The Pope Just Handed Kim Davis A Huge Win

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
What does the Pope have to do with American Law, or the 14th Amendment?

See Davis has that 14th amendment right too.

Catch- 22.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The state can not abridge Davis's 'right' to be a 'hater'. People can disagree with ALL they want to.

Davis has her first amendment rights, and her 14th amendment rights.

Just like LGBTS do.

And it is a persons 14th amendment to be a hater because the state shall not deprive ANY PERSON of LIBERTY, or EQUAL protections.

It's basically a NO WIN scenario.

The Pope is proving that he is......Christian.

And from that viewpoint he is espousing the popular held view.

I personally disagree with him, but it is what I would expect to hear from the mouth of a Christian.

a reply to: neo96

She can hate all she wants, she can say it, believe it, yell it for the world to hear.. be proud of that hate hunty!

but, she is violating the 14th Amendment by denying Marriage Licenses and using a Government Job to do so

a reply to: Darth_Prime

But they can't not violate Davis rights either.

NO WIN scenario.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

And the government is failing where?

I don't see where the Pope mentioned Davis:

On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays.

And the spin cycle continues. This isn't a specific thing he said. It's being twisted to support Davis. SSDD.

a reply to: neo96

What rights are they violating? it's her Job to issue those Licenses, she is refusing... she still has the right to believe and practice any religion she wants, she just can't use it as a shield to discriminate

a reply to: Darth_Prime

www.abovetopsecret.com...

First and 14th.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

There needs to be a law change surrounding the issuing of licences. Freedom of religion means she can object, but the SCOTUS ruled not against gay's with marriage. She needs to be able to opt out of that part of her job and let someone else do it.

The middle ground here is the only logical way forward without someone losing a right.

And that is what Mr Pope has said in a Christian way.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Darth_Prime

www.abovetopsecret.com...

First and 14th.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Skada

impeding the free exercise of religion,

That part should have been highlighted.

Davis didn't violate it.

Kinda like it is perfectly legal for a solider to refuse to obey an order when they disagree with it.

What????

a reply to: intrepid

Well here's a transcript of the question and answer......

Close enough I think.

Terry Moran, ABC News:
Holy Father, thank you, thank you very much and thank you to the Vatican staff as well. Holy Father, you visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and we were told that you wanted to show your support for them and their case in the courts. And, Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?

Pope Francis:
I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscience objection. But, yes, I can say the conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying 'this right that has merit, this one does not.' It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the “Chanson de Roland” when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font and they had to choose between the baptismal font or the sword. They had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.

Terry Moran, ABC News:
Would that include government officials as well?

Pope Francis:
It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.

Pope Francis: "I’m not a star, but the servant of servants of God”

a reply to: xuenchen

Right:

I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscience objection.

In other words there are different aspects to CO and this is not specific to Davis. Spin.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Darth_Prime

There needs to be a law change surrounding the issuing of licences. Freedom of religion means she can object, but the SCOTUS ruled not against gay's with marriage. She needs to be able to put out if that part of her job and someone else do it.

The middle ground here is the only logical way forward without someone losing a right.

And that is what Mr Pope has said in a Christian way.

Bingo

Before Kim was put in jail she pled with the judge to allow others to issue the license in her office but he refused and put her in jail according to her lawyer.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The problem is that the attitude that the Christians there supporting Kim are displaying is not conducive to garnering any support or favor from the gay community.

I've seen the angry man spewing hate saying that by forcing Kim to issue licenses, there was nobody to stop gay's from moving into his neighborhood.

I support finding another way, buy I don't support that level of irrational hatred.

originally posted by: muSSang
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fortunately for me I follow the Constitution and not Il Papa.

Most Germans followed naziism, but there was a few that stood by their own beliefs and stood there ground regardless of persecution.

What?

No they were not! At its peak eight out of EIGHTY million Germans were Nazis - and that is assuming that every member really was a Nazi. In other words NINETY PERCENT stood their ground.

That is sort of more than a few.

Also, in case you measure the number of Nazis by the amount of loyal Germans: The Germans who fought for Germany were no more automatically Nazis, than Americans fighting for America is automatically Democrats. You CAN be loyal to your country without supporting any particular ideology - or even without thinking your country is in its right to do whatever it does.

I would say that an American who would only consider himself loyal to America when his party of choice was in power was a very unpatriotic citizen. Som goes for Germans up to/during WWII.

a reply to: deadeyedick

She wouldn't let anyone issue a license, she also later confiscated the licenses and made changes to Same-Sex ones that invalidated them

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: deadeyedick

The problem is that the attitude that the Christians there supporting Kim are displaying is not conducive to garnering any support or favor from the gay community.

I've seen the angry man spewing hate saying that by forcing Kim to issue licenses, there was nobody to stop gay's from moving into his neighborhood.

I support finding another way, buy I don't support that level of irrational hatred.

We agree

Both sides were vile in actions and only garnered fuel for the hate on both sides by a carefully planned explosion of emotions. The judge could have ended it without jailing her but chose to carry on with the planned event. Nothing has gotton better since.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Correct me if I am wrong, but any license issued in her office, must have her signature on it regardless of who issues it.

That is my understanding, so again, please correct me if I am wrong.

Her beef then is that her signature appears on it even if she did not issue it. It's pretty childish of her if I am correct, but I guess she thinks God sees her as approving if she even signs a blank form that could be issued to gay people.

The realistic ways out if this are; impeach her and good riddance to a nasty piece of work but also give both to a martyr and she becomes the poster child for angry Christians, or we show some compassion and change the law so any clerk can sign the marriage license and it be valid and / or give the responsibility of marriage licenses to someone else in the office.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: deadeyedick

She wouldn't let anyone issue a license, she also later confiscated the licenses and made changes to Same-Sex ones that invalidated them

She offered to let them issue the licenses before she was jailed according to her lawyer.

Only after being put in the slammer did she go completely rouge.

It is not her fault. She was born that way.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
It is not her fault. She was born that way.

I can buy that. You can't cure "gay" or "stupid."