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: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
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.



good call, Heff....agree 100%...however, putting your trust in the notion that the legislature of that state will get rid of her, might be premature. I'm not holding my breath, anyway.




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: AMPTAH
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.


Then why do you swear in every President on the Holy Bible?

Why not use some Atheist book instead, say, for example, Aleister Crowley's "The Book of the Law" ?

Or, even, no book at all?

The framers did not exclude religion from government. They expect each person to be guided by some moral and ethical principals, which is indicated by the book they swear in on. They want to know that the person in office gets their code of behavior from somewhere. They don't specify a "particular religion", but do require to know that there is some order in the person's mind. That he is fit for office. So far, America has not trusted anyone else to hold the office of President, but he that accepts the Holy Bible to swear in on. The constitution does not require this Holy Book, but so far the people have not trusted any other book, and the constitution does not "reject" this book, or people who believe in it's principles.

When someone is in government, you can expect their behavior to be governed by their beliefs. But no one has absolute power. There is separation of powers. That's the protection from tyranny.

There is nothing stopping gays and lesbians from getting married. They can, if they want. They just can't get Kim Davis to do it. There are many alternative ways to get things done. There isn't just one way. That's the whole idea behind democracy and freedom. No one person is in control. What gays and lesbians want, is not just to get married, but to force people to violate their religious principles. They would "take away" a person's right to religious expression, in order to get their own way.

The real solution to this problem, is to change the way marriage licenses are issued. To design the system, so that the conflict does not arise. There is no need for Kim Davis to be the sole provider of marriage licenses in her jurisdiction. A simple change in the law, would enable multiple people to issue marriage licenses, and that would then satisfy the diverse public needs. The best thing, actually, is to get rid of marriage all together. Why are we forcing law on couples who claim to love each other? Why do they need a law to love? Abolish civil marriage, and let the religions deal with that touchy subject.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Then why do you swear in every President on the Holy Bible?


It's the president's choice. A bible isn't necessary at all. In fact, no book is necessary. Source

John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce used books of law instead of the bible.
Lyndon Johnson used a Roman Catholic book.
Theodore Roosevelt didn't use a book.


They expect each person to be guided by some moral and ethical principals, which is indicated by the book they swear in on. They want to know that the person in office gets their code of behavior from somewhere. ... So far, America has not trusted anyone else to hold the office of President, but he that accepts the Holy Bible to swear in on.


You're totally making this stuff up.



There is no need for Kim Davis to be the sole provider of marriage licenses in her jurisdiction.


You're 100% right! And the law of Kentucky allows her deputies to issue them, but she forbade them from doing so for months. Now that she's been in jail, she's allowing them, but she has altered the forms, so that, by Kentucky law, they are not legal.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

You're 100% right! And the law of Kentucky allows her deputies to issue them, but she forbade them from doing so for months. Now that she's been in jail, she's allowing them, but she has altered the forms, so that, by Kentucky law, they are not legal.


Well, she forbade them from acting in "her name". She removed "her name" from the forms. So, change the law. Make it so her name doesn't have to appear to make it legal. Simple. Kentucky law needs to change, so that everybody can peacefully exercise their rights. Instead of blaming Kim Davis, or blaming gays and lesbians for wanting to marry in that particular office, change the Kentucky law to enable all possibilities.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Well, she forbade them from acting in "her name". She removed "her name" from the forms.


She removed her name, all mention of the office of "County Clerk" and the name of the county. According to the law, ALL of those have to be on the form.

She ALSO made her deputies INITIAL, instead of SIGN, the licenses. They are acting, not as deputy clerks, but as notaries.



So, change the law. Make it so her name doesn't have to appear to make it legal. Simple. Kentucky law needs to change, so that everybody can peacefully exercise their rights.


I would agree with that. But the governor would have to call a "special session" of the legislature, at the price of $60,000 PER DAY to do that. Kentucky is a poor state and he's not willing to do that. They convene in January. Until then? The ACLU has brought a suit on behalf of the people who have these altered licenses, with concern that they aren't legal.

So, You never answered me here. www.abovetopsecret.com...
What subordinate law is in conflict with what constitutional law?



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

So, You never answered me here. www.abovetopsecret.com...
What subordinate law is in conflict with what constitutional law?


Judge gave her an order. Normally, the law requires her to obey the judge. In this case, the order conflicted with her constitutionally guaranteed right to practice her religion. She chose to exercise her constitutional right, and ignore the law requiring her to obey the Judge.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

So, You never answered me here. www.abovetopsecret.com...
What subordinate law is in conflict with what constitutional law?


Judge gave her an order. Normally, the law requires her to obey the judge. In this case, the order conflicted with her constitutionally guaranteed right to practice her religion. She chose to exercise her constitutional right, and ignore the law requiring her to obey the Judge.


In her job as an elected government clerk she took an oath to abide by the Constitution.

