. Think Nixon.



But we do not have that in this case. Instead you have other elected Officials, Government employees, etc etc who are dancing around the problem cause they are scared to piss off the group of people who actually support this foolish women.


She's probably dancing and laughing right now. She probably will become rich soon.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Let me expand further.....


If other Officials in that State were not scared of pissing off a whole slew of potential voters- this women would have been stripped of her position on the grounds of Maleficence in Office so fast her head would have spun.

But they are scared of pissing off voters. They are scared of the religious voters who support this idiot. So they are using the Court to be the "bad guy" so they do not have to be.

It really is very simple and very sad that so many people fail to see the big picture here.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
That's for the worst of the worst. Think Nixon.


The worst of the worst huh??

So you are suggesting Nixon is the worst of the worst?

He wire tapped a building. Our Government has wiretapped the whole Globe.

Nixon the "worst of the worst"? I hardly think so



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrWendal
But is jail the answer?

Is locking up this person with killers, rapist, violent criminals, thieves, etc etc the answer to solve the problem?


Well, it is their choice to be locked up in jail, they can leave anytime that they want to. All they have to do to leave is tell the Judge that they will do their job.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal



Nixon the "worst of the worst"? I hardly think so


Whaaaaaaaat???? Tell me!



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MrWendal
But is jail the answer?

Is locking up this person with killers, rapist, violent criminals, thieves, etc etc the answer to solve the problem?


Well, it is their choice to be locked up in jail, they can leave anytime that they want to. All they have to do to leave is tell the Judge that they will do their job.



Again- why should this person get to keep her job??

Don't like maleficence in office?? How about "official misconduct" which is defined as


n. improper and/or illegal acts by a public official which violate his/her duty to follow the law and act on behalf of the public good. Often such conduct is under the guise or "color" of official authority


My point is- there are any number of ways she can be stripped of her Office... but in order to do so, you need people who are willing to take a stand and piss off the potential voters who do support this women.

But instead of doing what is right- Officials in this State are using the Court to do it for them so they do not get painted as the "bad guy".



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

Keyboard warrior talk tells me you are only here to try and be controversial.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

Well let's just forget about Nixon and our government. What Kim did pales in comparison to them.

Malfeasance in office? Roflmbo not even close.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: MrWendal

Well let's just forget about Nixon and our government. What Kim did pales in comparison to them.

Malfeasance in office? Roflmbo not even close.


Actually, it is very close.

Maleficence in Office actually does away with most technicalities and the only thing you need to get a guilty verdict and get that person removed from the position they hold is to prove they misused their authority as a public official.

Does that remotely sound like what this women has done?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

Well that will be a while. We will have to wait till January or if the governor decides something soon. As of right now she's in charge. I wonder how long she will last in jail?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: MrWendal

Keyboard warrior talk tells me you are only here to try and be controversial.


Keyboard Warrior talk??

If that is the case, I would have to be the lamest "warrior" in recorded history.

Sorry but using the law as it is written is far from "controversial".



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: MrWendal

Well that will be a while. We will have to wait till January or if the governor decides something soon. As of right now she's in charge. I wonder how long she will last in jail?


Notice what you just said.....


if the governor decides something soon


Thanks for helping me make my point.

Now why do you think the Governor is NOT doing something and allowing a Judge to handle it??

I will give you a hint.... the Governor has to be elected. What are his chances of reelection if he were to piss off the religious people of his State??

Get it yet???



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal



Now why do you think the Governor is NOT doing something and allowing a Judge to handle it??


Because of the Constitution and SCOTUS.



I will give you a hint.... the Governor has to be elected. What are his chances of reelection if he were to piss off the religious people of his State??


Yes I understand. It's all political and they want to be elected again by not displeasing people.



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join