Anti-SSM Kentucky clerk denied appeal by SCOTUS on refusal to issue marriage licenses

Ok? What court order has he ignored? What court has found him in contempt? What civil rights is he denying citizens?

Please be specific.

 

He said ignoring the law, not ignoring a court order.

Just to keep you from asking that question obsessively as often happens.

 

And I am pointing out the thread topic, and bringing Obama up is a deliberate attempt to derail the thread, as they are in no way analogous.

yea, I know having fallacious arguments pointed out seems to bunch up your panties.

 

Obama and the US Attorney General are "refusing to do their job" in relation to immigration laws. Why aren't they in federal prison?

 

Which you wouldn't know because you've never done it to me, nor did you in this case with the guy you're hounding.

To which he is correct, despite your attempted twist of his words.

 

I don't think you can relate this woman's actions with Obama's.

Sure, they both ignore federal law, but she's a Christian.

 

Lol, of course I have and did.

The court order was for her to comply with the law.

Oops

 

The First Amendment is a protection of individuals from the undue interference of government. However, when acting as county clerk, Kim Davis IS the government in this matter. If there's a violation of a First Amendment right taking place here, it's the one being perpetrated by Davis against citizens acting in a lawful matter, abusing her position as an agent of the government to attempt a de facto establishment of religion - hers. Davis' first amendment rights have not been violated. The freedom to believe, worship, and conform one's personal life to one's religious beliefs is not a right to control others with it, and the latter is clearly what Davis is trying to do - impose her religious beliefs on others through her government job.

Obama and immigration aren't the topic here. We can have a legitimate debate about the issues surrounding Kim Davis' actions on their own merits. Your attempt to derail the thread into a discussion of something off-topic and unrelated is however noted - and called out for what it is.

 

Oh please, let's get the violins out. I'm attempting to derail the thread?

It's completely and totally relevant. If you're going to hold her to a standard because she's a government employee, then other government employees (especially those ranking higher than her) should be held to the same standard.

So evidently if you embezzle from your employer, while a low level clerk who works for you steals (petty theft), you believe that selective prosecution should be allowed, even though you both work for the same employer and your crime is far worse?

 

If she really wanted to make a stand, she should have resigned that 80 grand a year job, and actually given up something for her moral objections. Seems like she wants to break the law and keep her job. And she flaunts it, as if she is exempt from the rule of law, and exempt from doing her duties, serving the citizens of this nation.

If you do not want to break your moral code, then you give up any job that interferes with your religious beliefs. So I would not suggest some female take a job as a hooker if her religion says whoring is a sin. But to refuse to be a whore, once you signed up for it, and got paid, and still want to get paid without doing your job, looks like one of these free loaders you hear so much about from conservatives.

What if this was a radical muslim holding that office, and refused to issue a marriage license to a muslim man and a jewish woman, because sharia law said it was taboo? And by doing so would violate Islamic law? This is hardly any different than that, is it? So, how can anyone defend this woman, rationally?

 

Haters got to hate. She was issuing marriage licenses to no one. If a Country Clerk refused to issue any marriage licenses the solution is to follow procedures to remove her from office or vote her out. Refusing to do your job is not a basis for summary imprisonment. How many members of Congress have been imprisoned for rarely showing up to vote, ie refusing to do their job?

She has given up a lot. She not only has gone to jail, she also has given up her being re-elected. Millions of people like you have fixated on hating her, which also is literally physically dangerous. She likely has hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. She is a Democrat in Democratic territory. She has no chance of re-election. She has, in fact, given up an $80,000 a year future.

Let's contrast that to you.

Tell us what you have given up for what you believe in since you put yourself on such a high moral platform to moralized down at her? I'm guessing nothing.

 

Yes, very obviously so. And clearly I'm not alone in that observation. You're not fooling anyone.

 

Not surprised at all that a bunch of libs with tunnel vision are not capable of looking at the bigger picture that is completely and totally relevant.

This circus in Kentucky isn’t about rule of law, it’s about the rule of the left because laws routinely aren’t being enforced in this country.....just the ones the left wants. You self righteous libs talk about the rule of law when it comes to Kim Davis but this country is full of lawlessness starting at the top with clown Obama openly violating our constitution. Sanctuary states and cities are lawless yet nothing happens to those not enforcing those laws, while you get your panties in a bunch about this case. That's called being hypocritical, in case you didn't know.

 

lol

She's not racking up lawyers fees. The fundy numbsquats at the Liberty Counsel urging her on are doing this all gratis, because she is a freakin' cash cow for them. They know it. They planned this.

There is a ****ton of money to be made from the Bigot Bucks Brigade, and she is going to be richer than her wildest dreams when this is over. The lawyers too will be smiling all the way to the bank. A book is being ghostwritten as we speak. A movie is on it's way. Because: 'Merika!

She *is* going to go back and violate the judges order -- and Act II is on the horizon. TV Cameras will be rolling, much ink will be spread and the ridiculous comparisons to Rosa Parks and MLK will get horned out once more.

