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.

 

Kim Davis Comes Out Of The Political Closet!

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

You are welcome. I guess with this GOP party has the full set, huh? Don't Know why the right collects idiots, you can't sell and they make horrible jerky, but I guess to each his own.




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide
Using Hoffpost as a source is like using Fox news as a source. See what I did there. They are all politically motivated. You need to sweep your dirt under the rug. Both sides have plenty of dirt now, don't they.




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

The story is not a Huffpost piece - they carried it via Reuters. It's also the top story on Yahoo news this morning.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
"This single factor has been a constant thorn in the side of liberals. But not any longer!

Kim Davis has come out of the closet! SHE AND HER HATEFUL BROOD ARE REPUBLICANS! "


Neither of those statements "put an entire party in the same category as one individuals choices".

It DID bother liberals that Kim was a registered Democrat. That's not to say that ALL liberals are bothered by this. I never was. I have even said that her political party was irrelevant (and it still is).

And Kim and her hateful brood ARE Republicans. That's a fact. They are proudly Republican, some running for the office of president AS a Republican. That's not to say that ALL Republicans are hateful.

I think you're offended and telling Heff that he should be more politically correct with his wording so as not to hurt Republican's feelings...

The ONLY people who brought Kim's political party into the discussions were Republicans. And they used it as a weapon against the Democratic party. That's not to say ALL Republicans said something about it... Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings. I guess I should learn to be more PC... You, too, Heff!
edit on 9/26/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

You mean her act of not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples?


Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I thought my point had been pretty damn clear.


Is there anything else? Perhaps an anti-gay college thesis or a co-worker claiming she runs around calling people a word that rhymes with maggot? A Facebook post? Anything?


Nowadays people don't openly advertise their prejudice as much. It tends to get them publicly slammed. This case is a perfect example of that.


So in one post she's a bigot who's hiding behind her religion and in the next post she's a religious nut who was taught to be a bigot. Make up your mind please.


It's both. Her religion taught bigotry to her, and she's able to use it as a shield from criticism. After all, we're not allowed to criticize the church for any reason, no matter how valid a point of contention may be.

In other words, the two points aren't mutually exclusive. They often go hand in hand.

But you already knew that. That's what I like about you......... Your attention to detail.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Wait, wait! She made this announcement THE DAY SHE RECEIVED THE STUPID AWARD from the bigoted Voters Value Summit. Yesterday. How conVENient!!

The Family Research Council (recently having evicted Duggar) gave her this award - of COURSE she's going to join their team before stepping on stage to accept it.

Nauseating.
Utterly nauseating.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

You are welcome. I guess with this GOP party has the full set, huh? Don't Know why the right collects idiots, you can't sell and they make horrible jerky, but I guess to each his own.


Nah, we don't have the idiots. None of us voted for Obama.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: seeker1963
Have you read the Constitution?


What, in the Constitution, guarantees Kim Davis the right to disobey the law, violate the Constitution, AND direct her employees to do so as well?


The constitution gives the right to disobey any law that violates the constitutional laws.

People can write any law they want. There's nothing stopping any legislature from introducing new laws that violate the constitution. However, the people can always refer to the constitution to defend their right to disobey a law that would take away their constitutional rights. Kim Davis is not allowed to violate the Constitution. But, she can disobey a lesser law. The constitution doesn't require Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. If you'd like that to be a constitutional law, then get the legislature to change the supreme document. Add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires people like Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses. Then, the problem would be solved. The Constitution currently protects Kim Davis' right to religious freedom. Her religion frowns upon the practice of gay and lesbian behavior, and she is in her right not to contribute to it. She doesn't have the right, nor power, to stop gays and lesbians from getting married. She only has the right not to participate herself. The only right she has, is not to sign her name there.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Why would we add a new law when the First Amendment clearly covers this? She cannot use public office to further a religious agenda.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: GD21D

She added those who called her homophobic didn't know her.


If it walks and talks like a duck..... The rest is self evident.

It's tiresome watching these people use their religion as justification for bigotry.


What's even more tiresome is watching people such as yourself make that claim over and over again with absolutely nothing to back it up. Basically what you're saying is...

"Ms. Davis, you are a liar. You're not refusing to issue the license because your God wouldn't approve of your actions, you're refusing to issue it because you hate gay people."

What gives you folks the right to call her or anyone else in her situation a liar without providing any evidence to support your assertion?


