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: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
You are allowed to practice your Religion, but not impose it on people while being a Government fixture.

The Separation of Church and State is very clear,

More Religious extremism, it never, ever, brings anything positive.
Gay marriage is mostly not about religious values. Atheistic Russia has a far more anti-gay sentiment. Explain that one.




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: wayforward

originally posted by: ugmold
You are allowed to practice your Religion, but not impose it on people while being a Government fixture.

The Separation of Church and State is very clear,

More Religious extremism, it never, ever, brings anything positive.
Gay marriage is mostly not about religious values. Atheistic Russia has a far more anti-gay sentiment. Explain that one.


Those who are brought up in religion - - don't automatically dump it because they are gay. There are many LGBT of faith.

Atheistic Russia? You're in the wrong century.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Russia boasts a 50% plus religious population according to most places. up to 70% + in some.

And the number of atheists has decreased to below 10% in recent surveys.

Also a quick google search reveals that Russia is having a surge of religious conservatism which, among other things aligns with the more aggressive anti gay stance.

~Tenth
edit on 9/11/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: theantediluvian

Man who knew so many would be in favor of religious law!

All these threads were right about religious law creeping in, just got it wrong when they said it was Sharia law.

Refusing to jail non-violent non-dangerous people has nothing to do with being in favor about religious law. And being anti-gay-marriage is only coincidentally about religion as there are countless atheists in Russia who are more anti-gay than Christians are in the US. Its conservatism, not religion.

People who are not dangerous do not belong in jail. Sometimes people sign their rights away to the government without realizing it, but if you don't have a meeting of the minds, if you don't have any bargaining power over all the terms, and you don't have then you don't have a valid contract.

People who jail people who are not dangerous, belong in prison. If you ever try to get someone to go to jail over shabby paperwork quality, YOU are the problem, and YOU should go to jail because YOU would be a dangerous person to be around if you are going to actually use violence over paperwork. Doing a job badly is never a good reason to put someone in jail.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


People who are not dangerous do not belong in jail.


I agree. In the case of citizens.

Kim Davis is an elected official. She's refusing to do the job she got hired to do, and refuses to step down.

That kinda power trip requires a drastic measure.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward




And being anti-gay-marriage is only coincidentally about religion as there are countless atheists in Russia who are more anti-gay than Christians are in the US. Its conservatism, not religion.


In the case of saint Kim we know it is about religion because she is on record saying so herself.

While she was being filmed at her government job and asked why she was refusing to serve the people she exclaimed it was because of "gods law" which has no place in government as written in the constitution (congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). She can respect her religion on her own time, but she cannot implement religious law at her government office.

You keep bringing up Russia, but this issue directly deals with the United States. Russia will do what Russia does I care more about my own country.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower
She applied to the governor for relief under Kentucky statutes. He ignored her plea for relief. He took the same oath to uphold the laws that she took, therefore under Kentucky law, he was in violation when he and the Attorney General failed to offer her accommodations required by this statute. www.lrc.ky.gov...

The governor and AG didn't like the religious freedom act, the governor vetoed it, the AG was opposed and yet it was passed in legislature and remains in effect. They were doing exactly what Kim Davis is accused of. But she attempted to follow the law by seeking legal relief in a statutory manner. She attempted to NOT discriminate by suspending all marriage licenses until she could be relieved.

This whole issue never should have happened. She was entitled to relief under Kentucky law. She sought that relief along with a stay until the issue could be resolved. The forms were going to have to be redesigned so a reasonable accommodation, the self same accommodation that has been reached, could have been ordered by governor in his executive order and none of this would have happened.
I'm not sure, other than the media coverage, how this all got to be Kim Davis' fault when clearly the fault lies with the governor and attorney general. Someone needs to ask those guys why they didn't abide by Kentucky statutes and allowed her to be jailed before providing the legal relief due to her as a Kentucky citizen.
This is what happens when the media, knowing nothing of the law, just runs with the current meme and attempts to sell newspapers and gain attention.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
She was entitled to relief under Kentucky law.


Could you please provide link to that law.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
Could you please post a link to her state case? All the reports I've seen say that the governor ignored her request for relief under Kentucky statutes and refused to act until she was in jail. If you have other information I'm eager to see the state court case to which you refer.
One of us is obviously confused.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: diggindirt
She was entitled to relief under Kentucky law.


Could you please provide link to that law.

www.lrc.ky.gov...



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: diggindirt
She was entitled to relief under Kentucky law.


