Kentucky clerk Kim Davis ordered released from jail

a reply to: Klassified

Yep. The ones that think that their religion is above the Constitution.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Is what she doing a publicity stunt? Is she looking for her 15 minutes of fame or is she going to stand her ground?

She claims "things" have changed since she took office which is true..... gay marriage.

She is against gay marriage because she believes gay marriage destroys the true meaning of marriage as set forth by God's laws.

Will she stands her ground as a Christian or fold and be known as a hypocrite?

Time will tell........

I'm all for her standing her ground on her convictions as a Christian. Just not at the expense of other peoples constitutional rights. That's the real issue here, and why she is being called out on it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok

And heres me thinking the UK had it bad with beurocrates

I hear where you are coming from but it is more about protecting the voter. It is to prevent a vocal minority from having someone fired because they disagree with their policies.

Is that not the point of a constitution though?

The elected individual can act are they see fit, but if they cross that line its free rein to fire them.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: crazyewok

What is it with Americas obsession in jailing people for non violent crimes?

Do they have contempt of court or something similar in the UK? So if people are ruled against in court in the UK and they say "nuh uh" and don't comply with the ruling what do the courts do then?

Normally they get very very hefty fines.

Prison normaly reserved only for the most serious breachs.

Normally that would have been the case here as well, but there were gofund me sites prepared to pay her fines that would allow her to continue to breach the constitution so the judge went with jail until she complied with the court order.


That type of contempt of court jailing pretty much puts the keys to her freedom in her own hands. As soon as she complied with the law she could have walked out.

originally posted by: crazyewok

Is that not the point of a constitution though?

The elected individual can act are they see fit, but if they cross that line its free rein to fire them.

At the risk of taking this off topic, not, not ours. It is a list of things the government cannot do.

Elected officials cannot be fired, only appointed ones can.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Is what she doing a publicity stunt? Is she looking for her 15 minutes of fame or is she going to stand her ground?

Yes, it's a publicity stunt. GoFundMe told her to Go Fund Herself, though. Heh.
She's already gotten her 15 minutes.

"Her" ground?
Working for the government which requires her to be neutral regarding her job is her "ground." She's failing her ground. It has been pointed out. It's the law. Her newly-born-again status notwithstanding (seeing as how she was only recently 'brought into the fold'), that does not excuse her from doing her job as a neutral issuer of licenses.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok

And heres me thinking the UK had it bad with beurocrates

I hear where you are coming from but it is more about protecting the voter. It is to prevent a vocal minority from having someone fired because they disagree with their policies.

Is that not the point of a constitution though?

The elected individual can act are they see fit, but if they cross that line its free rein to fire them.

When was the last time you saw anyone in the US government fired? The Constitution is stepped on, on a daily basis by those who held their hand on a Bible and said, "So help me God" yet as a Brit I am sure even you can see thru that BS?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

To stand up against the government whether right or wrong shows character.

showing character is quite a bit different than showing good character
i dont think anyone will argue she didnt show character

hell most people who are remembered as monsters showed character.....strong character.....unique character even....... just not good character

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

they can be recalled though
which could be something to consider

edit: well i just looked it up and apparently kentucky is one of the 14 states without ANY recall provisions.... aint that a kick in the pants

I love how they want "accommodations" for her Religious Practices so she can keep her job yet follow her Religion. Those "accommodations" of course being that she doesn't have to do the Marriage Licenses anymore.

The problem there is that is her job. So she's basically saying she wants to keep her job and still get paid but be excused from doing any work that position is there to do.

Brilliant scam. Try telling your boss that you want to keep your job and still get paid but do no work for it. I'm sure they have no problem with that and feel that your religion is more important.

a reply to: Klassified

Yea, that's what she says so that she can look at herself in the mirror. No one actually believes that nonsense though.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok

And heres me thinking the UK had it bad with beurocrates

I hear where you are coming from but it is more about protecting the voter. It is to prevent a vocal minority from having someone fired because they disagree with their policies.

Is that not the point of a constitution though?

The elected individual can act are they see fit, but if they cross that line its free rein to fire them.

When was the last time you saw anyone in the US government fired? The Constitution is stepped on, on a daily basis by those who held their hand on a Bible and said, "So help me God" yet as a Brit I am sure even you can see thru that BS?

Well being a brit does give some what of a outside, hence impartial view of things.

And yes fhe ability of your government not only to get things done, but give a proportionate response does seems to be a somewhat weakness along with the fast and loose attitude they give a prefectly good constitution.

I predict she will be back in jail in a week. She may not prevent her clerks from issuing the marriage licenses, but she will likely alter them in some way to invalidate them. With all those fundamentalists and her shady lawyers cheering her on, she will feel empowered and do something stupid.

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

they can be recalled though
which could be something to consider

edit: well i just looked it up and apparently kentucky is one of the 14 states without ANY recall provisions.... aint that a kick in the pants

wow....so religious people get a pass from federal law?...why do we put up with people that force others to believe in mythical beings?...I thought that went out with the Salem witch trails......oooooh, she's a witch, god told me.....BURN HER TO DEATH!!!

a reply to: jimmyx

what?
no it just means they have no way of getting rid of elected officials that dont do their job
which is extremely short sighted and foolish

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
Impeached the bitch then?

Or change such a stupid law thats protects beuraucrats.

Changing the law is not an option as it would render lawful elections moot since the elector's choices could be fired by an official they may or may have not elected.

I'd imagine there is a rule that a criminal conviction would be grounds to fire an elected official, regardless of that infringing on the electorate's choice? Ought to be the same thing or at least ball park in this case surely?

If she isn't doing what she was elected to do, and i had voted for her..i'd want to have another election.

originally posted by: MysterX
I'd imagine there is a rule that a criminal conviction would be grounds to fire an elected official, regardless of that infringing on the electorate's choice? Ought to be the same thing or at least ball park in this case surely?

In many cases that is not an available recourse. There have been elected officials in prison who still retained their elected office.

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: jimmyx

what?
no it just means they have no way of getting rid of elected officials that dont do their job
which is extremely short sighted and foolish

well that's great.....so, she just can go home and collect her pay, without working a day, because she can refuse to do her job, until the legislature comes back in session in January....and this judge?.....did god appoint him, also?....Kentucky is now governed by the Christian god

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And even reelected.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok

And heres me thinking the UK had it bad with beurocrates

I hear where you are coming from but it is more about protecting the voter. It is to prevent a vocal minority from having someone fired because they disagree with their policies.

Is that not the point of a constitution though?

The elected individual can act are they see fit, but if they cross that line its free rein to fire them.

When was the last time you saw anyone in the US government fired? The Constitution is stepped on, on a daily basis by those who held their hand on a Bible and said, "So help me God" yet as a Brit I am sure even you can see thru that BS?

Well being a brit does give some what of a outside, hence impartial view of things.

And yes fhe ability of your government not only to get things done, but give a proportionate response does seems to be a somewhat weakness along with the fast and loose attitude they give a prefectly good constitution.

I didn't quite understand your response and my response to you wasn't in any means meant as a slam?

But I kid you not! In the US judges are God!

Right or wrong!

Only those wealthy enough to pay for a lawyer have the ability to fight for their rights! This woman IMO, most likely got free representation in the judicial system ONLY because her case was able to be politicized!

Find someone who is being misrepresented or being denied their Constitutional rights that can't be politicized and I can guarantee you, you nor I will ever hear a peep about it unless of course they are wealthy enough to fight for their so called rights!