Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: amicktd
Anti-gay Christian = Racist

There I said it, because frankly it's the truth. To all the christians out there that doesn't want to oppress an entire group of people due to sexual preference, I say thank you.

Flame on, because I don't give a ****

Uhhh, you should probably look up the definition of "racist". Doesn't have anything to do with sexual preferences.

I know it doesn't, but both are oppressing a group of people based on their beliefs. So I say it again Anti-gay Christian = Racist

If God was real, he would have struck down with a sharp lightening bolt this tax payer money wasting lunatic county clerk and her brute-squad-ISIS-wannabes -Oath-keepers by now.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Not the same. Read the law. This is like a probation violation. She can have a hearing thats it. Again what would a trial do? The judge told her their would be a punishment if she continued to break the law.

Like i said earlier a trial would had resulted in her walking and no repurcussions in kentucky. ANd How i si tliek a probation violation? SHe comitted no crime. Judges are a narcissitic pricks who get their jollies by harming others.

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: amicktd
Anti-gay Christian = Racist

There I said it, because frankly it's the truth. To all the christians out there that doesn't want to oppress an entire group of people due to sexual preference, I say thank you.

Flame on, because I don't give a ****

Uhhh, you should probably look up the definition of "racist". Doesn't have anything to do with sexual preferences.

I know it doesn't, but both are oppressing a group of people based on their beliefs. So I say it again Anti-gay Christian = Racist

And you are wrong and could be sued for slander. Im sure th e above network would love that huh? Ba d publicity if she sees this and decides to take you to court over it.

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: amicktd
Anti-gay Christian = Racist

There I said it, because frankly it's the truth. To all the christians out there that doesn't want to oppress an entire group of people due to sexual preference, I say thank you.

Flame on, because I don't give a ****

Uhhh, you should probably look up the definition of "racist". Doesn't have anything to do with sexual preferences.

I know it doesn't, but both are oppressing a group of people based on their beliefs. So I say it again Anti-gay Christian = Racist

So the black pastor who opposes gay marriage is racist just because...

Reasons?

~Tenth

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Not the same. Read the law. This is like a probation violation. She can have a hearing thats it. Again what would a trial do? The judge told her their would be a punishment if she continued to break the law.

Like i said earlier a trial would had resulted in her walking and no repurcussions in kentucky. ANd How i si tliek a probation violation? SHe comitted no crime. Judges are a narcissitic pricks who get their jollies by harming others.

She violated a court order. You are clueless of how the judicial system works. She is in violation of the supreme court order. She was warned in court by a judge that actually shares her viewpoint but knows how the law works. A jury can not aquit a guilty person do you umderstand this? She is guilty and admits it. The contempt is defying the court order given to her....just like probation.

a reply to: Hefficide

Why?

I thought Oathkeepers were about the Constitution.

a reply to: luthier

oh this is starting to sound like a states rights issue.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Not the same. Read the law. This is like a probation violation. She can have a hearing thats it. Again what would a trial do? The judge told her their would be a punishment if she continued to break the law.

Like i said earlier a trial would had resulted in her walking and no repurcussions in kentucky. ANd How i si tliek a probation violation? SHe comitted no crime. Judges are a narcissitic pricks who get their jollies by harming others.

She violated a court order. You are clueless of how the judicial system works. She is in violation of the supreme court order. She was warned in court by a judge that actually shares her viewpoint but knows how the law works. A jury can not aquit a guilty person do you umderstand this? She is guilty and admits it. The contempt is defying the court order given to her....just like probation.

So, the Oath Keepers have zero legal ground to prevent her from going back to jail if she again defies the court order?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

oh this is starting to sound like a states rights issue.

How so is a supreme court ruling a states rights issue? Is there a federal tax code for marriage?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: amicktd
Anti-gay Christian = Racist

There I said it, because frankly it's the truth. To all the christians out there that doesn't want to oppress an entire group of people due to sexual preference, I say thank you.

Flame on, because I don't give a ****

Uhhh, you should probably look up the definition of "racist". Doesn't have anything to do with sexual preferences.

I know it doesn't, but both are oppressing a group of people based on their beliefs. So I say it again Anti-gay Christian = Racist

And you are wrong and could be sued for slander. Im sure th e above network would love that huh? Ba d publicity if she sees this and decides to take you to court over it.

That would just add to the hypocrisy

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

oh this is starting to sound like a states rights issue.

How so is a supreme court ruling a states rights issue? Is there a federal tax code for marriage?

for example: a jury of her peers would agree with her above the federal laws enforced by the supreme court, which goes back to the old argument regarding the federal government being given authority to interfer with jury outcomes based on federal laws, all of which were put in place initially (at least the foundations) over the slavery issue.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Yes, he would be considered a racist towards gays imo.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Not the same. Read the law. This is like a probation violation. She can have a hearing thats it. Again what would a trial do? The judge told her their would be a punishment if she continued to break the law.

