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.

 

Kim Davis... Gay Marriage... Religious Freedom Restoration Act... Reasonable Accommodations...

page: 15
8
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

And She has every right to believe what she wants, again that has Never been taken away from her, but she is going beyond "Believing"




posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

And She has every right to believe what she wants, again that has Never been taken away from her, but she is going beyond "Believing"


Bless your heart. I get that this issue is personal for you. I understand that you have probably personally borne the brunt of much hate and intolerance, especially from Christians and others of faith. I fully see why the very public hateful attacks by a very vocal and loud minority would feel like a personal attack. And I hate that you -- or anyone, for any reason -- has to experience that. So I especially appreciate that you are willing to stand up for the persecuted, and I thank you for taking part in this discussion with civility and courtesy.

We have both made our positions clear. I have addressed your concerns about religious tyranny many times. I don't think you're gonna budge and I know I'm not going to budge. I just hope you understand that I am not your enemy and I do not want to be. I simply want everyone's rights respected and protected -- including Kim Davis' -- because it is the only way to maintain our rights and not let them degenerate into privileges and entitlements. And if you do not see that now, I hope one day you do.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yeah, i support her right to believe and practice her Religion, anyone. and if someone said "You are not allowed to believe" in what you want i would fight for that too, it's when people use Religion as a way to hide behind discrimination or Hate, or a way to control people and try to make it 'Law' and then claim Freedom of Religion that is what i will fight against.

i don't think you are an Enemy



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Nobody is taking her right to believe. However, the ruling of the court required her to take actions that were against her religious belief in the form of having her name on a document which would violate her religious beliefs. She requested relief under Kentucky's statute that allows her to seek such relief. That statute has not been overturned. To the best of my knowledge that statute has never been challenged at law despite numerous threats to do after it was enacted. The Supreme Court ruling was not about that statute. It was about the amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that defined marriage.

Let me say it again---I don't want anyone's rights violated. I want government officials to follow the law as they have sworn to do when they took the oath---even when they disagree with the law. I was taught that if you disagree with a law you work to get it changed. I've followed that path since the 1960s and it has indeed been a torturous journey fraught with dissension from all sides of all the issues.
As I posted earlier (somewhere, I'm lost as to which thread) a whole bunch of us saw this coming and attempted to get members of the legislature and the executive branch to be ready to address the issue. It didn't take any paranormal ability to see what was coming...and yet they steadfastly refused to address the issue---reacted as though we had asked them to take away old folks' Social Security. Come on, it's not like they got blindsided by this issue. They've had over two years to challenge the constitutionality of the law and they have done NOTHING. If they (the governor and the AG) actually believed the law was unconstitutional, why didn't they act on their belief and get it overturned by the Supreme Court? Their oath obligates them to do so and failing to have taken such action their oath obligates them to follow the law as passed by the legislature---despite their objections to the law.

The crux of the matter is that Jack Conway is so busy running for governor he can't be bothered to obey the law. Here's just one example of his hypocrisy.




Attorney General Jack Conway said he won't appoint a special prosecutor "at this time" to pursue a criminal case of official misconduct against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, despite a request from the Rowan County attorney. Read more here: www.kentucky.com...=cpy





“Judge Bunning and the federal court have control of this matter, and therefore a special state prosecutor is not necessary at this time,” Conway spokeswoman Allison Gardner Martin said. “We are holding the request in abeyance for now.” Last month, Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins asked Conway, the Democratic nominee for governor, to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether Davis is guilty of official misconduct for failing to perform her public duties. First-degree official misconduct, a Class A misdemeanor, can bring up to a year in jail and up to a $500 fine. Read more here: www.kentucky.com...=cpy


What a load of horse manure! He can't have it both ways....either she is guilty of official misconduct and should be charged, prosecuted and convicted...or she has legal protections for her religious beliefs under the Kentucky Revised Statute with which he personally disagrees. He should be ridden out of town on the fence rail he is attempting to straddle with his incoherent mumbling about holding her prosecution in abeyance. The request by the Rowan County Attorney is valid as far as I know from previous cases. For instance, when the county clerk in my county was found to have "misplaced" funds from the clerk's account our county attorney requested a special prosecutor from the AG's office to prosecute her. Upon receipt of the Auditor's report, a prosecutor was appointed, charges were filed, she was convicted and went to jail because she did not faithfully execute the duties of her office which included depositing all funds into official accounts.
Why doesn't Conway do the same? I can only speculate based on observation and comments coming out of Frankfort. The reason he doesn't attempt to prosecute is that he is too busy conducting a campaign for governor and knows that he will lose the case if she has any sort of competent representation. Why? Because HE failed to act. Furthermore, he is still failing to act by not bringing charges against her.
I hope both he and the governor are pleased with this mess that they have created.
Again let me emphasize---I want all people's right to recognized and respected and I want all elected officials to obey the law or be held accountable for their actions.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

Yeah, i support her right to believe and practice her Religion, anyone. and if someone said "You are not allowed to believe" in what you want i would fight for that too...

i don't think you are an Enemy



That's really good to know -- thank you! I must be very frustrating for you at times, but I was sure hoping, and I've appreciated your willingness to discuss and even disagree with respect -- thank you again



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Could be a deep conspiracy with the whole thing.

Kim Davis, the Governor, the Attorney General all in on some kind of effort to set some legal precedents ?

Hmmm.

Seems all 3 have done some "political" maneuvering.




posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: diggindirt

Could be a deep conspiracy with the whole thing.

Kim Davis, the Governor, the Attorney General all in on some kind of effort to set some legal precedents ?

