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: 5
76
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The issue is..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

First, she is protected to have her beliefs. You cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. This is protected in the 1st Amendment.

Second, Congress did not create and pass a law for same sex marriage. They 'made a ruling' based on their own beliefs. Kind of defeats the 1st Amendment.

The 14th comes into play also but, if you read it, does it not conflict with the 1st as far as your freedoms.

Folks, I could truly care less if gays marry. It will pump money into the economy but what you have to realize is that the government is showing you that they do not need law to enforce one. She is being jailed not for 'not doing her job' but because she does not agree with a Supreme Court ruling based on religious beliefs which is why we left Europe.

Just food for thought...




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   


Judge Bunning told all five of Ms. Davis’s deputies, including her son, Nathan, that they were free to issue licenses to all applicants while Ms. Davis was held in contempt. But the judge also warned that the deputy clerk would face fines or jail if they refuse to comply. He told them to meet with lawyers and consider their options before returning to his courtroom later Thursday.
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Interesting point!



But does Congress actually have to pass a law for an act that should be avaliable to anyone?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: reldra

Ohh hey folks yay google, a clerk is an employee position.

www.lavote.net...

I could apply today!!!

She is a private employee of an incorporated district not elected. She is having a slew of rights violated as we bicker about details and what joe blow thinks gays should be compensated for or not. Bottom line is jail is out of line, just fire her.

EDIT: Before some wiseguy points out different county i know this already, just illustrating a point. Most cities and counties are INCORPORATED!!! (means employee)


That is los angeles county. It is different everywhere. Where I live, it is an elected position. I am not sure about Kim Davis. I am sure she took oaths to do her job and was ordered by judges to give these licenses. She also ordered her staff to not do so either.


edit on 3-9-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
actually she was put in jail for being in contempt of court...
the judge ordered her to do something by a certain date, she refused to do it....
so well he put her in jail till she changes her mind, or the issue is resolved in another way, such as the state legislature branch gets off their duffs and do their job and remove her from office since she doesn't want to do a major part of her job.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
'Win' eh ?

When more than half of marriages end up in divorce anyways.

When people have to get the states permission to get married to begin with.

I don't see any 'victories'.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: reldra

Ohh hey folks yay google, a clerk is an employee position.

www.lavote.net...

I could apply today!!!

She is a private employee of an incorporated district not elected. She is having a slew of rights violated as we bicker about details and what joe blow thinks gays should be compensated for or not. Bottom line is jail is out of line, just fire her.

EDIT: Before some wiseguy points out different county i know this already, just illustrating a point. Most cities and counties are INCORPORATED!!! (means employee)


That is los angeles county. It is different everywhere. Where I live, it is an elected position. I am not sure about Kim Davis. I am sure she took oaths to do her job and was ordered by judges to give these licenses. She also ordered her staff to not do so either.



Did you not see my edit?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
Your employees are not voted into office. This should not be difficult to understand. I see a few being purposefully obtuse.

Yes, because we have never seen corporations hold any sway over the US government.

I will try not to giggle when it starts getting lobbied.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: reldra

Ohh hey folks yay google, a clerk is an employee position.

www.lavote.net...

I could apply today!!!

She is a private employee of an incorporated district not elected. She is having a slew of rights violated as we bicker about details and what joe blow thinks gays should be compensated for or not. Bottom line is jail is out of line, just fire her.

EDIT: Before some wiseguy points out different county i know this already, just illustrating a point. Most cities and counties are INCORPORATED!!! (means employee)


That is los angeles county. It is different everywhere. Where I live, it is an elected position. I am not sure about Kim Davis. I am sure she took oaths to do her job and was ordered by judges to give these licenses. She also ordered her staff to not do so either.



By the way I used to work for a city body in Texas, I was on the council. Twice in my tenure I had to relieve somebody of their duties aka fire them. One was for way worse than this.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She's done nothing except become another martyr for the persecution-complex of the Christian Right. Hopefully they will put someone in the position that will actually do their job.


So I am guessing you would support a strict Islamic DMV worker who refuses to hand out licenses to woman because they believe its against their religious beliefs and everyone should follow Sharia Law, including but not limited to Women not being able to drive.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
She's a snake eating her own tail. She refused to issue ANY marriage licenses. So even if she gets a "free pass" for screwing gay people, she has no excuses or passes for screwing straight people. Ha ha to her.

