Gay rights group erects billboard in Kim Davis' Kentucky town

Love the idea of trolling these religulous retards with the billboard but it should have read...
"God helps those that help themselves, Rapture yourself today"

K~

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Yes..wasting your time, you stated she is only doing it herself? my understanding is she ordered her underlings not to supply licenses??

That was the original problem.

But today she agreed to not interfere with the Deputy Clerks....

Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is back to work today — saying she will neither authorize such licenses nor stand in the way of her deputies if they wish to do so.

Kim Davis Back At Work, But Remains Defiant

Looks like the law works afterall.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Can both sides just agree to disagree and leave each other alone as much as possible?

I don't think so. Like it or not, this is an important, emotional issue for many people. We are in another civil rights era. The group being denied equal rights is different, but the issues are the same.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree on opinions. But when I see people state something as FACT, well, I feel compelled to deny ignorance.

I'm sensing egos and not beliefs are showing here on both sides. Meanwhile there are a ton of more pressing matters to attend to in the world right now.

I think there are both egos and beliefs at play. I don't doubt the beliefs of Kim Davis. But her ego is showing, too. As are the beliefs and egos of her critics.

And yes, there are other issues and people are talking about them, too. Talking about this doesn't take away from other issues, IMO. This is of more interest to me, personally.

a reply to: xuenchen

Good to hear, too bad it had to be such a dog and pony show to get to this point. I wonder what will happen by the time the house sits again? will they remove her or let it be?, if it all blows over I wonder if she will be re-elected?

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: xuenchen

Good to hear, too bad it had to be such a dog and pony show to get to this point. I wonder what will happen by the time the house sits again? will they remove her or let it be?, if it all blows over I wonder if she will be re-elected?

The Kentucky Legislature might be in a quagmire with the whole issue.

Partisan politics will play into the "impeachment" if she is actually ever impeached.

a reply to: vonclod

It's a long way from over.

Kentucky law says that the county clerk's name and office must appear on the marriage license. Kim is refusing to allow that to happen. The county attorney and attorney general say that the licenses issued without her name are valid. Maybe they know of some special legislation or situation that supports that, but I don't.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Partisan politics will play into the "impeachment" if she is actually ever impeached.

Wouldn't that be a riot? Democrats voting to oust a Democrat, but Republicans insisting on keeping her? LOL!

There are 74 Republican members of the House and Senate and 65 Democratic members. Just FYI.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Haha yes I was going to reply the same about her Democratic status..I wonder if she will switch? you are right as well about it not blowing over..It's still a mess.

The fact that there is still a rainbow house acriss from WBC, kind of proves that place isn't really a hate group. Have a non Union construction job across from a union hall, then you will see a hate group

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Kim Davis is not being discriminated against by being jailed. Her religious beliefs are not being infringed upon. She has the right to her beliefs. She has the right to practice her beliefs. She has the right to espouse her beliefs. Not one of those rights is being oppressed or repressed.

What she does not have the right to do, is practice her beliefs in such a way that, as a duly elected government official, she is oppressing others' due process and equal protection clause rights. Which is what she was doing given the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Freedom to practice religion does not mean freedom to do whatever you want to others in the name of your religion. Discrimination would be if she were impeached, jailed, or deprived of her rights solely because of her faith. None of that is happening. Instead, she is being found in contempt, jailed, and probably in due course impeached, because she is not fulfilling the duties of her office as currently defined by SCOTUS' constitutional interpretation.

The alternative to this is anytime someone in her position of authority in the government wishes to deprive those with whom they disagree of their rights, they can do so freely without repercussions, because their religious beliefs permit this. Speaking of which... why doesn't she seem to take issue with issuing marriage licenses to those of other faiths who worship different beings? And what would happen if someone in her position decided they didn't want to issue marriage licenses to, say, Muslims for instance? Should that decision be protected? Should their being jailed for contempt in that case also be seen as discrimination in your view?

If anything, she is practicing her faith as we speak to the letter by enduring what she no doubt views as persecution and imprisonment to that effect.

I will say that, personally, I don't condone the tit for tat back and forth petulance displayed by both sides of the issue. But she is not a victim. She is the perpetrator, imagining herself to be the victim IMHO. I respect your opinion, however.

Peace.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: vonclod

It's a long way from over.

