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: 6
76
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

And she can still exercise it, just not onto other people through her job.

She also may want to read up on her beliefs if she is so hell bent on following them.
www.usnews.com...




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
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...




Congress didn't "make a ruling" ... wrong branch of government. You want to consult Obergefell v. Hodges

All Americans should be treated equitably under our laws - Federal, State, local, etc.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: sycomix


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


Her purpose of refusing marriage licences was because it was contrary to her religious beliefs correct?

Please show me one example of where a muslim person, radical muslim at that, has been allowed to refuse a normal person something they are entitled to under the law because of their religious beliefs.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Wetpaint72

So in other words, she is no actually performing the duties that she was elected to perform.

Yes, that is enough for dismissal.

I wonder who is been filling her head with stupidity.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
In my honest opinion, this is nothing more than about forcing a person to do what someone else wants them to do come hell or high- water. I am sure this county is not the only county that issues marriage licenses. Someone caught wind of this women's inability to set her religious beliefs aside to do a job that was distasteful to her. Becoming the bigot that she supposedly is to be, is not a solution. Boohoo, someone won't bake me a cake-get over it and bake your own cake, what I would do- Boohoo, someone won't make me the tuxedo of my dreams--Get Over It make it yourself sheesh. No one person should be made to bow to another , gay white black purple alien whale, fowl horse whatever. This used to be a country to be proud of , but dang it folks, we are the laughing stock of other countries now. Get a Grip. Name calling and putting her in jail for not being made to do something is stupid. Sure , judge, fire her from the job, but do not throw this woman to the wolves as he or she has done. If a cause is needed rescue the Bacha Boys that have so conveniently been shoved under the bus, or the child brothels in the oriental. You want outrage , go and look into those 4,5,6 and up faces. Lets see you put your money where your mouths are, and make a real difference. You want to get married after you divorce again and again, go for it, who cares, not I . But to be picking and choosing who your next victim is because you can't make them do what you want them to, is blackmail, plain and simple. I don't care if they work for Jesus S. Christ, it is still blackmail.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: sycomix


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


Her purpose of refusing marriage licences was because it was contrary to her religious beliefs correct?

Please show me one example of where a muslim person, radical muslim at that, has been allowed to refuse a normal person something they are entitled to under the law because of their religious beliefs.


My beer as stated in a prior reply...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Chansi3


This whore has been divorced 3 times, married 4 and is a proven adulterer. She has zero religious ground to stand on.

P.S. Babylon called; they need their whore back.

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



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
In my non-legal-expert and non-constitutional-expert opinion:

Religious freedom and 1st amendment rights = the right to express and exercise one's faith. She has done so. She has not had those rights curtailed. She is still doing so right now.

Religious freedom and 1st amendment rights does NOT = the right to disabuse others of their due process and equal protection clause rights, as recently upheld by SCOTUS.

The two are not the same thing.

She has not had her rights infringed upon. She continues to exercise them even now, by remaining in contempt. Her freedom to exercise her religious beliefs and 1st amendment rights, and her being found in contempt for failing to uphold her sworn oaths as an elected official, are not mutually exclusive. She has the right to her opinion, and to refuse to do her job because of it. And they are likewise within their rights to find her in contempt.

The alternative is to allow sworn elected officials to discriminate against protected classes of citizens who have been found to be protected by SCOTUS rulings. That is the only alternative to this balance that I can see. I respect this woman's faith, however she is not upholding her oaths of office and her position of power and authority constitutes institutional discrimination if allowed to proceed.

Just my opinion, as stated. I respect the views of those who disagree.

Peace.
edit on 9/3/2015 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Chansi3

In my honest opinion you're seriously confused about someone "doing what they want (or don't want) to do" and their responsibilities as an elected official.

Having a religion is not a free pass to ignore any laws one doesn't like.

Perhaps, some day, you'll have the joy of being refused goods and services because of something about you that someone else doesn't like.

Just remember your own advice at that point ... "Boo-hoo ..."



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Wetpaint72

So in other words, she is no actually performing the duties that she was elected to perform.

Yes, that is enough for dismissal.

I wonder who is been filling her head with stupidity.


She belongs to an apostolic church. That should give you a clue.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
It's a bit alarming to me that these stories that strike a wedge between two groups seem to get the most attention.