Like i said earlier a trial would had resulted in her walking and no repurcussions in kentucky. ANd How i si tliek a probation violation? SHe comitted no crime. Judges are a narcissitic pricks who get their jollies by harming others.

She violated a court order. You are clueless of how the judicial system works. She is in violation of the supreme court order. She was warned in court by a judge that actually shares her viewpoint but knows how the law works. A jury can not aquit a guilty person do you umderstand this? She is guilty and admits it. The contempt is defying the court order given to her....just like probation.

So, the Oath Keepers have zero legal ground to prevent her from going back to jail if she again defies the court order?

Oh yeah..none. In fact it can have a terrible chain reaction of violence. As long as everything was filed correctly and the process was followed (which it seems to be) they would be in big trouble.

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: amicktd
Anti-gay Christian = Racist

There I said it, because frankly it's the truth. To all the christians out there that doesn't want to oppress an entire group of people due to sexual preference, I say thank you.

Flame on, because I don't give a ****

Uhhh, you should probably look up the definition of "racist". Doesn't have anything to do with sexual preferences.

I know it doesn't, but both are oppressing a group of people based on their beliefs. So I say it again Anti-gay Christian = Racist

Racist implies...wait for it...RACE. Biased - yes. Prejudiced _ certainly. Not racist, though.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

oh this is starting to sound like a states rights issue.

How so is a supreme court ruling a states rights issue? Is there a federal tax code for marriage?

for example: a jury of her peers would agree with her above the federal laws enforced by the supreme court, which goes back to the old argument regarding the federal government being given authority to interfer with jury outcomes based on federal laws, all of which were put in place initially (at least the foundations) over the slavery issue.

Exactly and this is a similar case. All constitutional. You have to take down the 14th to have an argument first. Which will never happen.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Not the same. Read the law. This is like a probation violation. She can have a hearing thats it. Again what would a trial do? The judge told her their would be a punishment if she continued to break the law.

Like i said earlier a trial would had resulted in her walking and no repurcussions in kentucky. ANd How i si tliek a probation violation? SHe comitted no crime. Judges are a narcissitic pricks who get their jollies by harming others.

She violated a court order. You are clueless of how the judicial system works. She is in violation of the supreme court order. She was warned in court by a judge that actually shares her viewpoint but knows how the law works. A jury can not aquit a guilty person do you umderstand this? She is guilty and admits it. The contempt is defying the court order given to her....just like probation.

A court order issued by a MAN hiding behind a ROBE. It was a illegal order. CONTEMPT was issued on a local level not from the Supreme court. A jury can aquit a guilty person IF they think th eGuilt is un warranted or unfair. its called NUllification. Also if th ejudge shared her viewpoint why did he issue a contepmt charge? Its his discretion.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Fair enough, I've already stated that, but my belief can't be trampled right?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Not the same. Read the law. This is like a probation violation. She can have a hearing thats it. Again what would a trial do? The judge told her their would be a punishment if she continued to break the law.

Like i said earlier a trial would had resulted in her walking and no repurcussions in kentucky. ANd How i si tliek a probation violation? SHe comitted no crime. Judges are a narcissitic pricks who get their jollies by harming others.

She violated a court order. You are clueless of how the judicial system works. She is in violation of the supreme court order. She was warned in court by a judge that actually shares her viewpoint but knows how the law works. A jury can not aquit a guilty person do you umderstand this? She is guilty and admits it. The contempt is defying the court order given to her....just like probation.

So, the Oath Keepers have zero legal ground to prevent her from going back to jail if she again defies the court order?

Oh yeah..none. In fact it can have a terrible chain reaction of violence. As long as everything was filed correctly and the process was followed (which it seems to be) they would be in big trouble.

So, "Showboating".

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

oh this is starting to sound like a states rights issue.

How so is a supreme court ruling a states rights issue? Is there a federal tax code for marriage?

for example: a jury of her peers would agree with her above the federal laws enforced by the supreme court, which goes back to the old argument regarding the federal government being given authority to interfer with jury outcomes based on federal laws, all of which were put in place initially (at least the foundations) over the slavery issue.

Exactly and this is a similar case. All constitutional. You have to take down the 14th to have an argument first. Which will never happen.

So in other wors the 14th strips away th epeoples right to make decisions when they consider their government in th ewrong huh? Also enabling th eability to retry someone found not guilty till they are found guilty. great. I live in russia apparently.