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: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Come out with this blackmail thing, this is the perfect thread for it.
Stop playing coy and just back up your claim.




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So it is, what, a gay conspiracy? What are you trying to say?(I would ask if I didn't understand that you were being purposely obtuse)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
So... Kim Davis is a Democratic plant to do what? Be a Trojan horse to make the right look bad? I mean, is her position not in line with the right wing view of gay marriage?

If not, then we are blowing the lid off of some major stuff here because that would mean that Huckabee and Cruz are also in on it.

That would mean that the Tea Party, itself, is also a Democratic sleeper cell out to make the GOP look bad.

Wait... does that mean that the "real" GOP is liberal?

Great. Now I have a headache again.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

This is pretty big deal. I say we take up independent investigations into the matter.
edit on 26-9-2015 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

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?


It says it all there in the opening statement of the Constitution

"WE THE PEOPLE..."


ARTICLE IV

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.




"The Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"..means that any law that is contrary to the constitution is subordinate to the constitution. The constitution takes precedence. That means anytime there is a "conflict" between a subordinate law and a constitutional law, we the people can violate the subordinate law.




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.


But, if you take away her job, just because she is exercising her right to freely practice her religion, then you are making a "religious test" for a person to hold that job, which is in violation of the constitution.

You can't fire her. You have to work around her. She is protected by the "supreme law" of the land.

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

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 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Apply that twisted interpretation to something else. Like if a POTUS announced he was Muslim and signed an executive order stating that Shariah law was mandatory.

By your logic we'd all have to capitulate because failure to do so would be violating this imaginary POTUS's right to "practice his religion".

THIS is why the Separation clause exists - to prevent religious tyranny, which is what Kim Davis is engaging in. She is a person, her office is NOT her.

Your postman cannot refuse to deliver you packages from an adult video company because their religion prevents them from touching porn.

The ER doctor cannot refuse to treat a woman because she is menstruating and his religious beliefs do not allow him to touch women during that event.

The cashier at Wal Mart cannot refuse to check you out because you are buying pork chops and their religion forbids them touching it.

The entire argument falls apart when applied to any situation.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

Well the current congress is good at useless investigations...
I should say all of them really.
edit on thSat, 26 Sep 2015 18:29:00 -0500America/Chicago920150080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

She's an elected official. She cannot be fired at all. She has to be impeached or recalled. I suspect that will happen when the State Assembly reconvenes.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: AMPTAH

Apply that twisted interpretation to something else. Like if a POTUS announced he was Muslim and signed an executive order stating that Shariah law was mandatory.

By your logic we'd all have to capitulate because failure to do so would be violating this imaginary POTUS's right to "practice his religion".



The framers of the constitution were smarter than that. He might announce he was Muslim and sign an executive order for Shariah law to be mandatory. But, that would not hold with "we the people" because the constitution is still above his order. See? So, we don't have to follow it. We sill retain the right to practice our own religion.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

She is not practicing her religion though, is she? She is just using her spiritual philosophies to interfer with civil and legal matters. Not to mention denying people their rights outright and abusing powers of authority. She draws solace from her actions.

Anyway, she is a liberal shill apparently so I don't see why you would care.
edit on 26-9-2015 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Funny thing that you can see the point when it's turned around, but stand by it when it's not.

The Framers absolutely went out of their way to make sure that theocratic fanatics like Kim Davis could not use public office as a pulpit to engage in tyranny.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Hefficide

How can she say the Democratic Party abandoned her when they support marriage equality? I think more likely, she abandoned the Democratic Party when she became an extremist Christian four years ago.


Remind me, who was it that signed DOMA into law back in 1996? What was his party affiliation?

Back in 2008 and 2012, what was our current President saying about marriage? Oh yeah...

2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

2012: "I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply. And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today."

He wouldn't change his mind for a year and a half. Conveniently after being re-elected.

