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.

 

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

page: 14
69
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

i'm surprised we even need to have this conversation, particularly since it appears she is not considering jesus' words about what constitutes marriage, which is implied in the "adultery" verse where he elaborates how strict the laws of god are on the topic, vs the laws of moses. moses' law was mostly secular. divine law happens in the heart and mind, and that's not an area that can be legislated nor coerced. she should realize that law is protecting her as much as it is the gays who want the legal document we mistakenly call a marriage license. lol




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
she's still bucking!!!

Rowan County clerk's latest motion says judge's order is 'moot,' should be dismissed

www.wkyt.com...

I'd comment if I actually understood what I just read.....

anyone care to try?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: luthier
As we clearly see here its necessary to protect minorities from religous zealots.

Amen!

The 14th amendment is FINE.

For decades, religion has been pushing and creeping its way into secular law and the justice system is having to define the separation between the two. The Church is discovering how much imposition the State is willing to accept. So, naturally, the church is NOT happy with feeling the "push back".

They want to change the Constitution now, because it doesn't allow for religious law. Sheesh!


I had no idea the oath keepers were religous nuts too. I half supported them in conversation as they seemed to use the law. Here they are clearly out of bounds and have either a religous or grand standing issue.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

This seems to me like going around the bushes, first the governor stated that those "clerks" that will no obey the supreme court ruling will be considered a misdemeanor as most of the clerks in the state have not problem issuing licenses.

Now they have an appeal on the 6 circuit court, sorry but if I am no mistaken once the Supreme court issue the final ruling the rest of the smaller courts will no take the issue again.

So this nothing but going around the bushes for propaganda.


edit on 11-9-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: dawnstar

This seems to me like going around the bushes, first the governor stated that those "clerks" that will no obey the supreme court ruling will be considered a misdemeanor as most of the clerks in the state have not problem issuing licenses.

Now they have an appeal on the 6 circuit court, sorry but if I am no mistaken once the Supreme court issue the final ruling the rest of the smaller courts will no take the issue again.

So this nothing but going around the bushes for propaganda.



Exactly!



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I have the feeling that it will be many that were sympathizers with this particular group that will be turning their back after this act of encouraging civil disobedience.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar

Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.


Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

and then the lawyers will have a precedence to quote.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar

Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.


Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.


Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: luthier

I have the feeling that it will be many that were sympathizers with this particular group that will be turning their back after this act of encouraging civil disobedience.



Yep. And Kim Davis has every right to do this..just that she is going to eventually pay for it which if you are sincere is part of civil disobediance. That and she is the opressive one here so the impact is opposite more people are turned off from this than converted. The zealots are already with her but she wont be picking up the compassion of the masses.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I think there's an over-reaction to the "OathKeepers" stereotypes and stigmas.

I don't see anybody threatening an armed conflict with this.

And who's fault is it that it took 147 years to get the 14th Amendment "straightened out" ?




edit on Sep-11-2015 by xuenchen because: [failure]



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar

Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.


Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.


Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?


She changed her tune when she was put in jail. Thats when she decided it was ok to take her name off.

Have you been reading the articles?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar

Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.


Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.


Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?


She changed her tune when she was put in jail. Thats when she decided it was ok to take her name off.

Have you been reading the articles?


CLick on the one DAWNSTAR posted. Thats th eone im talking about. ANd the judge himself released her after her subordinates did it. She was not needed,and as such this whole show was and is a waste of time apparently.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Is like everything when it comes to social issues, this will die down, people will forget and Davis will be left to pick the pieces of the mess, alone and with not support.

Something else will be center stage as usual.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: luthier

Is like everything when it comes to social issues, this will die down, people will forget and Davis will be left to pick the pieces of the mess, alone and with not support.

Something else will be center stage as usual.



Hehe yep



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I will not put it to rest just yet, is always those that work behind the scenes to create chaos and mayhem to capitalize on the issue at hand to further other agendas.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?


that's kind of how I read it, but if that is it, why bother filing? I mean, if all is willing to go with the current setup, and she has agreed to, why buck now? I'm kind of confuse, and am wondering if she is now trying to renag on the agreement she made with the judge to get out of jail. and plans on going back to interferring with the deputies issuing the licenses.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar

Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.


Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.


Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?


She changed her tune when she was put in jail. Thats when she decided it was ok to take her name off.

Have you been reading the articles?


CLick on the one DAWNSTAR posted. Thats th eone im talking about. ANd the judge himself released her after her subordinates did it. She was not needed,and as such this whole show was and is a waste of time apparently.


Dude read up.. She was not allowing her staff to sign anything or be fired. She changed her tune in jail. Prior to that her employees were ordered not to sign anyrhing. It was her legal team that finally realized they lost and advised her to give in and allow her workers to do this her stipulation was to take her name off.

This was NOT her original argument or plan.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Did you read the article dawnstar posted? Quid pro quo nes pa?



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join