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: 8
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS

That's really quite interesting in that it seems to demonstrate an abuse of power and the violation of Due Process.


I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

But, that's what this is about.

This is not about religious belief or gay marriage.


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




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.

The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.


the word "marriage"...can also mean a fusion, mix, union, alliance, combination, merger....it is only associated with "a man and a woman" in a fundamentalists religious context...therefore, it does not abridge "freedom of religion"



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

which makes sense. if she would just realize that she's applying the idea that the state has a religious mandate, when it doesn't, when it comes to gay marriage or any marriage for that matter. it's a legal agreement. it's up to god, according to her own religion, whether or not he approves of the consummation of the marriage between people. there are probably some hetero marriages out there that god didn't approve according to her own religious texts. state documents for marriage are just legal documents, not religious documents.

when did people start confusing state documents with religious law?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

No.
No GoFundMe for Kim Davis: Crowdfunding puts the brakes on the disturbing bigots-get-rich-quick trend


Since the spring, GoFundMe policy has specifically stated that “GoFundMe will not allow campaigns that benefit individuals or groups facing formal charges or claims of serious violations of the law.”

As AddictingInfo’s Jameson Parker put it this week, maybe “watching several high-profile conservative faux-victims become millionaires by exploiting their site” just started to not seem like a great strategy.


Here's another:


Following the “Memories” debacle and other people using the service for less-than-admirable means, the founders of the site smartly chose to update their terms of service, which now features a clause that excludes Davis due to her newly-obtained criminal status.

“After watching several high-profile conservative faux-victims become millions from exploiting their site, the creators finally announced that enough was enough,” AddictiveInfo explains. “In April, they announced that they would no longer certain types of disgusting campaigns from thriving on GoFundMe. More specifically – and this is where Davis gets screwed out of the millions surely waiting for her – the site has a specific policy about criminals: ‘‘campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts [are forbidden]'”.


Another source


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


PS - I LOVE that avatar you have. Awesome.
edit on 9/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.

The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.

No new law has been passed. Existing law has been interpreted, and a judgement made that marriage is a right that must be afforded equally to ALL, per the 14th amendment.


Scuse me Re interpreted. Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th. the bill of rights is not liek the Quran where newer verses outweigh the older ones.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
I wish some of you would get so up in arms when Obama, Bush, and the rest continue to violate their oaths of office, hypocrites.

This is exactly what happens when the SCOTUS oversteps it's authority and tries to make laws from the bench instead of their intended purpose of simply judging constitutionality. You end up with laws that haven't been thought out or implemented correctly. With proper time for states and municipalities to take care of the small details like this, there would have been no problems, but we are a society of instant gratification which apparently extends all the way to the SCOTUS too. We can't even be troubled with going through the processes that the Constitution intended.

The anti Religion people are becoming troubling as well, some of you don't even hear the bigotry in your own words, all while calling out others for bigotry? SAD.


The SCOTUS didn't make, write, create or re-write any laws, nor did they re-define any words.

They did what they're intended to do, which is to determine constitutionality of current law.

They ruled that any laws that allow for marriage between opposite sex couples while denying it to same sex couples is a violation of their equal rights under the law and is therefore, unconstitutional.

Kentucky just happens to be one of those states with these type of laws on their books.

I guess you think we should just sit back and allow states to adopt legislation designed to violate the equal rights of it's people and do nothing about it?
edit on 11-9-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.


Gay people getting married doesn't affect religious freedom AT ALL. (how?) They are two entirely unrelated issues. Now, if the government FORCED religious people to marry someone of their same sex, THEN we'd have a violation of religious freedom (not to mention other violations).

Religious freedom doesn't mean "controlling others to behave according to religious rules". Kim Davis can exercise her religious freedom all she wants. But she has to do her job, too.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th.


How?

Religious Freedom



"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching" -Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

edit on 9/11/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Klassified

which makes sense. if she would just realize that she's applying the idea that the state has a religious mandate, when it doesn't, when it comes to gay marriage or any marriage for that matter. it's a legal agreement. it's up to god, according to her own religion, whether or not he approves of the consummation of the marriage between people. there are probably some hetero marriages out there that god didn't approve according to her own religious texts. state documents for marriage are just legal documents, not religious documents.

when did people start confusing state documents with religious law?

When they started thinking their religious beliefs trump secular law.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.


Gay people getting married doesn't affect religious freedom AT ALL. (how?) They are two entirely unrelated issues. Now, if the government FORCED religious people to marry someone of their same sex, THEN we'd have a violation of religious freedom (not to mention other violations).

Religious freedom doesn't mean "controlling others to behave according to religious rules". Kim Davis can exercise her religious freedom all she wants. But she has to do her job, too.


exactly BH....it does not affect religious freedom of others.....this simple statement of yours above, cannot be understood by the fundamentists....it is beyond their comprehension, and that is where the problem lies



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

So...

These people intentionally push their religious beliefs onto others, and then claim to be a victim when they're shut down?

Isn't that like some sort of victim-card-false-flag type deal?

So they're intentionally making themselves the victim, falling on swords they intentionally set up for themselves? They're nailing themselves on crosses and bemoaning the apparent persecution they're suffering?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
18 U.S. Code § 401 - Power of court

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—

(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;

(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;

(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

Perhaps the lawyer who started the oath keepers has an online degree?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.

The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.

No new law has been passed. Existing law has been interpreted, and a judgement made that marriage is a right that must be afforded equally to ALL, per the 14th amendment.


Scuse me Re interpreted. Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th. the bill of rights is not liek the Quran where newer verses outweigh the older ones.

