Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Kryties
I have noticed that many Christians seem to have this "competition" to see who's the best Christian.

LOL, you don't have to be a fundamental Christian to know that.

Church is worse then a teen in high school.

I chuckled

So true.....

originally posted by: MrWendal
They can take the money from the millions and millions of unreported dollars the Police departments have taken from across the entire State under Asset Forfeiture Laws.

You have a GREAT argument! One many of us have been stating since early in the thread. I don't think she should be in jail, either! She should have been booted! But your argument isn't with us, it's with the Kentucky legislature, who I suspect WANTS the spectacle of the poor, abused, religious woman in jail "for her beliefs".

Being a Christian myself, this woman has done nothing but mock and shame the Christian faith. Under Kentucky state law, she is required to take not one, but two oaths, one in front of a district judge. She has defied both of those oaths, and is a disgrace to the office she holds. When one is elected to an office and violates the duties required, that person is showing contempt and disregard for ALL the people who elected her, and those she must serve. I get so angry when these people abuse religion, and force their beliefs on others. Whatever happens to her is not persecution of Christians, but her due by not performing the duties and the constitution she swore to uphold.

a reply to: retiredTxn

I agree with everything you have written, however, throwing her in jail is, to say the least, alarming. And to read the responses of all of these ATS posters is equally alarming. Did she violate her oath? Probably. Did she do the job she was elected to do? Surely not. Does she deserve to be JAILED?!? Absolutely NOT! I have worked for a county administration and if I did not do my job I would expected to be fired. NOT JAILED! And to read that most people on this site agrees she should be jailed tells me that we are marching our way right down the road to an autocracy where if you do not agree with the head of the government (in this case county, although it is a mystery to me why the Feds are even involved with this) they will come for you.

You will be a political prisoner. Think about that for a minute folks. An American has been made a political prisoner within the boundaries of the United States of America. Why? Because she has religious convictions that do not agree with the government. This violates the constitution on religious freedom. ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." By throwing her in jail they are "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I am no lawyer certainly but it doesn't take a scholar to figure out that taking someone's freedom away for their religious views is about as UnAmerican as it gets.

We are marching down a dangerous path. And this will not stop with this woman. A precedent has been set and this opens the door for terrible consequences for ones THOUGHT if that thought does not conform with the governments. Gun ownership, abortion philosophy, bakery owners who do not want to serve a gay wedding. And the sick thing is there are going to be many people who agree with the governments stance on this. And who will write on here how full of crap I am. For all of you who will choose to lambaste me, you will feel self-righteous until they come for you because of your feelings about global warming or tax policy or the type of car you drive.

This woman should be impeached if that represents the will of the citizens who elected her. That is all. The federal government has nothing to do with this, has no jurisdiction, and has Waaaay overstepped its bounds.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
She should have been booted!

Yes! First time she refused to comply with Equal Rights.

Now, I just hope they hold her til her term ends.

originally posted by: icewater
Does she deserve to be JAILED?!? Absolutely NOT!

If it is the only way the other people in her office can comply with Equal Rights.

Absolutely!

originally posted by: icewater

Did she violate her oath? Probably. Did she do the job she was elected to do? Surely not. Does she deserve to be JAILED?!? Absolutely NOT! I have worked for a county administration and if I did not do my job I would expected to be fired. NOT JAILED! And to read that most people on this site agrees she should be jailed tells me that we are marching our way right down the road to an autocracy where if you do not agree with the head of the government (in this case county, although it is a mystery to me why the Feds are even involved with this) they will come for you.

You will be a political prisoner. Think about that for a minute folks. An American has been made a political prisoner within the boundaries of the United States of America. Why? Because she has religious convictions that do not agree with the government.

She was jailed because she refused to comply with a direct order from the Supreme Court - why is it that people ignore this?

Oh yeah, thats right. Because to admit so would crush the argument that she is a "political prisoner" who's "religious freedom" is being denied.

What a load of Kangaroo crap.

a reply to: Kryties

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I certainly addressed that point. Do you mean it was not responded to by supporters of Saint Kimmy the Oppressed?

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. Those who trash the 14th are not responding. I've read the WHOLE thread! Ugh! LOL!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Kryties

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I certainly addressed that point. Do you mean it was not responded to by supporters of Saint Kimmy the Oppressed?

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. Those who trash the 14th are not responding. I've read the WHOLE thread! Ugh! LOL!

Apology accepted

a reply to: icewater

Yes, she should have been impeached. Please read the thread. Answers to your issues are everywhere! Read the post above yours!

