Kentucky clerk Kim Davis ordered released from jail

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Liquesence

Nope not implying at all, make it a contract as far as government and it's interests are concerned and be done with it.

I think using the courts and mis-applying an amendment meant for a completely unrelated subject is at best disingenuous at worst bastardizing the Constitution.

All this has done is create much anger due to side stepping the voters and legislative process.

In doing so it shows the corruption of the idea itself.

Marriage in the church, civil contracts with government solves the issue.

So you're saying the government should change its laws so that marriage is the sole domain of churches.

Except

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion

Do you wish to change the constitution as well to make your idea lawful?

a reply to: Aazadan

That's the reason people are being so hard on her. It's because she's not a victim here. She's repeatedly stuck herself in harms way and even with other options available she's unwilling to take any or compromise at all. Why should anyone give a damn about how she feels when she doesn't give a damn about how others feel???

She simply wants it all her way well tough cookies. We all have to give and take a little for Equal Rights to exist. Freedom is a wonderful thing but for it to survive in a society it also means respecting the freedom of others.

Besides, I think everyone has forgot that public servants are there to SERVE THE PEOPLE NOT THEMSELVES. When she signs off on those licenses she is signing off on behalf of the State Powers which are granted from the people. That license isn't about Kim Davis granting Marriage, it is the STATE granting it and having it's representative Kim do the paperwork for it. But nobody is Granting Kim Davis power. It's that position that has the power. They pay her to act accordingly and do the job that position holds.

I know it's sometimes a fuzzy difference but it's still there. When she's on the clock, her own personal crusades need to stop because she's being paid and paid well to act in the capacity of those who elect her and follow the law. They didn't elect her so she'd have the power to do whatever the hell she wanted.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I read a headline earlier somewhere describing her as the next Rosa Parks. Really? WTF?! Just in the last hour, I saw a picture of her and Huckabee on a podium with a whole bunch of white crosses in he background.
What is going on in this country?

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

That is the interesting point.....she is an elected official appointed as the county clerk. Will she follow the judge's order or her sworn oath?

Which in this case is one in the same. It is not in her Oath or job responsibility to apply her personal religious views on the public. We do not live in a Theocracy and as I stated before if the clerk were Muslim and denied marriage certificates to anyone but Muslims they would burn the dame building down.

This country CANNOT operate on religious doctrine. Not everyone is the same religion and by using personal belief and forcing others to abide by it is just asinine. Personally I think she should be removed from her position.

a reply to: Phoenix

That's exactly why I agree with her stance, Kentucky State Government needs to act since it's law was nullified.

The law was not nullified. A portion was nullified, one unconstitutional stipulation of that law. But beyond that, the absence of a law does not mean something cannot be done. Laws don't tell us what we can do. The US Constitution does not tell us what we can do. Does it?

Marriage in the church, civil contracts with government solves the issue.

Issuing a license has nothing to do with a church.
She failed to do her job.
She violated the legal rights of straight couples.
She violated the legal rights of gay couples.
How, in any manner, can you attempt to justify that? Red herrings aside.

a reply to: Phoenix

States aren't entitled to selectively apply law.

Great headline, BTW.
"Ordered to be released."

Nice spin.
Actually, she was allowed to be released by the judge that put her there in the first place.

originally posted by: Phage
Great headline, BTW.
"Ordered to be released."

Nice spin.
Actually, she was allowed to be released by the judge that put her there in the first place.

Actually a Judge has to order the release from custody since its a contempt of the court issue.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DeathSlayer

The release order also includes a mandate from the judge that she not interfere in the issuance of marriage licenses by anyone in her office.

That is the interesting point.....she is an elected official appointed as the county clerk. Will she follow the judge's order or her sworn oath?

Everyone misses the point. This is about PERSONAL beliefs . And I repeat , This was about PERSONAL beliefs (perhaps if I am redundant someone will read it and understand) . The state DID NOT set up accommodations for her as other states have when she requested. So , therefore the state put her in the position in which she was jailed for.