This is a well executed showdown her lawyers are looking to fight, and fight hard. Not to mention the chucklenut GOP candidates willing to glom on to the po po woe-man jest fightin' for Geezuz.

And if you go to the LC website, the 501c3 and 501c4 they've set up will tell you all about how you can give, give, give! till it hurts - For Kim, new patron saint of anti-gay bigots.

And don't forget to sign their petition so they can get your email address for their beg-a -thon mailing list.

Do it for God. For Country. For Kim. :flag:

 

You like to just make up stuff, don't you?

 

It is interesting reading the media reporting how emotionally shattered the gay couple who started this was as a sob story of how their wedding was wrecked.

What the media did not report was the truth. The two gay men had traveled across the country from San Francisco to Kentucky specifically to sue her. They expected to make a pile of money and expressed how upset they are that the judge hasn't given them any money. They stated outright they didn't want Davis in jail, they wanted Rowan County to have to give them $$. All the sobbing of their wedding day ruined was all a media lie - and of course many people on this forum fell for the line hook, line and sinker.

 

I'm not making anything up.

You imagined she's racking up hundreds of thousands in legal fees.

I helped set you straight.

You're welcome.

 

That's a pile of bull.

That couple was issued their marriage license this Tuesday, married on Wednesday, (yesterday) and went home. There were not the ones who "started this."

"On Wednesday, deputy clerk Mason said 10 marriage licenses had been issued in Davis' absence since Friday: eight Friday and two Tuesday. Seven of those went to same-sex couples, including Mark Shrayber and Allen Corona, who flew in from San Francisco.

Shrayber said they decided on a Rowan County wedding to show their support for gay couples."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...rk-kim-davis-gay-marriage-20150909-story.html

Everything you posted in bold there is crap.


THESE were the couples who filed for an injunction - two gay couples, two straight couples.

Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts,
Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway,
Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs,
Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier.

Article from July 2:

"Four couples sued Rowan County and its clerk, Kim Davis, on Thursday for refusing to issue marriage licenses because of Davis' religious objections to the U.S. Supreme Court decision a week ago legalizing same-sex marriage.

"Each and every plaintiff is a resident of Rowan County," the couples said in their lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Ashland. "They live, work, vote and pay taxes in Rowan County. Each and every plaintiff wishes to obtain a marriage license from their home county without having to suffer the indignity of securing a marriage license from another county due to defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional policy."

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/07/02/3928485/four-couples-sue-rowan-clerk-for.html

 

People should read the Supreme Court's majority ruling. It did NOT rule it is unconstitutional to discriminate against people on gender and marriage. It ruled it is ONLY prohibited to discriminate against gay couples. Thus, the Dallas lesbian judge who only will officiate in her official capacity as her only authority for gay marriages and refuses to officiate weddings for heterosexual couples is entirely ok to the majority of the Supreme Court. Gays are not equal now, they are of superior rights over all others.

Moreover, if you give literal meaning to what the majority opinion on the Supreme Court wrote, no gay can be denied the right to marry - period. No age restrictions, no restrictions on bigamy or incest. And only their right to marry was ruled for. Only gays can not be denied marriage rights. It was not a ruling against discrimination on gender.

 

Originally Posted by JakeJ
You like to just make up stuff, don't you?" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Oh, so you're one of those who plays the "lib" card when challenged. Seriously not going to play this game with you. I am not going to address your off-topic point, so get over it already.

 

Just saw this article in the New Republic from 9/8/2015, alleging that Judge Bunning had other options than jailing Davis and turning her into a martyr of sorts:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122758/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-should-not-have-been-sent-jail

Seems sound enough to me. Really wasn't too thrilled when he ordered jail time. On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that she was in contempt. Judges don't exactly like to have their orders defied; you could perhaps argue that some of that is an ego trip, but I think contempt serves to prevent the courts from becoming completely impotent in the face of people thinking they can just raise the middle finger to the law and go on doing as they please.

 

Oh, and that couple coming all the way from San Francisco to Rowan County, Kentucky to get married? Apparently just to make a point?

Ridiculous. We don't need that crap. That just serves to arm opponents who claim it's all about forcing Davis to violate her conscience. I object to Rowan County residents being forced by Davis' shenanigans to go elsewhere to get married - they have a point. But the outsiders from San Francisco do not. They're apparently just after their fifteen minutes of fame.

Stay on the west coast, thank you very much! We don't need your grandstanding in the flyover states.

 

Again, nothing off topic about my point. Perfectly and totally relevant. BTW.....the only card I'm playing is the common sense card. Try it some time rather than that little teeny weeny tunnel you look through.

 

I don't think that option was available to the judge, per KY law.

Yup. And she held the key to her release the whole time, or even being sent in the first place.

"You can purge yourself of that contempt order by indicating compliance. I'm not going to put a deadline on it. If you want to order your clerks t o allow the licenses to be issued, you can purge yourself of contempt.
So that will be the order of the Court. "

http://files.eqcf.org/cases/015-cv-00044-78/

From the transcript (180 pages!) of the hearing that put her there.

She indicated she does not think the court has any authority over her.

Not any court. It's God who rules.