I suppose the biggest culprit is your average news reader. We all have our opinions on these matters and many feel they have to come and defend their view point. This results in a lot of bickering especially on the more mainstream news sites.

We tend to keep it relatively civil here thankfully but even we are not immune.

Just showcases how divisive we can become over such matters. I don't imagine that will change anytime soon. Someone put it best in another thread that it seems we can only ever lay down our differences and work together in times of great strife and catastrophe.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry, I should have defined 'they' as the Supreme Court but I kind of figured it was implied since if someone has an interest in this they would know how the definition of same sex marriage came to be in the US.

As far as treated equally...that is the point. She is not being treated equally when she has a law to defend her but a ruling based on a case, not a written law, is interpreted to protect gay marriage. It is ONE way, or the OTHER...you cannot pick and choose which is happening right now.

She does not want to sign it based on religious belief. So, have someone else 'notarize' it and she can file it. Move on.

To me,again, it is not about right/wrong/religion/orientation. It is about how the government can choose to interpret and enforce a punishment when you are protected by the 1st Amendment. You also have the right to remain silent and to due process. These are already out the window with the PA. Little by little the foundation of our country is being pushed apart and the small victories you think are won are only leading us to total government control.


(post by sycomix removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Chansi3

The issue is that she happens to be an elected and official and is therefore 'The Government' and infringing on other's Constitutional rights. She is depriving a certain group of people a particular legal status which she in turn grants to others based on an arbitrary personal determiner.

This is illegal and un-Constitutional.




edit on 3-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
You are joking right? I thought there was no such animal. We are living in 2015 are we not? a reply to: LeatherNLace



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: sycomix
Here is thought, IF she doesn't want to do the paper work because it offends her religious belief system, get in the next line.


There isn't a "next line". She is THE county clerk. There are deputy county clerks, and now that she's in jail, I'm pretty sure they will temporarily be taking over her duties.



Bunning also told five deputy clerks who work for Davis that they have until 1:45 p.m. to decide whether they will comply with his order to issue marriage licenses or join Davis in jail.


www.kentucky.com...=cpy" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source


In my town if I go to the local court house there at no less than 10 lines, in the next town over at least 5, there is more than one line and there is no way she is the only signatory for the paperwork in question.


She was in charge and she wouldn't let anyone else issue licenses either.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
This is good. It's not right to force your religion on others.

Who's to say she is right? I don't believe in the bible. What if it was a Muslim Clerk who refused to do this job based on Islamic beliefs?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: sycomix

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: sycomix
Here is thought, IF she doesn't want to do the paper work because it offends her religious belief system, get in the next line.


There isn't a "next line". She is THE county clerk. There are deputy county clerks, and now that she's in jail, I'm pretty sure they will temporarily be taking over her duties.



Bunning also told five deputy clerks who work for Davis that they have until 1:45 p.m. to decide whether they will comply with his order to issue marriage licenses or join Davis in jail.


www.kentucky.com...=cpy" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source


In my town if I go to the local court house there at no less than 10 lines, in the next town over at least 5, there is more than one line and there is no way she is the only signatory for the paperwork in question.


She was in charge and she wouldn't let anyone else issue licenses either.


I will concede that point...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Good! This circus has been going on for much too long.

She can't misuse her government position to enforce her religious believe on others. She issues marriages licenses regardless of faith, conviction or any other properties as long it is within the legal definition.

What if a Muslim comes to her to get a marriage license - can she refuse because he is Muslim?
What if a Atheist comes in to get a license - that's pretty contrary to her believe, right?
What if someone comes in who hates Christians - is she allowed to refuse?

If you answer any of these question with Yes you are dead wrong! Her job is to issue the licenses and not to judge other than the legal requirements. If she refuses, she violates her oath.

Ahhh religion and government - never worked very well! That's why most countries have separated those for a reason.

I truly believe (and that's my faith) that religion is one of the biggest destructive force - because it is the most simplest form of human manipulation.

BUT, now they jailed this woman for misusing her government position- when is Hillary's turn who actually committed serious crimes???



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs

She does not want to sign it based on religious belief. So, have someone else 'notarize' it and she can file it. Move on.


I'm sure everyone would have been fine with that.

But she was in charge of the office and wasn't allowing anyone to issue licenses.



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join