DID THEY TELL YOU THIS LITTLE BIT OF NEWS:

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2ke1d137f712.jpg) or this:(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2k1e39399994.jpg)

SHE WAS WRONG WHY? WAS IT BECAUSE SHE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAW? NO WAS IT BECAUSE SHE IS A DEMOCRAT? NO THEN IT MUST BE BECAUSE SHE IS A CHRISTIAN AND THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE 1ST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO PUT HER IN JAIL! LOOKS LIKE LIBERAL HATERS HATE CHRISTIANS ITS A WAR ON CHRISTIANS!

You're a funny bigot Hayes. Your stupid makes me laugh.

YOU LIBTURDS FAGGOTS ALL SCREAMED ABOUT HER BUT SHE IS A DEMOCRAT LIKE YOU!


SHE IS ONE OF YOUR OWN! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

You just found that out Hayes? It has been posted here many times already... by some of us Democrats. I understand why you're upset. You thought it was only Republicans that has a lock on mental illness. We recognize their are a handful of Democrats that aren't wrapped too tight as well. Don't worry though, she will probably join your team.

You overlook certain people they have special needs because of their skin color

W Bullshit Shit THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW YOU HAVE MENTAL ILLNESSOH AND SHE WON'T ISSUE YOU AND HO A MARRIAGE LICENSE

you are not stupid and racist because you are white, ttopcat. 

Don't you just love it when you can get under the skin of a mentally challenged person, like Hayes by pointing out their own defects? It is quite evident they have a problem when they don't even know how to use the Cap Locks button, and think that the larger the font, the more convincing they are. Especially if they make it bold. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/24.gif)  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/24.gif) 

Oh we know there are some really stupid Democrats. Question is.... why do Republicans want to elevate a stupid Democrat to sainthood?

Because that's what they do with their own.

(http://i.imgur.com/AIrHfhu.png)

Thanks for that information, Hayes.  I never heard that about Tonya Parker before.

nancy dan thinks hayes posts anything resembling the truth.  how odd.  that walmartyr pic is hilarious!!

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/dallas-county/2015/06/26/1st-dallas-same-sex-marriage-momentous-for-couple-and-judge/29369759/ (http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/dallas-county/2015/06/26/1st-dallas-same-sex-marriage-momentous-for-couple-and-judge/29369759/)

It shows the hypocrisy of the left.

Hayes: She's one of your own.

You're confused again, Chief Bullshitalot. Scofflaw county clerk Kim Davis is one of your own--the heroine of far-right loons like you, albeit an unlikely one.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-kentucky-clerk-court-gay-marriage-20150904-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-kentucky-clerk-court-gay-marriage-20150904-story.html)

And you conservatives' holding up religious fanatic and serial bad dresser Kim Davis a martyr(!) is a classic example of right-wingnut inanity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/the-phony-martyrdom-of-ki_b_8074338.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/the-phony-martyrdom-of-ki_b_8074338.html)

She won!

Isn't it cute how Dan always declares the right a winner, no matter how badly they lost? Marriage licenses are being issued from the county clerk's office in Rowan County Kentucky, and the only thing she won was a week's stay at the Crossbar Hotel.

Dan: It shows the hypocrisy of the left.

You're attacking a straw man again, Dan. The hypocrisy of the "left" isn't the issue here. At issue here is the hypocrisy of scofflaw county clerk Kim Davis who's been shown to be clearly the hypocrite here.

http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Baptist-Pastor-Crushes-Kim-by-James-Quandy-Belief_Belief_Church_Evangelical-150917-751.html (http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Baptist-Pastor-Crushes-Kim-by-James-Quandy-Belief_Belief_Church_Evangelical-150917-751.html)


Davis’ Hypocrisy began the moment she became an agent of the state.


If you want to go on a strict literalist reading of the scripture (which is how Davis gets to her condemnation of gay marriage), then how does she justify the fact that she took an oath of office–an act that is strictly forbidden by scripture? (Matthew 5:34-37)
This is the inherent problem when Christians become agents of the state. If one swears an oath to uphold a set of laws, what should one do when those laws run counter to their religious convictions? Davis seemed to believe she only had two options: break the law or break her religious convictions. She chose to break the law. But, she missed the third option. Resign.