She brought it on herself.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: sycomix


See there is one way or another somebody else to sign off

Yes, but only under certain circumstances. Like what's happening now.


I think jail is a bit harsh "politely" asking her step down would have been a better course of action.

She's already been asked to step down on more than one occasion. She chose to get a Christian law firm involved, and "fight the good fight" instead. She lost.


Now she is just gona be a martyr, nobody gets what they want that way.

Only to those, like her, who only care about their own rights, and everyone else be damned. Literally.


I don't necessarily agree with her but it is her right to avoid offense to her religious views.

And it is our right to call her on her s**t when she infringes on the rights of others.

Do note that she is in county jail, not prison. I could not condone a prison sentence for this woman. Impeachment is the way to go.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: sycomix


POST REMOVED BY STAFF


So you would agree then if a strict Muslim who follows Sharia Law is working at the DMV they should also have their religious rights respected and in such cases not be forced to issue driving licenses to women?

And, if in a similar case, they would be okay to refuse all members of said DMV from issuing driving licenses to women.

It goes both ways you know.
edit on 3-9-2015 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on Thu Sep 3 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




When did people start marrying? The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).

When did the church get involved?

In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church's power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church's seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.
theweek.com...


seems like the state has been involved in marriage quite a long time.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

People been playing politics with it longer.

Most of the time they denigrate the state of marriage, but turn around, and say it's so bloody important.

But only when it's same sex.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: matafuchs

Interesting point!



But does Congress actually have to pass a law for an act that should be avaliable to anyone?


They passed a "law" to allow something that all people should have, there would be folks up in arms screaming about "special rights".

It amazes me that people think that having the same opportunities/protection is "special" or "extra".



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
She was elected to the post which is why she can't be fired. She has to remove herself or be recalled.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Question- Some local level governments can choose not to enforce some federal laws with no repercussions (e.g. marijuana, persons in the country illegally). I realize this is a supreme court ruling so it may not be exactly analogous. And I'm not drawing a line on one side of either of issue but merely using them as examples. But it would seems that some laws/rulings/mandates are enforced (or not enforced) with some bias. Is this just my perception and understanding of this correct? Maybe someone in the legal profession can chime in and explain the difference between the examples and this particular issue.

Having said that, this woman is public servant and it's not her duty or place to decide which court rulings/laws/mandates to enforce. She can believe what she wants personally, but should step down if she refuses to do what her position requires.


Someone who feels strongly enough about the "non-execution of laws/contempt of laws" should bring the matter before a judge.

That is how this "matter" came to the forefront.

In point of fact, the Christian Bible instructs all to "obey the magistrates" and the laws of the land. Not only is she breaking secular law, she is disobeying the commands of her Lord in His Book. There is zero merit in any of her claims.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: sycomix


Don't care a hoot, if the muzzie can get away with all manner of crap for religious reasons so can she. She can not be forced to act against her beliefs, me personally give no care one way or the other. I am an ordained reverend and do same sex weddings, but then again I feel they have the same right to domestic misery as anyone. By the by, she is paid a salary right??? Then she is employed by some body that doles out a pay check, so yeah the whole pork and alcohol thing stands.


So you would agree then if a strict Muslim who follows Sharia Law is working at the DMV they should also have their religious rights respected and in such cases not be forced to issue driving licenses to women?

And, if in a similar case, they would be okay to refuse all members of said DMV from issuing driving licenses to women.

It goes both ways you know.


Like I said before, either they all get the right to whine about religion or none of them do, in a prior response I said whats good for the goose is good for the gander. So she was holding true to that by not giving any licenses out gay or otherwise, not being exclusionary. Now if people like it or not this is a predominately Judaeo Christian country and they have feelings regarding homosexuality... and not good ones. They are just gona have to get used to being looked upon funny by the majority of people and shunned by many others. Sad but true. I have extreme doubts that this will change in your or my lifetimes, so we may as well get used to it too. (NOTE: In prior reply where I said I do same sex weddings, I am not the one being all anti-homo here. I just have wit enough to notice the real world and not the PC BS shoved down our throats.)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Pointless grandstanding by a recent convert to 'religion', like a new Alcoholics Anonymous member preaching to a full bar room. As a government employee, she can disagree with all the laws she wants, but she does not have the right to disobey any of them. Once again, a religious nut job feels the power of self-righteousness.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




top topics



 
76
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join