The federal government has nothing to do with this, has no jurisdiction, and has Waaaay overstepped its bounds.

Well, you're wrong about that but the constitution has everything to do with it.

www.courier-journal.com...

There is a prayer group in support of Davis.

250 strong crowd calling her a "Christian Hero" and saying to "Free" her.

Also handing out fliers to impeach the Judge I believe.

Hehe.


Constitution - 1
Rightards - 0

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I gave up on page 19.

Too much braintard and it was starting to affect my own grey matter.

a reply to: icewater

This woman should be impeached if that represents the will of the citizens who elected her. That is all. The federal government has nothing to do with this, has no jurisdiction, and has Waaaay overstepped its bounds.

She is in jail for being in contempt of court. That happens whenever people ignore a court order.

She can leave whenever she chooses to comply with the court order, resigns from her job, or after the state legislature removes her from office.

From what I understand the state legislature is out of session ATM.

As far as this

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Let me explain. She is free to practice her religion there has been nothing violating that. If you think that sentence gives her the right to impose her religious beliefs on others through her political office you will be wrong. That would be in violation of the first part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because her government job would be her acting the part of congress.

I know it confuses a lot of people and it probably confuses her as well. The proper thing for her to do IMO is simply resign from her position since she feels she can no longer perform her job as it is required.

I've had a copy of the U.S. Constitution for years, and I don't like to be holier than thou to people who should know their own Laws better than me...


But holy s# after 68 pages you deserve to be ridiculed by a foreigner.



Contempt of court is not religious persecution.
The Law broken is the Law Of The Land, in quite a few places, including establishing religion in governmental positions.


Jesus wept.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: icewater

Yes, she should have been impeached. Please read the thread. Answers to your issues are everywhere! Read the post above yours!

The federal government has nothing to do with this, has no jurisdiction, and has Waaaay overstepped its bounds.

Well, you're wrong about that but the constitution has everything to do with it.

It is kind of crazy that so many people think constitutional issues are not federal.

There have been at least 3 people in this thread that site the issue as constitutional and claim the federal Govt should stay out of it.

a reply to: icewater

the federal government had very little to do with this, just that the supreme court decided that denying homosexuals the right to marry was a denial of constitutional rights. just like they decided that refusing the african americans the right to vote was a denial of constitutional rights, or a myriad of other issues for that matter....
the way the state of kentucky, it's governor, and the little city clerk handled that decision has quite a bit to do with this.

that fact of the matter is that if we accept the idea that we don't have to do anything we don't want to we can claim religious (or non-religious morality since we all have our own barometer to gauge morality) freedom to get out of it would cause quite a bit of chaos. and it's not like governments on all levels have not ruled against someone's religious freedoms before. a native american I don't believe can use peyote in their ritual and then go to work and test positive on their drug tests and claim any religious exemption. if there is to be religious exemptions, they have to be given in a way that does not favor one belief above another and is given based on a more rational basis than just well I believe this so the gov't has to go along with me acting on it or they are going against my rights. part of that rational has to be how much their actions would interfer with others around them!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I've had a copy of the U.S. Constitution for years, and I don't like to be holier than thou to people who should know their own Laws better than me...


But holy s# after 68 pages you deserve to be ridiculed by a foreigner.



Contempt of court is not religious persecution.
The Law broken is the Law Of The Land, in quite a few places, including establishing religion in governmental positions.


Jesus wept.

Forget it mate, some people are so wrapped up in the victimisation of themselves that common sense, truth and logic go straight out the window.

I'm honestly surprised that, as an Aussie, I seem to know more about the American Constitution than some Americans.


EDIT: Weird, ATS is censoring the word "win-dow" (without the hyphen).

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

has the angel appeared in the jail with the keys to her cell yet??

or are they not praying for god to free her, but just shouting at the world to free her?
a prayer group prays, not rallies, not shouts...it prays.

a reply to: Kryties

I'm not surprised in the slightest mate.

Everyday, numerous times, I pass on the chance to knowledge someone from the States on the Constitution, it's not worth the aggro it'll cause.

& I don't want to appear like an interfering so and so...

But again, 19 pages, let alone all 68, is too much tongue biting.

a reply to: dawnstar

Lulz.

Not that I'm aware of Dawn.

I also thought prayer was meant to be a private thing in Christendom.
Ahhh well, they have every right to protest.



Even though Westboro Baptish Church also called her a moron who needs to obey the Laws of the Land...
That's been the highlight of my week when I read that on their Twitter page.

for reference and clarification .....

the actual Supreme Court rulings.

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*

Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performedin another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed.

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28. ....................