Her Constitutional right to BELIEVE whatever she wants is not infringed.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
People speak of Race war, People speak of War with other countries, This....

This is what our next Civil War will be about, it will not be about poor, rich, black,white, brown, red, yellow, old , young
government or civilian.

Does not matter if you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, Socialist, National Socialist, Citizens, Tea Party,
Libertarian, Green, heck not even "Rent is to damn high party"

It does not matter.

There needs to be a wall between Church and state.

It needs to be enforced. People that bind the two in office should be removed from office.

People need to be reminded You have a religious freedom to believe in what you want,
but you shall not use your religion in a work place.

If you can not do your job because of your religion then QUIT.
There are many people out there looking for work willing to do the job and not involve religion.

If you are caught in office using your religion as part of not doing your job you should be fired.
If you are caught in office using your religion to change law to fit your believes you should be fired.


Keep religion out.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Thank you for answering.


originally posted by: AMPTAH
Judge gave her an order. Normally, the law requires her to obey the judge. In this case, the order conflicted with her constitutionally guaranteed right to practice her religion. She chose to exercise her constitutional right, and ignore the law requiring her to obey the Judge.


After the SC ruling, the governor of Kentucky ordered his county clerks to follow the constitution. She refused. She acted in violation of the constitution, and the federal judge's order was to follow it. It's not like the judge was ordering her to follow a lesser law. The law he wanted her to follow IS the constitution.

So there is no greater or lesser law here.

Again, she is not exercising her religious right. There is NO religious protection to disobey the constitution. There is NO religious protection to deny rights to others. Any "right" she thinks she's exercising actually does not exist.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Silence on backing up your blackmail claim?



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Her Constitutional right to BELIEVE whatever she wants is not infringed.


Religion is not something you just think about. It is something you do. It's about how you behave in relation to other people. It's not just belief, it's actions. Everyone has the right to believe anything they want. You don't need any law or constitutional rights to guarantee that. We don't have any way to read minds today. It's all about actions.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Religion is not something you just think about. It is something you do. It's about how you behave in relation to other people.


But one can only take that so far. When your actions start infringing on others' rights because of something you believe, then it's going too far. Just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want to other people.

We are a nation of laws.


It's all about actions.


No one has the right to act however they see fit, even if they do it because if religion. If you act in violation of the LAW, or someone else's rights, it won't work in a society of FREE people.
edit on 9/27/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

But one can only take that so far. When your actions start infringing on others' rights because of something you believe, then it's going too far. Just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want to other people.


Kim Davis is not doing anything "to" other people. She is refusing to act "against herself". She sees a conflict, between her religious beliefs and practices, and the actions the law would have her take. She refuses to submit to this "religious test" of her faith, and to cave in, and act in a manner that makes her religion null and void. She is not burning gays and lesbians at the stake. She is just restraining herself, from participating in this particular sin.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

Silence on backing up your blackmail claim?


It will be in the MSM soon.




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Kim Davis is not doing anything "to" other people.


Yes she is. She is infringing on other people's rights. I'm not suggesting she should act against her beliefs. She should leave that office. If she, in good conscience, cannot do the job, then she should leave it.


She is not burning gays and lesbians at the stake.


You don't have to be burning people at the stake to be infringing on their right.

I bet you haven't answered yet: What if this was a Muslim Director at the DMV who prohibited anyone in the office from issuing licenses to women? What if he altered the license so it's no longer legal before allowing his staff to issue them. Should he get to keep his job? Would YOU support his position?



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

She did not have to endure any religious test to be hired and that is what the law prevents.

As for "restraining herself from participating in this particular sin"... I was not aware that doing her job and issuing a legal document would make her "teh gay".



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I'm not suggesting she should act against her beliefs. She should leave that office.


Right. That's the problem. At least you agree, she cannot have it both ways. She cannot have her religion, and the government job too. That is effectively, the "religious test". She got the job, before the change in the law. A new law came in, and now she should leave. When she got the job, men married women. That was consistent with her religion. So, there was no problem. While on the job, the rules changed. So, there was no religious test to get the job, because the job was then consistent with her religion. Today, it isn't. There are other ways to solve this issue.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

She also took the job before she held these particular beliefs. Neither fact is relevant.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
So, there was no religious test to get the job, because the job was then consistent with her religion. Today, it isn't. There are other ways to solve this issue.


We are a secular government and always have been.

She is a government clerk.

Her religious belief in a government job is not relevent. Not now, not before.


edit on 27-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Exactly!!! What if we elected someone like Cruz, or Huckabee, and then, all of a sudden, they announced they are NOW MUSLIM. And SHARIA LAW WILL be imposed.........

I just don't understand what educated citizens of the US are not seeing here......

they rant about "Oh! Pick Ted! Or else, SHARIA LAW!!! will be imposed"......

It's absolutely absurd. Completely insane.


edit on 9/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join