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 Freed. Drama Queen Mike Huckabee: Lock Me Up!

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Remember before governments it was the church the one that ruled those in power.




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




Neo you believe that we are bind to follow religious believes regardless?


Yes i do because far too many people worship at the alter of government.





how about people like me that have not reason why to believe in organized religion and neither to follow a book that I find full of myth and lore written by man.


I wish so many people didn't have a profound belief in 'organized' government.




So discrimination, irrationality, prejudice is ok as long as some asswise think that they have religion to do as they wish?,


Oh government does plenty of that too. Complete with their own cults.




Are we no all by religious accounts created equal in the image of a God? who created inequality? but mankind itself.


Mother nature created that all by herself. That was one of the express purposes of evolution.

People have the ability to change.




Is nothing wrong with the bible as per say, what is wrong is with those that interprets the bible to pursue their derailed irrational believes that tells them they are better than others so that empower them to become self-righteous.


Same applies to government.




The biggest danger to humanity is no just government but the man made religions of the world.


The biggest danger to humanity is government, and those who think government can make/give them something they already have.

That uses bold face authoritarianism to make people comply with it's every wish.

I think everyone would be more happy if government got out of the 'marriage business' altogether.

It's just a racket to make money, and spread money around.
edit on 9-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: neo96

Remember before governments it was the church the one that ruled those in power.



I remember which is why I see little difference between the Church, and State.

New boss same as the old boss.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Neo common, is nothing we can do to take down government at it is, right now, you know what happen to those that tried before, so be a good citizens and keep bending over, hey we all do.

But darn if I will bend to any type of religion.




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm sure they could swing an accomplice and accessory charge on Huckabee if she ever decides to attempt to invalidate the COTUS again.



By the way, (not you Benevelont but others), she broke around 4 3 of the Amendments technically.
Including the 1st.

I'll let the "Constitutionalists" defending her work out which ones and how.
edit on 9-9-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Sigh, America, was founded on freedom of religion...

As a matter of a fact, if not for religion theoretically most Americans would not exist..

I don't really agree with the chic, but I can give her a pass...

If not for people like her we would not be here right now, debating over right and wrong politics...

If your smart think about that before you are quick to judge my post...



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Bicent76

She is free to exercise her religion. No one has denied her any rights.

But you have to remember that we have separation of church and state. Is her place of work her church? No.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Imagine being married to such a control freak.

No wonder she is thrice divorced...


The exes are probably all watching this saga saying "I deserve a beer for dodging that".


Here is a beer for the thread Ante. Cheers.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: AboveBoard

Definition of marriage is state law. I apologize , you are one of the better posters here on this thread, if I came off as splitting hairs. I do that some times , especially when someone misspeaks.Nowhere on here am I validating what she did . (even though I was accused of making lame excuses for her) .


States are still free to define what a marriage means. That's the power given to them with the definition of marriage. What they are not allowed to do is be discriminatory about it.

Edit: These definition of marriage laws are a bit of a misnomer in the first place, what people are referring to in these cases isn't what a marriage means, which is all about how assets are tabulated, legal rights, and so on... the benefits and duties if you will.

What the Supreme Court ruled on is the scope of marriage which means who is eligible. If it explains it better, you can think of the Supreme Court ruling as saying the scope of marriage cannot be limited to only heterosexual couples.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Unbelievable how this crowd tries to act like limitations on their ability to infringe on other people's freedom, is infringing on their freedom! Idiots! Don't these people realize they're going to look as insane as all the crazy racists from a few decades ago look now, in the near future? You're on the wrong side of history. And, I just wish someone would have denied her at least one of her three divorces and re-marriages...on religious grounds, since the biblical basis for God not recognizing divorce and re-marriage, particularly in terms of the New Testament, are quite similar. Would her own divorce and re-marriage then be infringing on the rights of the individual who wanted to deny her that on religious grounds?
edit on 10-9-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Who cares? Attacking her for her religious failings is just as screwed up as her "attacking" the gays for their perceived religious failings.

People aren't perfect, she's gone through several marriages and an affair. Considering something like 60% of people divorce and 50% cheat she's hardly in a minority for either group. Just as she's able to remarry and move on, so should a gay person be able to.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TheJourney

Who cares? Attacking her for her religious failings is just as screwed up as her "attacking" the gays for their perceived religious failings.

