Can We Defy the Supreme Court? Jesse Ventura on Kim Davis's Violation

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The Supreme Court ruled that a woman can have on demand murder of her unborn child as long as it's called abortion...is that a just ruling?
When the laws of the land no longer reflect true moral and spiritual piety but rather the callousness and infamy of secular moral relativity, it's not a good portent.

How can you kill something that was not even born yet??

Interesting thing, abortion you call killing, while in chicken case you call it omelet...

I am rather terrified about place you draw your 'true moral' from, because it was used for centuries to deprive people of some basic rights, or women of their rights... Suggestions that you call 'true moral' does not take into an account case that women/girl might be victim of abuse (sometimes by close relative), or that pregnancy endangers life of given person. All you care is that your imaginary friend is happy...




a reply to: GeisterFahrer
She did deprive others of right to get merry because of her imaginary friend...

While she was married what, 3 times??

She is definition of hypocrisy.

Let's not turn this into an abortion thread.

There are plenty of those.

Everyone ready for round 2?

Kim Davis: Prepared to return to jail over licenses

Davis' first sit-down interview since her release from jail aired as the American Civil Liberties Union is raising concerns over alterations that Davis has made to marriage licenses. A deputy clerk has issued about a dozen of the forms, but only after Davis modified the wording to remove all mention of her name and office. She says the paperwork doesn't have her authority and isn't valid.

The ACLU, which is suing Davis on behalf of four couples, filed a motion Monday asking U.S. District Judge David Bunning to prevent her from interfering. They argue that the alterations create a two-tier system that treats LGBT couples as second-class citizens. They want Bunning to enforce a return to the uniform licenses used across the state.

That could set the stage for another showdown in court and possibly more jail time for Davis, even though the ACLU is only suggesting fines or an order placing the clerk's office in a receivership for the purpose of issuing licenses.

She's even checking off all the marks on the "how to hide being a bigot" bingo card.

In Tuesday's interview, Faris noted Davis' previous divorces and asked her whether she is a hypocrite. Davis, who became an Apostolic Christian four years ago, denied the charge, saying "I'm forgiven, washed clean." Davis said she has gay and lesbian friends with whom she maintains mutual respect despite her policy on licenses.

See? She's not a homophobe. She has gay friends.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Was Kim Davis told she could not pray to Jesus?

Was Kim Davis told she could not worship Him via whatever ritual she prefers?

Was Kim Davis told she could not sing hymns honoring Jesus?

Was Kim Davis told she could not attend Sunday sermons, handle snakes, or drink strychnine?

In fact, was Kim Davis in any way kept from enjoying the freedom of worship and religion that the Constitution decrees?

Of course not; she was kept from inflicting her OWN version of her OWN religion on others. That is all.

Of course, she did none of these things. She was jailed for exercising her own freedom of religious expression. That is all.

She was jailed for contempt of court.

She violated a federal order to comply with Equal Rights of the Consitution under the 14th amendment.

Nothing in her job description changed. Her job is clerical. Her job is to verify clerical information. That's it.

She is denying the rights of others in her elected government position.

if people want to claim there is something higher than the highest court in the land and want to practice that, they can and are free to move to any one of the middle east countries. such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc.

i hear Afghanistan is nice this time of year

originally posted by: bigx001
if people want to claim there is something higher than the highest court in the land and want to practice that, they can and are free to move to any one of the middle east countries. such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc.

i hear Afghanistan is nice this time of year

Kim can believe whatever she wants here in America.

But, she can't deny others of their rights.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigx001
if people want to claim there is something higher than the highest court in the land and want to practice that, they can and are free to move to any one of the middle east countries. such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc.

i hear Afghanistan is nice this time of year

Kim can believe whatever she wants here in America.

But, she can't deny others of their rights.

that's what i'm saying, she is free to reside in a place that practices her warped vision and deal with what they believe

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Was Kim Davis told she could not pray to Jesus?

Was Kim Davis told she could not worship Him via whatever ritual she prefers?

Was Kim Davis told she could not sing hymns honoring Jesus?

Was Kim Davis told she could not attend Sunday sermons, handle snakes, or drink strychnine?

In fact, was Kim Davis in any way kept from enjoying the freedom of worship and religion that the Constitution decrees?

Of course not; she was kept from inflicting her OWN version of her OWN religion on others. That is all.

Of course, she did none of these things. She was jailed for exercising her own freedom of religious expression. That is all.

She was jailed for contempt of court.

She violated a federal order to comply with Equal Rights of the Consitution under the 14th amendment.

Nothing in her job description changed. Her job is clerical. Her job is to verify clerical information. That's it.

She is denying the rights of others in her elected government position.

She was jailed for freely exercising her religion, which is a Constitutional right. the Judge broke the law when he jailed her, as this not only violated her due process rights (she had asked for an exemption) but was also a violation of her 1st Amendment rights.

But .. about those Federal Laws .... jail Obama and Hillary.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The Supreme Court ruled that a woman can have on demand murder of her unborn child as long as it's called abortion...is that a just ruling?
When the laws of the land no longer reflect true moral and spiritual piety but rather the callousness and infamy of secular moral relativity, it's not a good portent.

How can you kill something that was not even born yet??

Interesting thing, abortion you call killing, while in chicken case you call it omelet...

I am rather terrified about place you draw your 'true moral' from, because it was used for centuries to deprive people of some basic rights, or women of their rights... Suggestions that you call 'true moral' does not take into an account case that women/girl might be victim of abuse (sometimes by close relative), or that pregnancy endangers life of given person. All you care is that your imaginary friend is happy...

a reply to: GeisterFahrer
She did deprive others of right to get merry because of her imaginary friend...

While she was married what, 3 times??