Hmmm.

Seems all 3 have done some "political" maneuvering.


I never even thought of that angle! Hmmm... create the conflict you want to challenge and defeat...

Do you think the attorneys are in on it too? Or just being used for their easily predictable approach?



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The lawyers ?

Very possible.

They do the "legal" work and can easily control the outcomes of "decisions" by arguing/emphasizing the wrong points and/or omitting specific points.



The Hegelian Dialectic


edit on Sep-12-2015 by xuenchen because: [-0-]



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Well, I don't know Kim Davis personally but I do know the governor and the AG and you can bet that the only things in their tiny minds is consolidating and holding their political power.
Obviously, Kim Davis, having served the Commonwealth faithfully for over two decades thought she could trust the elected officials to abide by the law. That's why she sought refuge in the law. Obviously she was mistaken in her belief since they threw her under the bus then let the driver back over her in an attempt to silence her. Failing to respond to her request in a timely manner caused her to be sued and sent to jail.
Obviously, having served the state for over two decades, Kim Davis knew the system and the procedures within the system. If her request was not "properly filed" the agency receiving her request must instruct her on the proper filing procedures or direct her to the proper agency, not simply ignore the request.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
That's never been made more clear than in this case. Between the lawyers' willfulness to ignore the still-standing Kentucky Statute that provides for reasonable accommodation and the media's complete disregard for that portion of the issue, they made this molehill into a mountain. Rather than focusing their attention on the elected officials that were clearly shirking their duty but who have press secretaries and spokespeople to spin for them, they've focused on the clerk who was attempting to seek relief in a legal manner. She has no highly paid spokesperson speaking for her at the taxpayers' expense. She has paid the price.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Could be they have "something" on Kim Davis.

Blackmail always present opportunities.




posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
I have no idea.
However, I do know that neither of them acted in a timely manner to obey the law. And that has made all the difference.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt
a reply to: xuenchen
a reply to: Darth_Prime
a reply to: windword

FYI... I just wanted to post what I think is the newest news in the case if you're still interested. I am still flabbergasted that no one wants to cite the RFRA on either "side." The law that cannot be named...

Huffington Post: Kim Davis Asks Appeals Court To Let Her Refuse To Issue Marriage Licenses

The title is only partly right; she has, again, asked to not issue any marriage licenses, not just to gay couples:


In a Friday motion filed with the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Davis' attorneys asked that she be allowed to continue banning marriage licenses for her entire office until the case is settled.


Christi an Post: Kim Davis Seeks Right to Refuse to Issue Marriage Licenses to Gay Couples Until Case Is Settled

There is this too, though I cannot vouch for the source or the legal claims one way or the other:

World News Daily: Kim Davis judge blasted for order covering 'entire world'
edit on 13-9-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The real intent is to set precedence.

The Courts will keep citing the SCOTUS.

I think we have a conspiracy.




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Boadicea

The real intent is to set precedence.

The Courts will keep citing the SCOTUS.

I think we have a conspiracy.



I think you're right. I've thought from the beginning that this has much to do with setting a precedent and establishing case law for future cases. And what disturbs me most about this is that I don't think it's about setting a precedent for county clerks or other elected officials, but for using against individuals and individual rights. What I can't figure out is who are the "good" guys... now I'm not sure there are any "good" guys.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
op

while i agree the situation is ridiculous, ms. davis was confused about her responsibility as a christian. the marriage part (you know before god?) happened when they fell in love, not when the government allows people to get into financial agreements with each other. it's the equivalent of refusing to sign a business agreement between two gay business owners. i bet she wouldn't even think twice about doing that. and this is the same thing. the actual marriage, from jesus' own words, happened when they fell in love. the government is not in the business of divine decrees.
edit on 13-9-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
people keep assuming the "marriage" license is a divine document. it isn't.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
op

while i agree the situation is ridiculous, ms. davis was confused about her responsibility as a christian. the marriage part (you know before god?) happened when they fell in love, not when the government allows people to get into financial agreements with each other. it's the equivalent of refusing to sign a business agreement between two gay business owners. i bet she wouldn't even think twice about doing that. and this is the same thing. the actual marriage, from jesus' own words, happened when they fell in love. the government is not in the business of divine decrees.


It is ridiculous. And I don't disagree that Ms. Davis is confusing the duties of her faith with the duties of her job. I can draw that line, and you can too, obviously. But the law gives her the right to believe and act in accordance with her faith, and the same rights to due process, so Ms. Davis is not confused about her rights under the law.

By the same token, the judge is equally confused about his responsibility as a judge, which is to protect the due process of rights of everyone, including Ms. Davis. At least, I hope he is simply confused, and not deliberately denying someone their due process rights in the name of protecting someone else's due process. That's not due process. That's even worse than cherry picking laws... that's just picking and choosing who "deserves" due process. And that's not his place.

If folks have a problem with the law, they need to attack the law, and change the law.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I actually love discussing things with people, as long as it doesn't turn into hateful remarks and ignorant statements.(not form you)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

i know but i'm trying to cut off this confrontation before it balloons out of control. i don't wish to see gays or christians hurt by this situation, and although it's necessary to have a precedence set that is fair and equal, it doesn't hurt to reaffirm what the actual teachings of jesus are on the subject of when the actual marriage takes place. and that's the part she's concerned with. business documents between people in love, are not "marriage" verifications (in christianity), even if the state has mistakenly called them that. marriage verification happens between the two people in love and god. not between the two people in love and the state.




top topics



 
8
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join