Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: MrWendal

well, to be fair, he cites the cost of calling the legislature into session as the motive. he did his job, he told all the clerks to issue the license. it's not up to the governor to remove her from office, it's up to him to call the legislature back into session so they can do it. it would be them who actually tick the voters off by removing her.

Excellent news. Her hypocrisy was stunning, as was her contempt for the law. If her principles mattered that much to her she should have allowed her deputies to deal with marriage licences for gay couples instead of her. Instead she has made herself a figure of fun - and no small amount of contempt.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

If her principles mattered that much to her she should have allowed her deputies to deal with marriage licences for gay couples instead of her.

It's her office and her name. She is in charge.

I keep hearing that her religious beliefs are being denied.

Her beliefs are not Christian.

The Bible tells us not to be divorced.
Kim has been, twice.

The Bible tells us to "obey the magistrates."
Kim has refused to acknowledge the Supreme Court, as well as a Judge and the Governor of her state.

The Bible tells us to be faithful to the oaths we make.
Kim is not issuing marriage licences to American citizens, residents of Rowan County, KY, who meet all legal requirements.

The Bible tells us not to cause others to sin.
Kim has directed her staff to DISOBEY the magistrates, the Governor, and the Constitution of the United States.


Kim Davis has blatantly disobeyed the commandments and/or directives of the Bible.

Continuing to disobey the American and Kentucky law by not issuing marriage licenses in Rowan County is Kim's PERSONAL belief.

The Constitution does not shield PERSONAL beliefs masquerading as religion./b]

edit on 5Sat, 05 Sep 2015 05:34:24 -050015p052015966 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Gryphon66

It all shows that she wants money like boymonkey have said. It's a scam.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're talking to deaf ears, there are too many that feel anyone can claim to be Christian by even the most loosest definition, as long as they claim "Jesus!!!" and can bring out one line from the bible irregardless of context that vaguely supports them while completely ignoring the rest.

a reply to: Gryphon66

but, why should it have to be christian beliefs only that should be protected? heck even the athiests have moral beliefs don't they? shouldn't they hold the same weight as those christian beliefs?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

It all shows that she wants money like boymonkey have said. It's a scam.

I can't speak to Ms. Davis' wants and desires. Based on what I've said, two things are at play:

1. Her mother held this office, she now holds this office, her (illegitimate) son is a deputy in her office. As do many folks in small town America, she considers this public office her personal property, and believed that she was untouchable and could do as she wished. (Typical attitude of every petty elected bureaucrat everywhere.)

2. Ms. Davis has been manipulated by outside sources (as highlighted in this thread) that have a political agenda (and we've seen other acolytes of same posting in this thread) to prevent American citizens from equal treatment before the laws. What a strange perspective for people who claim to favor smaller government and less government interference in our lives.

Ms. Davis was being misused. She needs some good legal advice. Her life has changed forever, and this will not end well for her, even if she becomes a right-wing media darling for a few news-cycles, gets the book deal, etc.

a reply to: dawnstar

Sadly nope, doesn't seem to be the case. I'm agnostic there's lots I feel strongly about, but they are irrelevant cause I don't have some official mystical magical being or concept attached to them.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're talking to deaf ears, there are too many that feel anyone can claim to be Christian by even the most loosest definition, as long as they claim "Jesus!!!" and can bring out one line from the bible irregardless of context that vaguely supports them while completely ignoring the rest.

I am not unaware of those facts, LOL. Still, while I don't believe in gods I do believe in the facts.

Sometimes, one has to speak truth in the face of deceit, merely because it is the right thing to do.

I absolutely agree with your summation of the typical reaction however.

What this sort of petulant BS is going to invoke is a series of court rulings and precedents that further empower religious extremism in this country. And Christians are not the only religious extremists ... by far.

Perhaps Kim will enjoy her burka, that is, if she is not stoned, burned, or merely killed for her "sins."

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

but, why should it have to be christian beliefs only that should be protected? heck even the athiests have moral beliefs don't they? shouldn't they hold the same weight as those christian beliefs?

Religious beliefs. In fact, what these folks who are so intent on eroding our traditional separations between Church and State are actually doing is promoting the legal aegis of US and State law over those who they truly will disagree with.

States will be forced to discern what "true religious beliefs" are ... or, they will have to offer carte blanche legal exemptions to any religion (ETA Or any CLAIM of religion).

I don't know about ol' YHVH but I can tell you that Eris is laughing her tushie off at these folks.

originally posted by: MrWendal
This women does not need to be put in jail.

For all of those who are applauding this Judge ...SHAME ON YOU!! THIS is the problem with our Judicial System.

Again- here we have a person who is being put into jail for a crime that has harmed no one. She refused to do her job- fire her. Replace her. But don't put her in jail with people who have committed REAL crimes that have REAL victims.