Kentucky law says that the county clerk's name and office must appear on the marriage license. Kim is refusing to allow that to happen. The county attorney and attorney general say that the licenses issued without her name are valid. Maybe they know of some special legislation or situation that supports that, but I don't.

I am pretty sure the name and office part are pre printed as part of the stationary licenses. I think all forms for her office have both her name and office printed on them.


As far as signing them goes Kim is not needed.

: KY Rev Stat § 61.035 (1996 through Reg Sess)

According to statute 61.035, “Any duty enjoined by law or by the Rules of Civil Procedure upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy.” If Davis can issue licenses, so can her deputies.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

you can blame us for Redefining Marriage, making Bestiality and Pedophilia Legal, the destruction of "Family" and it's "values' the takeover of the "Gay Agenda" political correctness, Gun Control, taking away "Liberties" and "Freedom of Religion".

Also

Being Childish undignified spoiled whiners and sore winners, being too "Gay" in public or too "GLBTQ+" in public, forcing our views on others, attention whores, "Deviants" and abominations that could bring upon the End Times..

Did i miss something?

a reply to: Grimpachi

The thing is, if Davis can refuse to "authorize" licenses, what's to stop a deputy from claiming the same religious exemption? In this case, the deputy agreed to follow the law, but what about the next case?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I am pretty sure the name and office part are pre printed as part of the stationary licenses. I think all forms for her office have both her name and office printed on them.

They do. But she's not allowing those to be issued. When she was in jail, the office printed up new ones without her name and they say, "Issued by Rowan County" or something similar. Today, the licenses read, "Issued Pursuant to Court Order". No name or office.

The first couple to apply for a license Monday was Shannon Wampler and Carmen Collins. They stood at the counter for a half-hour, dozens of reporters gathering behind them and microphones bobbing above their heads.

Deputy clerk Brian Mason — sitting behind a sign that reads "marriage license deputy" — gave them a license despite his boss's objections and after a delay because of a printer problem. Protesters in the back heckled Mason, but he ignored them, initialed the license and shook the couple's hands.

As Davis indicated in her statement, the couple's license had the words "pursuant to federal court order" typed on it.

Source

I know she doesn't need to sign them and I know her deputies can issue them. But KY law says her name and office must be on the license.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh... They should have never of printed those and should have used the proper documents.

a reply to: windword

If that were to happen then that will be the next case. A special deputy may come in and cover for them, who knows. As long as the law is upheld then there is no basis for a legal complaint.

No one has to like it, but that is the way it is.

originally posted by: intrepid
Childish. Why do people just HAVE to get a dig? Very undignified.

Ya, but sometimes out-right mockery is the best currency, eh?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Agreed, but she would have thrown a religious fit. That may have given her the ammunition she needed to actually have a case. So, it was decided to issue these plain ones in her absence.

Looks like they're going to stick with that and call them valid. KY Governor Says Licenses are Valid

This may be a permanent solution.

On Monday, her office altered the marriage licenses to remove her name. The licenses also say they're "pursuant to a court order." Deputy clerks, not Davis, are granting them.

Kentucky state law requires that "every license blank shall contain the identical words and figures." But Beshear noted that the federal judge overseeing Davis' case has not raised any objections to the licenses.
...
Lawyer Harry Mihet said Monday at a news conference: "The license that went out today does not violate Kim Davis's conscience. If it's satisfactory to the ... court, then I think we will have found that win-win solution that we have been asking for all along."

If they are willing to make that accommodation and it works for everyone, I'm fine with that.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

If they are willing to make that accommodation and it works for everyone, I'm fine with that.

Yes.

There is just no way "they" are going to allow these marriage licenses to be invalidated IMO.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If that is the case the way I would deal with her religious convulsions would be to say fine. For the remainder of her term they can be printed that way, but after the next election it will be back to business as usual.

If she wishes to run for that office again then she will not have any grounds to expect a personal change just for her.

That is the job it is her choice to run for it or not.

Just flaming the fire I guess. She took an oath when she took the job and both were within the frame of her religious beliefs. When the interpretation of the law/constitution CHANGED, she could have quit. But more accurate would have been if she had to state the oath again WITH the change in the law and if she didn't...they should fire or release her from her job.

Second...some people do not CHOOSE their religion. Some are born into it and simply accept it.

Finally...everyone can play with words if you wish. In pure logic, this could have and should have been handled differently.