People aren't perfect, she's gone through several marriages and an affair. Considering something like 60% of people divorce and 50% cheat she's hardly in a minority for either group. Just as she's able to remarry and move on, so should a gay person be able to.


That's...the point. I don't want to deny anyone the right to marry. She wants to deny a ton of people the right to marry. On religious grounds, which could just was easily be used against her, thus the hypocrisy. That was the whole point. I'm not sure how you took from my post that I want to deny people the right to marry.
edit on 10-9-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

What I was trying to say is that it's out of line to attack her, I brought this post up to someone in another thread the other day too. She's a complete hypocrite who has made some poor life choices, now lets move past that and be productive. Her argument fell flat, she has been shut down at the state and federal level. No matter what action she takes next there will be compliance. She can deny licenses until January when the legislature kicks her out, or she can get on board now. Either way it's solved. Attacking her only creates additional negative feelings over the whole ordeal, and on her side makes her look to be a martyr. There's enough victims in the world already, why make more? Instead focus on the continued arguments people make so they can be seen for the bad ideas that they are.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I wonder what would have happened if she refused marriage license to George Takei.

Many Christians are Star Trek fans.


edit on 9/11/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bicent76

She is free to exercise her religion. No one has denied her any rights.

But you have to remember that we have separation of church and state. Is her place of work her church? No.


She is also free to exercise her rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth. As such, she asked for a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. As it turns out she gave six alternative solutions by which she could continue to perform the duties of her office without violating her religious beliefs. www.lrc.ky.gov...




446.3 50 Prohibition upon government substantially burdening freedom of religion -- Showing of compelling governmental interest -- Description of "burden."

Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse t o act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities. Effective: June 25, 2013
History: Create d 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 1, effective June 25, 2013


The governor of Kentucky and the Attorney General have denied her rights by ignoring her plea for accommodation. They have done exactly what you are accusing her of doing---not following the law because they are opposed to the law. Equal application of the law would have them sitting in jail for contempt.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt



She is also free to exercise her rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth. As such, she asked for a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs.


I won't argue that but she has ordered her deputies NOT to issue licenses to gay couples in the first place.

If it's reasonable and the office still do it's job regardless then I don't see any problem.

And BTW


The governor of Kentucky and the Attorney General have denied her rights by ignoring her plea for accommodation.

You have been misinformed.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

She had ordered her deputies not to issue any marriage licenses until she could seek relief under the law due to her religious beliefs. You really should inform yourself of the facts of the case before not arguing about it.
How have I been misinformed about the Governor and AG?
They did not offer her the accommodations she requested and as a result she ended up in a jail cell. The governor didn't like the law. The AG didn't like the law. The law was passed over the governor's veto. Instead of handling this issue in a lawful manner, they decided to allow her to be jailed because they couldn't be bothered to take off from campaigning to consider her plea. I'm not sure who their political advisers were on this issue but their actions have certainly backfired on their grand plan since their hypocrisy has been exposed.
The AG, who is running for governor, didn't want to prosecute her for not issuing licenses because he knew he would never win a jury trial. The governor was too busy campaigning for his son to be bothered with actually considering that he was about to become a laughing stock for his actions amongst the very Democrats he was begging to vote for his son.
The resolution that has been reached could easily have been reached before this case went to court by the governor simply ordering that the license be printed without her name attached. That would be a reasonable accommodation since the involved forms were going to need re-designing anyway. The license is being issued by the Commonwealth, not the clerk so there is no legal reason to have her name on those forms.
They took the same oath to uphold the law as she did. How are their actions any different from hers?


edit on 11-9-2015 by diggindirt because: clarity



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt



simply ordering that the license be printed without her name attached. That would be a reasonable accommodation


RIGHT!!!! Now you get it. She refused that! We will wait till Monday to see what happens when she goes back to work (80K a year for not doing her job).



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

It's really this simple. She swore to the Constitution and SCOTUS. Don't like it? Don't take the job.



They did not offer her the accommodations she requested and as a result she ended up in a jail cell.


She is the one who told her deputies to deny the licenses.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join