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

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Office Depot refuses to print anti-Planned Parenthood fliers, citing ‘persecution’ policy

www.washingtontimes.com...

Rights, everyone trampling on one anothers rights and all feel righteous.

Didn't know Home Depot was an officially elected government worker.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu



No, they were not withholding the contracts based on sexual orientation. There was no litmus test for 'straight' or 'love'.

A gay man was able to get a contract, the same as a straight man could. A straight man could not get a union contract with another man. A straight woman likewise could not get a union contract with another woman.

Two consenting adult citizens who aren't directly related and who aren't currently married should be able to get a union contract with each other. Other than those qualifications, the government doesn't/shouldn't choose who those two consenting adults are. You want to marry a blonde girl? No problem. You want to marry a fat man? No problem. You want to marry someone who is a different religion? No problem. You want to marry someone of the same gender? No problem.

Currently, adults cannot get a union contract with a minor. Direct relatives cannot get union contracts. More than two people cannot get a union contract. Two people already in a union contract cannot add a third person to their contract. Are they being discriminated against?

You are talking about victimization in the first two examples. Minors don't really understand what the contract is all about, therefore they can't sign off on it. Direct relatives produce offspring with horrible birth defects, which victimizes the children. It's not discrimination when you are protecting victims. Polygamy? Shouldn't be illegal in my opinion - it will probably be legalized next. No victims, consenting adults - that's the only criteria there is or should be.

So long as the contract restrictions are applied EQUALLY there is no issue. In this case, state governments said a man and a woman could enter into a union contract, so long as they met other criteria and were consenting. Like I said before they were not asked if they loved each other, they were not asked if they were heterosexual. The government official looked and saw a man and a woman.

Why do you think there were laws banning same-sex marriage? What would be the purpose in banning?

Speaking of laws, when did Kentucky legislators pass, and the governor sign a law to redefine their union contract criteria to include same sex? What law was Kim Davis not fulfilling? As much as everyone loves to think otherwise, separation of powers says that no judiciary (even the SCOTUS) cannot write or rewrite laws. They can only strike down the law for being in conflict with state or federal constitution. Meaning Kentucky (and all the other affected states) need new laws to be passed in the legal manner.

There doesn't need to be a new law. There is already a law that states eligibility requirements. The requirement that says you can't be the same sex has just been nullified. All the other eligibility requirements still stand. When interracial marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional, it took many years for some states to take them off their books - didn't matter - those states still had to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples. Same situation here.

Personally, I think we need to get 'marriage' out of government. There is a recognized need for a committed couple of people to migrate legal obligations from their family to the person they have decided to enter into a union with. There is a compelling interest by the government to endorse a stable family unit to bring up the next generation of taxpayers. There is no reason why a civil union contract can't cover all those issues, regardless of the genders of the people getting the contract. Simply restrict any tax benefits until the couple either produces or adopts a child.

Nice idea. Not gonna happen, at least not in our lifetime.

The letter goes on to explain that there are two provisions within company policy that are applicable in this dispute: The first prohibits the copying of “graphic material,” which can include descriptions of dead or dismembered bodies, and the second prohibits the copying of “hate material” that advocates for the “persecution of groups of people, regardless of the reason.”

www.washingtontimes.com...

what you would have to prove, for it to be discrimination of any kind is that this policy wasn't enforced consistantly across the board. good luck with that.

ya know, I have some religious tracks from years, many, many years, ago that I should dig out an post some.....
just to show what those of times gone by were taught. they were my grandmother's grandmother?? or something like that, maybe aunt. 19th century stuff.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Office Depot doesn't have to print up any specifically designed fliers any more than a baker has to decorate a cake in a specific way. Don't want to print up fliers that are personally offensive to you? Don't have to. Don't want to decorate a penis on a cake? Don't have to.

Why is that strange to you?

a reply to: roadgravel

I got the feeling that this social issue is taking so much media attention because it has become a religious issue between Christians and constitutional interpretations of laws, but when Islam starts to influence social issue in America is gong to be more behind the scenes that publicly unless somebody starts to challenge the constitution in the base of the rights of Islam as a law for those that worship Islam under freedom of religion.

has anyone posted about what is happening in McDowell County, N.C.?

In McDowell country all four magistrates have recused themselves from performing civil marriages because they don't agree with the same sex marriage issue. As a result, magistrates from a nearby country are traveling in to take over that duty for them. Legally they can opt to not perform civil marriages, but dang, this is insane!!

From Rowan County, Ky., to McDowell County, N.C.

The difference between Kim Davis in Kentucky and four magistrates in McDowell County, N.C., is that North Carolina law allows magistrates to refuse a public service to the public.

For now.

WLOS in Asheville reports today that all four McDowell County magistrates have recused themselves from performing civil marriages because of their religious objections.

www.greensboro.com...

Any one of these magistrates could have just as easily decided not to marry a divorce person, because well, there's really no such thing as divorce! But well, we now have what sounds like a magistrate exchange program going on in NC...

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

that rush excerpt sounds like propaganda that might work in a third world country but come on.

I suppose he could have set it up to where the woman called in with all that stuff.....it's possible, but I doubt it. I heard the call in live on my break that day.
This is a conspiracy site, so I would expect people to imagine that it wasn't real.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I started a thread, so as not to go OT. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: dawnstar

That is ok is in their right to excuse themselves, as is always going to be somebody else that have no problem performing the marriage.

All this hoopla and pony show was expected after the Supreme court ruling, it was just a matter of time, and I guess now is the right time, for the religious zealots to show their true hypocritical colors.