Denier Dan: She won!

No. She lost, Debunked Dan. Kim Davis's right-wingnut  publicity stunt is over. Rowan County, Kentucky, has resumed issuing marriage licenses to all eligible couple.

She got what she wanted, denier debunked Hawk.  That means she won!

now he's a fuckin' mind reader

Delusional Dan: She got what she wanted. That means she won.

If she wanted to get thrown in the slammer, then I agree she got what she wanted. But if she thought her phony martyrdom would somehow prevent the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then her dumb ass lost BIG TIME, and your continuing to deny reality only serves to remind us of how stupid, ignorant, and dishonest you are. If you continue to lie as you're doing here, why should expect any rational person to take you seriously, Dumb Dan?

Either that or he can hear and understand the spoken word.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

She wanted to keep her name off the marriage licenses that went to same sex couples.  She got what she wanted.  She won, seriously dumb Hawk!

SHE IS ONE OF YOUR OWN!

Yeah, but she has the same rights as anyone.  So, it's okay -- we'll take her under the wing.

Kim sure brings out the delusions of the left in spades

or just another opportunity to lie and persecute Christians

and defy the Constitution as 69BirdBrains and his clown posse

of mentally ill leftist posts attest here (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/emo_hattip.gif)

D2D: Kim sure brings out the delusions of the left in spades.

No, D2D. Kim Davis's failed attempt disobey the law of the land highlighted the warped thinking of you delusional right-wingnuts.

or just another opportunity to lie and persecute Christians

Obviously you're confused again, D2D. How can you argue that Christians are persecuted when a Christian nutcase like Kim Davis blatantly defied the law to persecutes others? It should be obvious, even to a dimwitted buffoon like you, that Davis's denying rights guaranteed by the US Constitution makes her the persecutor and those she harassed and mistreated, the persecuted. And, of course, it goes without saying that your moron ass is the obvious liar here--just as is always the case.

and defy the Constitution as 69BirdBrains and his clown posse of mentally ill leftist posts attest here

Evidently you still refuse believe scofflaw Kim Davis defied the Constitution. Right, DUMB2DOOFUS? And apparently you still haven't  accepted the fact of your far-right lunacy and that of your supporters in this forum. Is that right, you addled-brain nincompoop?

To be honest, my first post on this county clerk actually agreed with the left. What changed my mind id Article 6 of the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from requiring a religious test to hold office or public truct. To require that the clerk issue a license in violation of her religion violates this actually mentioned Constitutional right.

D2D Kim sure brings out the delusions of the left in spades



See?  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

The delusional leftard here can't even read who made the post much less site the laws she supposedly broke LOL !
Of course, you seem to think that the Constitution even mentions the right of marriage and that the SCOTUS makes law
You are the poster boy for "delusions R US" (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif) and the leftwingnuts who can read but can't understand what they read.

 Bwahahahaha!



Thanks for proving me right again about you and your looney leftist ignoramuses 69BirdBrain (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)
You make it tooooooo easy to prove what a moron you are! LOL !

It's not a left or right thing Bob. And article 6 of the constitution is not being violated. She swore to uphold the law and constitution and carry out her duties as required of her office. If she is unable to do that and practice her faith that is alright. Nobody asked her to violate her faith. Issuing a marriage license is definitey not an approval of the marriage. The clerks job is to look the application over and make sure the right boxes are checked and the person is eligible and has signed the application. Job done. The proper and honorable solution would be to resign her position. I would have a lot more respect for her had she done that rather than violating the law and forcing her religion on others.

Bob Huntress:To be honest, my first post on this county clerk actually agreed with the left. What changed my mind id Article 6 of the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from requiring a religious test to hold office or public truct. To require that the clerk issue a license in violation of her religion violates this actually mentioned Constitutional right.

Bobby Wayne,

Needless to say, you're not being honest if you're making the preposterous argument that Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses is protected by Article VI of the United States Constitution. 

Exactly Bob!

The left continues to look for rights where none obviously exists.