So it seems that yes, the Democrat party did indeed shut her out.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

The framers of the constitution were smarter than that. He might announce he was Muslim and sign an executive order for Shariah law to be mandatory. But, that would not hold with "we the people" because the constitution is still above his order. See? So, we don't have to follow it. We sill retain the right to practice our own religion.


She can still practice her religion though. Nowhere does her Religion tell her to break the law or deny anyone a marriage license. In fact is says nothing at all about marriage licenses anywhere in her religion. Nor does it say anything about gay people getting married either.

Nor does it say to just make up rules however you want as part of her religion.

Even if it did. It would be rules for her not for the gay couple getting married unless they also followed her religion.
edit on 26-9-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Remind me, who was it that signed DOMA into law back in 1996? What was his party affiliation?



Who cares. It's gone now. Just like the Jim Crow laws.

Do we know who forced a law to define marriage as man and woman? Of course we do.

The Christian Right. Interestingly enough, the same group of people that fought the Civil Rights Act.


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



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Remind me, who was it that signed DOMA into law back in 1996? What was his party affiliation?



Who cares. It's gone now. Just like the Jim Crow laws.

Do we know who forced a law to define marriage as man and woman? Of course we do.

The Christian Right. Interestingly enough, the same group of people that fought the Civil Rights Act.



You are technically incorrect (the best kind of incorrect to be).

The Christian Right was not fighting against the Civil Rights Act, they were fighting for desegregation. MLK was a Baptist preacher.

This is why those of us on the right keep laughing at your follies. It is great entertainment. The Democrats were the KKK, not the Christian Right.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Remind me, who was it that signed DOMA into law back in 1996? What was his party affiliation?



Who cares. It's gone now. Just like the Jim Crow laws.

Do we know who forced a law to define marriage as man and woman? Of course we do.

The Christian Right. Interestingly enough, the same group of people that fought the Civil Rights Act.



You are technically incorrect (the best kind of incorrect to be).

The Christian Right was not fighting against the Civil Rights Act, they were fighting for desegregation. MLK was a Baptist preacher.

This is why those of us on the right keep laughing at your follies. It is great entertainment. The Democrats were the KKK, not the Christian Right.


Believe what you want.

I was a senior in high school at the time.

It was on the news and in the papers every day.

Same group of people. Don't care what they label themselves.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

The southeren democrats are not the same as what democrat means to day.
They were in fact the conservative right.

And yes Christians were all for segregation, they used to say it was in the bible that the black man is cursed.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer




The Christian Right was not fighting against the Civil Rights Act, they were fighting for desegregation. MLK was a Baptist preacher.


.....who didn't trust Republicans.


King writes this about the 1964 Republican National Convention:
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
thinkprogress.org...


Where were, and what were the "left wing liberal" Christians doing during this time?

Look Back in Anger: The 1960s and Evangelical Conservatives



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
"The Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"..means that any law that is contrary to the constitution is subordinate to the constitution. The constitution takes precedence. That means anytime there is a "conflict" between a subordinate law and a constitutional law, we the people can violate the subordinate law.


So, what subordinate law is in conflict with what constitutional law?




But, if you take away her job, just because she is exercising her right to freely practice her religion, then you are making a "religious test" for a person to hold that job, which is in violation of the constitution.


Denying people their constitutional rights is NOT a free exercise of religion, though. What she is doing is not a religious practice.

Confiscating government forms and altering them is NOT a religious practice.
Using one's authority to deny people their LEGAL rights is NOT a religious practice.



She is protected by the "supreme law" of the land.


The people she's denying are ALSO protected by the constitution!



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Remind me, who was it that signed DOMA into law back in 1996? What was his party affiliation?


Her political party is IRRELEVANT. One's political party, when discussing constitutional matters is just a side note. Yes, she was a Democrat (although she didn't act like one) and now she's a Republican (and she's acting like one).

I've never been a member of any political party, so I don't "cleave" to one, as most people do. They both suck.




top topics



 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join