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: 9
69
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

So you believe that if an American member of ISIS chops off the heads of non-believers, they shouldn't be charged with murder because.... religious freedom?

You don't have the right to use religious belief to break existing laws. Period.




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

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)


It did absolutely nothing to her religious freedom. Nothing at all. She has to do her job and what she believes aboit marriage must remain seperate from the state. She was the one infringing on rights? Again do you support a muslim man at the dmv not issuing liscenses to women?

Learn a little more about law and the constitution and you will get a better sense what religous freedom laws intent is for. It was set up so people wouldnt be run out of states for their religion not for people to use their religion to discriminate. Your religious beliefs do not allow you to infringe on some elses rights. In other words your religous freedom ends where it violates my rights.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me

the reason they are issued by government is because long ago religious marriages had no provision for transfer of property to the wife even if the property was hers before the marriage, it went directly to the church.....government had to step in to protect the rights of the woman



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
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?




Thank you.

That helped me understand it more clearly.

EDIT: so QUESTION: what case do they think they have?
edit on 11-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Mirthful Me

the reason they are issued by government is because long ago religious marriages had no provision for transfer of property to the wife even if the property was hers before the marriage, it went directly to the church.....government had to step in to protect the rights of the woman



evidence that it's a legal document not a divine document.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Well it abridged THE LADY WHO WAS SENT TO JAILS Right. is that more specific?


No.

Here's how this works. The 14th amendment says that states CANNOT make laws that treat citizens unequally. In other words, states can't make a marriage law that applies ONLY to straight people and not to gay people.

Kentucky, among other states, made laws (their gay marriage bans) that treated citizens unequally.

People sued and took it to the Supreme Court, who said, basically, Yep. Marriage bans treat gay citizens unfairly and unequally, and the 14th amendment says they can't do that. So, those gay marriage bans violate the Constitution.

Congress was never involved. There is not "gay marriage law" or anything like that. Just the Constitution.


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)


This woman's right to religious freedom is FINE. She can choose her religion, go to church, raise her kids in the church, sing hymns, whatever she wants. But she DOESN'T have any legal right to impose her beliefs on others.

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

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



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I wish the Pope would say something about these people. He seems like a pretty cool dude for a Pope. Even though these people like Kim aren't Catholic, I think having someone like the Pope interject some sane-ness on the issue might be good. I mean, having the Pope say that these people are morons and that Jesus is probably crying and face-palming right now could help.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: yuppa

So you believe that if an American member of ISIS chops off the heads of non-believers, they shouldn't be charged with murder because.... religious freedom?

You don't have the right to use religious belief to break existing laws. Period.


Funny MURDER is forbidden in CHristianity and Islam and as a hypocrite to their religion they have no excuse. ANd Im not gonna argue this topic. I just feel the GOvernment(aka RUBES IN ROBES) Over reacts and should know better.

Im surprise so many on ATS defend a judge using something Abraham lincoln used to silence his polotical opponnents. COntempt Flys in th eface of the Constitution because it FORCES YOU TO DO SOMETHING. ANyone ever heard of honest negotiation?

COntempt allows a person to be jailed for anything a judge dont like. they have too much power. I sneezed in courtroom once and the judge said if i did it again id be held in contempt. Thats th elevel or power these Jerkoffs have.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me


Since religion offends them so much, they should be offended by every government marriage certificate ever issued, as marriage is a religious institution.

Marriage has never been the sole domain of the religious. As far back in history as we can trace, it was used as a means to form alliances between families(not solely). It was more like a secular union than anything to do with religion.

We live under secular law, and because marriage comes with certain financial and legal benefits, the government is involved. Marriage in the U.S. is a legal contract. That contract gives spouses, straight or gay, rights they would not have otherwise. Legally, it cannot be offered to one group, but not another based on religious objections.
edit on 9/11/2015 by Klassified because: correction



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier
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?




Thank you.

That helped me understand it more clearly.

EDIT: so QUESTION: what case do they think they have?



They dont have a case. Its just grandstanding. The only possible chance they have is if their was a logistical error (like paperwork or a violation of process). Her arguement is not sound is a complete waste of time for the state. Its publicity for religious radicals.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

bh, tag onto that that the woman in question has misunderstood the difference between her responsibility to caesar vs. her responsibility to god. since a secular marriage isn't divine, and since she doesn't personally believe gay marriages are divinely ordained, what she's signing is a legal document not a document that declares gay marriages to be divinely ordained.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Apparently th e judge HAS gone around her. SHes been released.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Apparently th e judge HAS gone around her. SHes been released.


OMG! Learn something about the case! THE SAME JUDGE released her because her deputies started handing out licenses while she was in jail.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Apparently th e judge HAS gone around her. SHes been released.


She was released because the clerks in the office issued the marriage licenses.

No reason to detain her any longer.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Mirthful Me


Since religion offends them so much, they should be offended by every government marriage certificate ever issued, as marriage is a religious institution.

Marriage has never been the sole domain of the religious. As far back in history as we can trace, it was used as a means to form alliances between families. It was more like a secular union than anything to do with religion.

We live under secular law, and because marriage comes with certain financial and legal benefits, the government is involved. Marriage in the U.S. is a legal contract. That contract gives spouses, straight or gay, rights they would not have otherwise. Legally, it cannot be offered to one group, but not another based on religious objections.


Again..exactly.

I wonder if a tribal yanamomi person from brazil can say not being able to perform infanticide at birth is a freedom of religion violation? After all its in their religion to limit the number females born to control populations.

Rediculous people cant see the danger in allowing religous people to discriminate with an excuse.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Apparently th e judge HAS gone around her. SHes been released.


OMG! Learn something about the case! THE SAME JUDGE released her because her deputies started handing out licenses while she was in jail.


IF SHE didnt SIGN THEM they went AROUND HER. Semantics much?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
making a big bruhaha over this is giving the state more credit than it claims or deserves. the state is a legal instrument, not a divine instrument. it was never meant to be a divine instrument. the individual is the divine instrument who interprets divine law, for themselves (not others), as an individual.


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



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

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.


ISnt it a right to a trial by your peers if you break the law? They didnt do it though because sh ewould had walke din kentucky.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join