Now , with that being said , the second thing the state did was to lock her up without bail. That is a serious breach of the judicial system , as nowhere is a law documented that outlines the penalties for this. And only for the most SERIOUS of crimes is someone held without bail.I see her winning a large fortune from the state because of their sheer stupidity....I would spend 5 days in jail for that easily

Or , if she is vengeful (and I would be not being a Christian) I might send a judge to a federal pen over this one....That would most likely be my choice.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Everyone misses the point. This is about PERSONAL beliefs .

No one argues that these are her personal beliefs. So what?

The state DID NOT set up accommodations for her as other states have when she requested. So , therefore the state put her in the position in which she was jailed for.

The state is not obliged to accommodate her. She has NO legal right to demand that they do. And what other states have done is irrelevant.

Now , with that being said , the second thing the state did was to lock her up without bail.

Oh, Lord! You didn't say that... did you? Bail is for people who have been charged with crimes and are awaiting trial. Kim Davis was not just charged with Contempt, she was found guilty of it and jailed for it.

That is a serious breach of the judicial system , as nowhere is a law documented that outlines the penalties for this.

You have just shown that you know as much about the judicial system as you do about the Constitution. You're just making stuff up as you go along!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I see how you oh so conveniently did not mention the Federal Anti- Discrimination Laws......standard tactics of someone stating mantras. And , oh yes , attacking the poster....Come on I can handle it...

a reply to: Gothmog

I will attack you for thinking religious views trump everyone elses rights.
She was given every opportunity to not goto jail she even made others refuse to give people licences.
You bleat on about accommodations but fail to see that she was the one refusing all accommodations that is why she went to jail for contempt of court.

How many people did she deny their rights? why does her rights trump those?.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I see how you oh so conveniently did not mention the Federal Anti- Discrimination Laws

And that has WHAT to do with ANYTHING being said? You've moved the goalposts AGAIN, bringing up unrelated topics AGAIN. Man, you're just digging the hole deeper and deeper.

What I find ironic is that people are crying religious discrimination and their religious beliefs aren't being accommodated.

An accommodation is building a wheel chair ramp.

An accommodation is lowering a desk for someone.

An accommodation is installing screen filters for someone's sensitive eyes.

An accommodation is installing special phones for hearing impaired people.

An accommodation is NOT excusing someone from neglecting a job duty.

An accommodation is not letting someone not do part of their job. An accommodation is something done to ENABLE someone to do their job, not to enable them not to.

You can't walk up to a biker gang and taunt them, get beat up, and later claim bikers discriminate against you. You instigated it! If you had walked away they would have left you alone!

Kim initiated her own religious persecution...she brought this upon herself and is playing the victim card. Sorry, you can't cause your own problems and then claim you're the victim of the consequences.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Kim Davis was hired to do a job...she choose not to do her job according to the current laws; she should resign if she chooses not to do the job she was hired to do.

originally posted by: caladonea
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Kim Davis was hired to do a job...she choose not to do her job according to the current laws; she should resign if she chooses not to do the job she was hired to do.

And if she wanted to make a big deal/protest out of it ... she could have made a huge ordeal over her resignation. She could have done speeches and all kinds of things as she stepped down.

It's kind of hard to push your message to people from inside a jail cell.

originally posted by: Kratos40
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I read a headline earlier somewhere describing her as the next Rosa Parks. Really? WTF?! Just in the last hour, I saw a picture of her and Huckabee on a podium with a whole bunch of white crosses in he background.
What is going on in this country?

what's going on?....everyone has been too polite to these religious nuts. we look to the 1st amendment of the constitution and we see "freedom of religion" and think that they will use a reasonable, responsible, interpretation of it. then, a crack head like this comes along, and takes it way, way, too far......and Huckabee takes "crazy" to a whole new level....

This crap infuriates me to no end who the hell is this lady to judge and conflict in peoples lives. Who cares if people want to fondle the same sex get over it, it isnt harming anyone god has nothing to do with it . People make me sick and the world would be better off without people like her and her ilk.

If she was Muslim, she probably would have never faced jail time.

originally posted by: TheBestTop5
If she was Muslim, she probably would have never faced jail time.

Always, at least one, who has to make this stupid comment.