We just need to keep popping that popcorn and keep watching the show, eventually this will all die down and life will go as usual.

a reply to: marg6043

maybe we need a bunch of marriage agencies set up across the country, and well, just don't bother applying for a job there unless you are willing to give out marriage licenses or officiate marriage ceremonies to all who are entitled.

a reply to: dawnstar

What we need to do Dawnstar is to take a good look at all those fundamentalist activist judges and magistrates that are using their personal views base on religion to use the law, this is going to be very interesting as before the problem with Davis case it was a circuit judge Roy Moore that very vocally was encouraging the rebellion against the supreme court decision because America and God were under attacks, these people are the ones that are supposed to be impartial to all citizens in America.

I am sure that they will go on a crusade of burning heretics and whatever they feel that are not following the views they hold when it comes to interpretation of religious views with enough support.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: roadgravel

I got the feeling that this social issue is taking so much media attention because it has become a religious issue between Christians and constitutional interpretations of laws, but when Islam starts to influence social issue in America is gong to be more behind the scenes that publicly unless somebody starts to challenge the constitution in the base of the rights of Islam as a law for those that worship Islam under freedom of religion.

Yes Marg because people cherry pick what they support. Islam suits a certain liberal agenda because its more accepting of a kind of Totalitarian regime, which is what the Democratic Party is standing for these days. Leftists support Sharia Law and say it works with the Constitution, somehow that religious imposition doesn't bother them. The AIG bailout is a classic example of people in government financially propping up a business which caters to Sharia compliance. They will deny it thrice.... but look who was involved in AIG..... why it was Tim Geithner, whose dad worked for the Ford Foundation along with Stanley Ann Dunham. All these big moneyed foundations have been behind the scenes doing stuff that can best be described as shady, and while people on the Left are busy complaining about moneyed interests controlling our government, they seem always to overlook the very mechanism the radical Left uses to fund their operations.
Consider this lawsuit on the Constitutionality of using federal taxpayer monies in AIG...

.

The Thomas More Law Center had originally filed suit in December of 2008 challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that the Center considers are “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish.” - See more at: www.therightsideoflife.com...

< br />
www.therightsideoflife.com...

“In his well-written and detailed analysis issued yesterday, Judge Zatkoff denied the request by the Obama administration’s Department of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit. The request was filed on behalf of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board – the named defendants in the case. In his ruling, the judge held that the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.”
“In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, the DOJ argued that the plaintiff in the case, Kevin Murray, who is a former Marine and a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action. And even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court disagreed, noting, in relevant part, the following:


In this case, the fact that AIG is largely a secular entity is not dispositive: The question in an as-applied challenge is not whether the entity is of a religious character, but how it spends its grant. The circumstances of this case are historic, and the pressure upon the government to navigate this financial crisis is unfathomable. Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution. In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing. Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. At least two of AIG’s subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. After using the $40 billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release. Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff’s claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.”

citizenwells.com... ria-law-emergency-economic-stabilization-act-of-2008-challenged/


So cry me a river, people on the Left, because they know what they are doing and why they are doing it
Basically, the Left is full of balogna when it comes to complaining about Christianity and separation of church and state matters, but are busy pushing Sharia Law in our courts and government functions. It's very hypocritical to say the least. It's why I like to point out these things. I don't give a hoot about Kim Davis and her stance to be honest, I just see this as a point where the Left uses certain arguments and turns around and does exactly what it criticizes. But it's always been their way.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


Liberals don’t support sharia law

It’s that they usually have tolerance for minority rights

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


Liberals don’t support sharia law

It’s that they usually have tolerance for minority rights

Wrong. They have "tolerance" for those rights which they champion because it serves their agenda. But for them, the Supreme State rules what rights are championed and which ones are not. That is the method of a Totalitarian State. They have no real regard for the rule of law, they just use it whenever possible and run over it when they cannot.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I agree, we are heading to very challenging times in America, is like a puzzle and the pieces are starting to fit together.

When the first issues of the so call Sharia compliant financing came to be and training for banks and financial institutions, using tax dollars money, a lot of red flags were raised and a lot of complains were filed, still is always something else in the media that takes away citizens attentions to something else, as we know we do have short time span when it comes to political issues and how they are played in media.

Everything you see in the media is geared to deviate public attention from issues that are more important and is working like a charm.

I am sure that eventually our constitution will be challenge like never before in order to accommodate Islamic law, but remember that within our constitution is protection that very clear say that US constitution is the law of the land and no other law will be established.

a reply to: Willtell

Is nothing wrong with protecting minority rights but when those rights challenge existing laws as the law of the land they have no room within Americas existing laws.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: roadgravel

I got the feeling that this social issue is taking so much media attention because it has become a religious issue between Christians and constitutional interpretations of laws...

Seems to me a clear separation was intended so government doesn't control religion and therefore religion shouldn't control government.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Even if what you say is true, and I doubt if it is, it still doesn't say liberals support Sharia law

The best that could be said, according to you, is that they support the concept of toleration law.

But that doesn’t mean they support Sharia law

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I'm sorry but I don't see any difference between christian who would whine about society not allowing them to burn the witches and the any islamics who would whine that we won't let them behead the infidels. quite frankly in both cases the whining should be shut down long before it would get to that point.

neither have the right to step in and declare that their religious beliefs are reason enough to limit the freedom of another person or to forcibly draw others into their worldview. and it doesn't matter if your religious beilefs require you to limit the freedom or others or not. it's not against the constitution to not allow you to infringe on others.

a reply to: dawnstar

Don't be sorry, dawnstar.....own it!!

I'm not sorry for pointing out truth, ever.