There aren't any new verses, either. As Flatfish stated above, the SCOTUS determined the constitutionality of laws forbidding gay marriage, and found them wanting(unconstitutional). That's what they do. It's their function. It's why the founders put them there. To keep legislators from enacting laws that are unconstitutional, and to deal with those already in existence. They may be late to the party with their ruling, but at least they did finally get there.
edit on 9/11/2015 by Klassified because: corrections



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Meh... The duplicity never ceases to amaze me...

Liberals love to play the "separation of church and state" card, which despite their desire for it to be, DOES NOT appear in the U.S. Constitution. Since religion offends them so much, they should be offended by every government marriage certificate ever issued, as marriage is a religious institution.

I've been resolute on my stance regarding marriage licenses... They should not be issued by any government office, regardless of the parties involved. Ward and June Cleaver should not get a government marriage license, nor should Ellen Degenrate and whatever the fish of the day that she's currently redecorating for receive one either. The government should simply record civil unions, which are universal in scope and legal status. You want to union with a ham sandwich, that's fine by me. You want to get married, then you will have to go to whatever religious institution floats your boat and meet their criteria, but be forewarned, that "marriage" will have no legal standing, as once again... "Separation of church and state."

There's bigger fish to fry, or eat as Ellen would point out, let's move on from this...




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

someone has confused divine law with secular law. and i mean that someone is applying secular law as if it supercedes divine law. it doesn't supercede any individually held belief in divine laws, and even in christianity, the text indicates that if it's not a divine event, nor has a divine function, then it's in caesar's lawbook, not god's, and as such is just a normal, non divine law, which you are instructed to follow as a christian until such time as it violates god's actual law. a secular marriage is not a divine law issue. it's a legal issue. all marriages are secular and only become divinely ordained, from a religious perspective, if it follows god's laws regarding marriage, which doesn't happen at the state level! unless the state is divine, and it ain't and it never claims to be, so she's over thinking it.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: yuppa
Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th.


How?

Religious Freedom



"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching" -Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights


Well it abridged THE LADY WHO WAS SENT TO JAILS Right. is that more specific? when th elaw on marriage was re interpreted (originally passed by congress who when they made th elaw abridged it apparently) it in effect dinged the womans right to relgious freedom.(still if th ejudge was smart he would had just went round her instead of wasting tax payer money tossing her in jail liek they eventually did)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.

The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.

No new law has been passed. Existing law has been interpreted, and a judgement made that marriage is a right that must be afforded equally to ALL, per the 14th amendment.


Scuse me Re interpreted. Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th. the bill of rights is not liek the Quran where newer verses outweigh the older ones.

There aren't any new verses, either. As Flatfish stated above, the SCOTUS determined the constitutionality of laws forbidding gay marriage, and found them unconstitutional. That's what they do. It's their function. It's why the founders put them there. To keep legislators from enacting laws that are unconstitutional. They may late to the party with their ruling, but at least they did finally get there.


Exactly this is actually an example of the branches actually doing what they are supposed to do. Kim Davis is costing the state a signifigant amount of money and will also continue to if they have to call a special session to impeach her. Hopefully they fine her to offset the cost of her behaviour.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You might say their acting "entitled" or demanding to be "accommodated"... Something I thought the right just DESPISED!

If it's a trans person who wants a special accommodation for the bathroom, a gay person who just wants to get married, or a Muslim who wants a foot washing station at work, the words "entitled" and "accommodating" get thrown around like weapons at seemingly the most spoiled and sickening people on Earth! But if it's a Christian, they ARE seen as entitled to demand special accommodations for their beliefs, regardless how it affects other people.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

These people intentionally push their religious beliefs onto others, and then claim to be a victim when they're shut down?

Isn't that like some sort of victim-card-false-flag type deal?

So they're intentionally making themselves the victim, falling on swords they intentionally set up for themselves? They're nailing themselves on crosses and bemoaning the apparent persecution they're suffering?

Yep!

That is PRECISELY how I see it.
Her theatrics on her release were the worst bit of "faux" I have seen in ages....

staged much?

I think Huckabee might have orchestrated this entire thing.

Interesting, too, is how he admitted that one of his staffers "blocked Ted Cruz" from coming up to speak at the 'release event' also.
Huckabee Admits Staffer Physically Blocked Ted Cruz From Kim Davis Rally Stage


Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee painted fellow GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as an unwelcome guest at a rally for Kentucky clerk Kim Davis Tuesday, admitting that his staffer physically blocked Cruz from getting on stage.

In a Wednesday appearance on NewsMax TV's "Steve Malzberg Show" first reported by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski, Huckabee said his campaign planned the event, and he made Cruz's visit with Davis possible.

"Well, Steve, this was our event. My team put it together. We’re the ones who recruited the people not only to be on the program, but we’re the ones who coordinated the effort. We’re the ones who secured the permits, the staging," Huckabee told Malzberg. "We had no idea Ted Cruz was going to show up until the day before and he didn’t call us, he called several other people on the program and asked about it.”

While Huckabee said "anybody's welcome" to attend a free rally, Cruz is "not free to come to an event that we’re putting together and invite himself on the program anymore than I could go a few weeks ago to his event in Des Moines and just show up and expect to be a speaker. It’s real simple."


HA! I KNEW IT!! Didn't I call it the other day, you guys? Yes, I did.
It was a staged bunch of stump-speech tripe. You could tell by how she looked up at him with her head down.....



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



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
So, after thinking about these Oath Keepers with weapons, tac vests and whatnot showing up at these high profile events like Ferguson and now with this country clerk. . . I have a feeling its only a matter of time before an accident happens and things unravel very quickly.

Causing your own persecution with the intent on pulling the victim card?

Showing up heavily armed at emotionally charged events?




new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join