Could you please provide link to that law.

www.lrc.ky.gov...





Someone who objects to war due to his religious conscience has a right to be a conscientious objector and not serve in the military, even were there to be a draft. But he does not have the right to serve as a military officer, draw a paycheck from the military and then substitute his own personal views of when war is justified for that of the government. www.washingtonpost.com... ouples-or-find-a-new-job/



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
But she is a citizen of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth statutes provide for protection of her religious beliefs.
www.lrc.ky.gov...

Does she not deserve equal protection of the law just as the gay people who were attempting to get married? How do their rights trump hers? She asked for accommodation under legal, binding statutes and was ignored by the very officials who were telling her, "Do your job" while failing to do theirs. They took the same oath she took so they are required to follow the law and grant her the reasonable relief.
That relief has now been granted in that her name was removed from the license. That relief could and should have been granted in a timely manner, before she was jailed.

You can disagree with her beliefs but you can't take away her rights simply because you disagree. If she must follow the law the governor and attorney general must also follow the law, even laws with which they disagree. They didn't follow the law in a timely manner and this whole mess is the result. For some convoluted reason the media has chosen to focus on Mrs. Davis when it was really the governor who was failing to act and allowed this mess to develop.

One does not give up the right to equal protection under the law when one takes an elected office.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

From that law can you explain how she was burdened.

The law you sourced defines a burden as:



A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion
from programs or access to facilities.




That reads to me as they would need to make an accommodation to allow her to do her job and the accommodation would be something like building a wheelchair ramp or installing special phones to help the hearing impaired.
edit on 11-9-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Grimpachi
But she is a citizen of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth statutes provide for protection of her religious beliefs.
www.lrc.ky.gov...

Does she not deserve equal protection of the law just as the gay people who were attempting to get married? How do their rights trump hers?


How does her belief trump their Federal rights?

She has the right to resign.
edit on 11-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Love the billboard.

Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown

www.huffingtonpost.com...


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

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
If this lady reneges on that judge Monday he will tear her a new ass and her husband will have two asses to screw!

What kind of sex will that make her?


I hope so. They just can't let her get away with defying a Federal decision of Equality.

North Carolina is trying to pull the same thing.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


I still don't know what the legal burden is claimed under that law however you said it was remedied, but I am pretty sure you are wrong.




That relief has now been granted in that her name was removed from the license. That relief could and should have been granted in a timely manner, before she was jailed.


As far as I know nothing of the sort was granted. The judge that had locked her up for contempt released her because in her absence those that brought the suite had obtained their marriage license. The license documents at that office have her name on them and that continues. She doesn't have to personally serve any couples, but she can't stop her deputies from serving them.

If she continues to interfere with her deputies like before she will find herself back in front of the judge and possible jail again.

Let me be clear she didn't win anything. The state has not bowed to her stubernous.

As far as I know she still has no legal recourse.
edit on 11-9-2015 by Grimpachi because: spelling



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
The justices are addressing federal law. Kim Davis asked for relief under the state law which provides for relief in cases of religious beliefs conflicting with the duties of her job. I will repeat it once more---that law has not been overturned so the governor and the attorney general were obligated by their oath to find the reasonable accommodation that they later "found" for her, namely, taking her name off the license.
Do you not understand that federal law and state law are completely different and that the justices could not address the state law because nobody was challenging the state law?
Do you not understand that she has rights granted to her by this law? How is it fair to ignore her rights while acknowledging the rights of others?
The justices can "say" whatever they please. Until the Kentucky statute comes before them, they cannot rule on its validity. The Amish were accommodated after this law was passed. Their plight was the impetus behind the law being passed. They were being thrown in jail and kept there "in contempt" because complying with the law would have violated their belief system. I have no idea if any others have brought requests or not. I know that several groups swore to test it to get it overturned but none have carried through. They didn't want to test it with the Amish case because they might win the case but they would have looked like crazy fools saying those Amish men deserved to sit in jail for the rest of their lives because of a silly orange triangle.
Again, the problem here is not Kim Davis---it is a governor and attorney general who refused to follow statutory law and, in a timely manner,[ grant her the very same accommodation that has now been instituted. She simply suffers from a lack of a public image facilitator, a competent spokesperson.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Annee
The justices are addressing federal law. Kim Davis asked for relief under the state law which provides for relief in cases of religious beliefs conflicting with the duties of her job.


n/m

Too tired to think.
edit on 11-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join