She IS a liar. She violated her oath to uphold the law. The law says gay people can marry. She swore an oath. She's a liar. Agree or disagree with the law she lied. The oath doesn't say you can change your mind if the law doesn't suit your personal tastes.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: AMPTAH

Why would we add a new law when the First Amendment clearly covers this? She cannot use public office to further a religious agenda.



Yeah.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: AMPTAH

Why would we add a new law when the First Amendment clearly covers this? She cannot use public office to further a religious agenda.


There's no such thing. There's no law that says leave your religion at the door, when you enter government. It says you cannot make a religious test to approve a person for government post, but NOT that they are not allowed to practice their own religion once they enter government.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH



Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Source

Given that her position is public she is in clear violation of the Establishment clause. She is blatantly inserting religion into Government.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Man that voters value summit was something else.

Scary they are being pandered to.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide
All I can say is my bad. Still sticking with the dirt thing though. Cause that lady aint right in the head. And it don't matter what party she is associated with.






posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Has anyone considered the angle that the Democratic Party has put her up to the "switch" to deflect the criticisms back at the "other party"? Being a good little party member, you do what the party tell you to do. Sounds to me like a good plan to provide more mud for them to sling back at them. She is merely a pawn in the dirtiest game around, politics.


edit on 9/26/2015 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
The constitution gives the right to disobey any law that violates the constitutional laws.


The Constitution does not "give" us rights. But what part of the Constitution says we can violate what WE determine to be unconstitutional?

IN FACT: What Kim Davis is doing is unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional Actions

Some examples of unconstitutional actions can be:

Any person who acts on behalf of the government who tries to prevent an individual from exercising constitutionally protected individual rights (such as the right to vote or to practice religion)


Or get married...

Kim Davis is such a person, trying to prevent individuals from exercising THEIR constitutionally protected right to equal treatment under the law (the 14th amendment).



Add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires people like Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses.


Why add one when it's already there? The Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th amendment)

So, the duties of the County Clerk are left to the states to determine. The state of Kentucky has determined that the County Clerk will issuie marriage licenses to people who qualify.



The Constitution currently protects Kim Davis' right to religious freedom.


Freedom of religion means she's free to choose her religion, worship as she sees fit without interference from the government, AS LONG AS she doesn't disturb the peace of the State.



The Framers' understanding of the Free Exercise Clause is illustrated by the New York Constitution of 1777, which stated,

[T]he free exercise and enjoyment of religious … worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever … be allowed … to all mankind: Provided, that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.


The Supreme Court has ruled that:


(1) no individual may be compelled by law to accept any particular religion or form of worship; (2) all individuals are constitutionally permitted to choose a religion freely in accordance with their conscience and spirituality, and the government may not inhibit their religious practices; and (3) the government may enforce its criminal norms against persons whose religious practices would thwart a compelling societal interest.


Freedom of Religion


The only right she has, is not to sign her name there.


She has that right. But she DOESN'T have the right to keep her job, under those circumstances. Her INTERPRETATION of religious freedom is wrong and she is USING her religion to DENY people their rights, which thwarts a compelling societal interest and is inconsistent with the peace and safety of her state.
edit on 9/26/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: AMPTAH


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Source
Given that her position is public she is in clear violation of the Establishment clause. She is blatantly inserting religion into Government.



"Congress shall make no law". Kim Davis is not making any law. There's no "state religion." But, individuals like Kim Davis are free to practice their own religion. And "Congress..[cannot]..prohibit..the free exercise thereof" of her religion!





edit on 26-9-2015 by AMPTAH because: fix quote

edit on 26-9-2015 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

So the DNC manufactured all the GOP support just to get her to switch parties all in some sort of ruse to shift the the attention away from them?

Think the simple answer is that she just did it on her own since the GOP is the one scratching her back.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

Has anyone considered the angle that the Democratic Party has put her up to the "switch" to deflect the criticisms back at the "other party"? Being a good little party member, you do what the party tell you to do. Sounds to me like a good plan to provide more mud for them to sling back at them. She is merely a pawn in the dirtiest game around, politics.



That and the probability she is being blackmailed into the whole affair.

Rumor has it she was caught in some old land swindles when she was a deputy clerk.

Follow the chain of events and who has been involved.

It gets obvious from the start.

The entire mess is intended to set enough legal precedent to stop any current and future court actions (hundreds) challenging the Supreme Court rulings.




new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join