Since they have no religion themselves but communism which promotes atheism

there's can be no violation of her Constitutional rights long acknowledged

and not recently invented! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Even the judge that jailed her new she violated no law and released her since he had no case law he could use to keep her in jail!

While it is a far stronger case than they used at the Supreme Court to legalize same sex marriage, it has it's limits as a legal arguement. I waited until I saw the rebuttals before mentioning this. A good arguer could possibly argue that such religious test is exempt because of bonifid requirement of the office, yet in an honest court that might be a flip of the coin to see which arguement flew, and we don't have an honest court to try it in. A better arguement might have included that she was unable to act on the Ussc ruling until the state and county had a chance to review the ruling and amend the law accordingly or atleast issued their directions on the matter. That might have kept things going throughout her term and possibly a few terms.

Bob Huntress: While it is a far stronger case than they used at the Supreme Court to legalize same sex marriage, it has it's limits as a legal arguement. I waited until I saw the rebuttals before mentioning this. A good arguer could possibly argue that such religious test is exempt because of bonifid requirement of the office, yet in an honest court that might be a flip of the coin to see which arguement flew, and we don't have an honest court to try it in. A better arguement might have included that she was unable to act on the Ussc ruling until the state and county had a chance to review the ruling and amend the law accordingly or atleast issued their directions on the matter. That might have kept things going throughout her term and possibly a few terms.

Bobby Wayne,

The rambling rigmarole you posted above does not support your preposterous suggestion that scofflaw Davis's refusal to issue  marriage licenses--and her subsequent contempt--is protected by Article VI of the US Constitution. Point out exactly in that constitutional provision where it gives Davis power to defy the "Law of the Land," and the highest court in the land, under pretense of exercising her "religious freedom."

Oh, and by the way, Bobby, it's argument, not "arguement." And it's bona fide, not "bonifid."   

Hawk, if I acknowledge that "Wayne" is indeed my middle name, will you stop using it as if I didn't have a last name?

By the way, it's Davis' (not Davis's).

Bobby Wayne: Hawk, if I acknowledge that "Wayne" is indeed my middle name, will you stop using it as if I didn't have a last name?

No. And stop trying to change the subject, now that it has come to light that you don't really know what the fuck your bombastic ass is talking about.

Article VI, Paragraph 3, of the United States Constitution, as originally written, reads in its entirety as follows:
 
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the of the several State Legislatures, and all  executive  and judicial Officers, both of the United States  and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any Office  or public Trust under the United States.

 In an earlier post you wrote: While it is a far stronger case than they used at the Supreme Court to legalize same sex marriage, it has it's limits as a legal arguement. I waited until I saw the rebuttals before mentioning this. A good arguer could possibly argue that such religious test is exempt because of bonifid requirement of the office, yet in an honest court that might be a flip of the coin to see which arguement flew, and we don't have an honest court to try it in. A better arguement might have included that she was unable to act on the Ussc ruling until the state and county had a chance to review the ruling and amend the law accordingly or atleast issued their directions on the matter. That might have kept things going throughout her term and possibly a few terms.

Bobby Wayne, have you ever seen or heard anybody make the claim that Kim Davis was required to pass a religious test before she could hired to serve as County clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky? I can safely presume that you haven't; and neither have I.

Now, Bobby Wayne, go back and carefully read Article VI, Paragraph 3, of the US Constitution again and point out exactly the "actually mentioned constitutional right" which explicitly affords Kim Davis (or any other public servant) the right to defy the Constitution, or to be in contempt, under pretense that compliance with the Constitution, or obeying a lawful court order, would cause that public servant to violate his or her religious beliefs.
 

Bobby Wayne, I just noticed that I mistakenly posted the wrong paragraph. This is your bogus argument that I intended to post:

Bob Huntress:To be honest, my first post on this county clerk actually agreed with the left. What changed my mind id Article 6 of the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from requiring a religious test to hold office or public truct. To require that the clerk issue a license in violation of her religion violates this actually mentioned Constitutional right.