And before anyone spouts off about homophobia or bias and any such nonsense, I do not agree with what this women did. I fully support same sex marriage. That being said, what this women has done is not really a crime. What she has done has not harmed any one. It has been a massive inconvenience to those who wished to get married, but she didn't assault anyone. She did not harm anyone. There is no real victim thus no real crime. What she is guilty of is not doing her job.... so fire her and get someone who will.

But Jail?? Please... this is turning into more of a pissing contest than anything else.

She has denied another human being their civil rights, how is this not a crime in your mind? Oh wait, it wasn't your 2nd amendment rights, so no harm, no foul.

a reply to: Puppylove

go back and read through the hobby lobby decision on the supreme court, I do belief they say that they cannot decide on the merit of one's belief, I think you just need to say it's your belief, and they have to accept it...although I think you might need a little proof in your background that you have practiced this belief. although they also said that their ruling wouldn't automatically be carried over to other issues, like blood transfusions.
and well it's pretty common knowledge that there's a small christian group that don't like blood transfusions.

you will also notice that they mention that the gov't could achieve their goal of providing free-low cost birth control through the title x and there was no need to infringe on the beliefs that hobby lobby CLAIMED to hold.

in employee/employer relationships where there is an issue of religious beliefs, I do believe that the law says that they the employer has a legal obligation to accommodate the belief as long as it doesn't cause an undue burden on the employer.

I am not a lawyer so don't take my word on all this, but well, from what I read, I believe that what I am saying it true.

but I don't think the test is weather or not the belief you claim to have is valid in their eyes as much as it is how easily it can be accommodated in the particular situation.

in the case of the little county clerk, I am afraid that she is making it much too difficult to accommodate her and the political environment is making it much too difficult to obtain a resolution. and, I am sorry but having the taxpayers having to journey to nearby counties to obtain their marriage licenses is an too great of an undue burden, both on the taxpayers as well as the nearby counties.

so well, she sits in jail, the taxpayers are either going to nearby counties to get their marriage licenses or they are getting marriage licenses from that county that even the judge has said that he really isn't sure if they are legal or not and it's up to those wishing to have them to decide if it's too risky. and of course the politicians, who in actuality, holds the solution to the mess are doing what they do best, exploiting the situation to the best of their ability to further their own interests!

a reply to: Gryphon66

what these folks who are so intent on eroding our traditional separations between Church and State are actually doing is promoting the legal aegis of US and State law over those who they truly will disagree with. States will be forced to discern what "true religious beliefs" are ... or, they will have to offer carte blanche legal exemptions to any religion (ETA Or any CLAIM of religion).

that right there is what I've been trying to get at all along!! and even in the christian church there's a diversity of religious beliefs. so well, sooner or later even the christians themselves will be finding that some of their beliefs are becoming second rate in the gov't eyes.
and that is what the constitution was striving to prevent!

now, I've got to go see who Eris is...lol!!!

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: MrWendal
This women does not need to be put in jail.

For all of those who are applauding this Judge ...SHAME ON YOU!! THIS is the problem with our Judicial System.

Again- here we have a person who is being put into jail for a crime that has harmed no one. She refused to do her job- fire her. Replace her. But don't put her in jail with people who have committed REAL crimes that have REAL victims.

And before anyone spouts off about homophobia or bias and any such nonsense, I do not agree with what this women did. I fully support same sex marriage. That being said, what this women has done is not really a crime. What she has done has not harmed any one. It has been a massive inconvenience to those who wished to get married, but she didn't assault anyone. She did not harm anyone. There is no real victim thus no real crime. What she is guilty of is not doing her job.... so fire her and get someone who will.

But Jail?? Please... this is turning into more of a pissing contest than anything else.

She has denied another human being their civil rights, how is this not a crime in your mind? Oh wait, it wasn't your 2nd amendment rights, so no harm, no foul.

Maybe you should read what I said again.

Clearly you missed the part where I said she DID commit a crime, but that crime had no real victim.

a reply to: MrWendal

People being denied their rights are victims you may not think so bu they are.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: MrWendal

well, to be fair, he cites the cost of calling the legislature into session as the motive. he did his job, he told all the clerks to issue the license. it's not up to the governor to remove her from office, it's up to him to call the legislature back into session so they can do it. it would be them who actually tick the voters off by removing her.

I am pretty sure they can find the money for it some where

Police fail to report on Asset Forfeitures

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: MrWendal

People being denied their rights are victims you may not think so bu they are.

I said REAL victims.

Show me a cut, a bruise, a bleeding wound, property damage. Anything.

I agree their rights were violated, but in this case it is the equivalent of getting your feelings hurt.

a reply to: MrWendal

No it isn't.
Rights are very important and you are saying no harm done?.
Despite what you think harm was done and rights were denied.
Victims don't have to be physically hurt to be victims.