She is definition of hypocrisy.

That sign is misleading. Was the exchange of cattle and poultry for a marriage between one man and one woman?

I think it is hilarious that those signs are in plain view all over town.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The Supreme Court ruled that a woman can have on demand murder of her unborn child as long as it's called abortion...is that a just ruling?
When the laws of the land no longer reflect true moral and spiritual piety but rather the callousness and infamy of secular moral relativity, it's not a good portent.

How can you kill something that was not even born yet??

Interesting thing, abortion you call killing, while in chicken case you call it omelet...

I am rather terrified about place you draw your 'true moral' from, because it was used for centuries to deprive people of some basic rights, or women of their rights... Suggestions that you call 'true moral' does not take into an account case that women/girl might be victim of abuse (sometimes by close relative), or that pregnancy endangers life of given person. All you care is that your imaginary friend is happy...

a reply to: GeisterFahrer
She did deprive others of right to get merry because of her imaginary friend...

While she was married what, 3 times??

She is definition of hypocrisy.

That sign is misleading. Was the exchange of cattle and poultry for a marriage between one man and one woman?

I think it is hilarious that those signs are in plain view all over town.

The Hang Up on one man, one woman is irrelevant. Society evolves.

Legal Marriage in America is a contract in a secular government. It offers privileges and tax breaks not available via any other context.

It can not be a privelege for some and not others. That is discrimination according to the Constitution.

a reply to: GeisterFahrer

She is free to exercise "her" religion by "herself" not being gay, she has no right to judge others or coerce others in the clerks office, obviously the 80,000 a year is just slightly more important than her convictions or she would leave the job so full of potential sins.

She also states this

I don't think dignity is guaranteed in the Constitution.

and that

I think dignity is something that you find within yourself

link

she is so wrong on the constitution,

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
That sign is misleading. Was the exchange of cattle and poultry for a marriage between one man and one woman?

I think it is hilarious that those signs are in plain view all over town.

You missing the point, my friend. It shows how she, and most Christians are selective in what part of bible they take as moral truth, while trying to hid other parts under the rug...

In bible you have verses about payment for a bride, and this has not been practiced for a while now. Makes you wonder, why devoted Christians are not following their instruction manual, also known as 'bible'?!

What about monetary transactions with slaves, or proper care of them??

Don't tell me that those things are 'easier' to go over and/or forget and stop practicing...

Just as I've said before, she should be really behind bars.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
That sign is misleading. Was the exchange of cattle and poultry for a marriage between one man and one woman?

I think it is hilarious that those signs are in plain view all over town.

You missing the point, my friend. It shows how she, and most Christians are selective in what part of bible they take as moral truth, while trying to hid other parts under the rug...

In bible you have verses about payment for a bride, and this has not been practiced for a while now. Makes you wonder, why devoted Christians are not following their instruction manual, also known as 'bible'?!

What about monetary transactions with slaves, or proper care of them??

Don't tell me that those things are 'easier' to go over and/or forget and stop practicing...

Just as I've said before, she should be really behind bars.

Apparently, Kim Davis is following her instructional manual.

Divorce is allowed by the Bible. Those comments about her being married 3 times have no bearing on anything. All it means is that she really, really, really knows what marriage is.

So, the sign showing payment for a bride (assuming it was between a man and a woman) is nothing like a modern dowry?

Yes, I am snickering. Y'all are hilarious.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
That sign is misleading. Was the exchange of cattle and poultry for a marriage between one man and one woman?

I think it is hilarious that those signs are in plain view all over town.

You missing the point, my friend. It shows how she, and most Christians are selective in what part of bible they take as moral truth, while trying to hid other parts under the rug...

In bible you have verses about payment for a bride, and this has not been practiced for a while now. Makes you wonder, why devoted Christians are not following their instruction manual, also known as 'bible'?!

What about monetary transactions with slaves, or proper care of them??

Don't tell me that those things are 'easier' to go over and/or forget and stop practicing...

Just as I've said before, she should be really behind bars.

Apparently, Kim Davis is following her instructional manual.

Divorce is allowed by the Bible. Those comments about her being married 3 times have no bearing on anything. All it means is that she really, really, really knows what marriage is.

So, the sign showing payment for a bride (assuming it was between a man and a woman) is nothing like a modern dowry?

Yes, I am snickering. Y'all are hilarious.

But, of course, Kim admittedly has been washed clean.

So, she apparently thought there was something wrong with it.

You're right. What Mike Huckabee is advocating is Middle Eastern and Saudi Arabian government: That God's law takes priority over man's law. No matter what government or man passes, God's law is more powerful. The only problem, Mike, is you can't prove to anyone that there's a God.

originally posted by: netbound
It amazes me how so many people will support a nutjob like Mike Huckabee. If we all followed him we’d be in church 6 days a week, handling venomous snakes, drinking strychnine spritzers and sending him all our money. No thanks...

It’s really disgusting that someone running for the Presidency is at the same time advising another person to violate a Supreme Court order. Who in their right mind would vote for this joker? Oh wait a minute, never mind; that was a stupid question.

It doesn't fit their agenda, that's why they don't bring it up. Unfortunately you have religious people in all religions that always try to influence government to make the masses agree and behave the way they so choose to do their religious behavior. That's why we have the separation of church and state. The church is not supposed to get into the state's business, and the state is not supposed to be in the church's business. You want to build a wall between Mexico and the US? I've got a better idea. Let's build a wall between government and religion.

originally posted by: boneoracle
I still don't get why any christians get up in arms over anything the government does, or tells them to do. Both the old and new testament basically tell the sheeple to just obey the government that they live under. No one ever seems to bring this up, oddly. Mark 12:17 and Romans 13:1-7, yo.