Now point out exactly in Article VI, Paragraph 3, of the United States Constitution where it explicitly gives Kim Davis (or any other public servant) either the right or power to defy the Supreme Law of the Land, and to commit the serious offense of contempt, under the pretense that obeying the Constitution and a lawful court order would result in the violation of his or her religious beliefs. And don't forget to tell us when Davis was required to pass a religious test before she could be hired to fulfill the duties of County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, And, as an extra bonus, humour the forum with another of your malarkey-filled posts that would attempt to explain how Davis's "religious freedom" gave her the right to defy the Constitution and a lawful order from the US Supreme Court.   

It is a 1st Amendment issue, Hawk.   She still has those Constitutional rights whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

Of course she does. But she does not have the right to break the law. If religious freedom were absolute, and above the law and the remainder of the constitution we would not be able to legally prevent honor killings, stonings, or other atrocities of Sharia law.

 sweetwater5s9: It is a 1st Amendment issue, Hawk. She still has those Constitutional rights whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

sweetwater5s9,

I'll accept your argument when you point out exactly where in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that Kim Davis is afforded the right to personally decide who should or should not be afforded rights guaranteed by that document and ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. I'll accept your argument when you provide evidence that proves Davis's refusal to fulfill her sworn duties as a public servant, based on her religious beliefs, is a right afforded by the First Amendment. I'll agree with you when you prove the First Amendment gave public servant Kim Davis the "religious freedom" to rewrite the United States Constitution and to defy a lawful order issued by the Supreme Court of the United States to comply with a controversy it had found to be constitutional. 

 

What everybody ignores is the fact that issuing a license is not a confirmation of approval or disapproval. Her jo is to simply ensure the application is properly filled out by persons legally eligible to enter into the contract.

That's not the issue.  The issue is whether or not the state can violate HER first amendment rights.

Then why have a clerk's name on it at all?

She does not want to participate in facilitating something that she believes violates her religious views.

It would be like a prison guard being required throw the switch on the electric chair in a state that legalized executions subsequent to his being hired.

dan tries constantly to substitute his own opinion for reality and then argue that his opinion is reality. 

isn't all this stuff your spouting dan merely your personal opinion?

opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.  Reality is that a court has decided the issue.

I am right.  Wvit is wrong.  Time to move along.

More of your opinion dan?

In Dan's case they both stink.

I don't know why they did that sine.   You should ask the State of Kentucky that question.


Before starting work, Davis addressed the media saying she would not issue or authorize licenses, but would not stop her deputies from issuing them. She said any licenses issued without her authority will be modified to not include her name or title.

"I am here before you this morning with a seemingly impossible choice that I do not wish on any of my fellow Americans,” Davis said.

Davis' Attorney Harry Mihet said the modifications are Davis' way of making good faith attempt to comply with Judge Bunning's order, while at the same time not violating her conscience.

"Kim Davis did modify the licenses in order to try to find a common sense reasonable way to move forward. She does not want to deny the orders of the federal court she wants very much to be able to comply. She doesn't want to be a whipping post and she doesn't want to be a martyr and she doesn't want to be incarcerated," Mihet said.


http://www.whas11.com/story/news/crime/2015/09/14/kim-davis-sept14-refusing-licences/72243966/

Under state law, deputy clerks may issue licenses and perform other duties just as elected clerks can, said Allison Connelly, director of the University of Kentucky's Legal Clinic. "I think that that's really immaterial," Connelly said of Davis' name not appearing on the licenses.

Attorneys for the couples included the information about the licenses in a report filed Tuesday at the direction of U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning.

Bunning ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses and jailed her for contempt on Thursday after she refused. He released Davis on Tuesday, however, saying that with deputy clerks issuing licenses, he was satisfied the office was fulfilling its obligation.

Bunning instructed Davis not to interfere with actions by her deputies to issue licenses, and told attorneys for the deputies to give him a report every 14 days on their compliance with the law.



Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586_marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

"I'm ... confident and satisfied that the licenses that were issued last week (and) this morning substantially comply with the law in Kentucky," Gov. Steve Beshear told reporters Monday. "And they're going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."

I don't know why they did that sine.   You should ask the State ...







No, the question was put to you by Dan and you run away from it like the lil beotch your are.

QuoteWhat everybody ignores is the fact that issuing a license is not a confirmation of approval or disapproval. Then why have a clerk's name on it at all?

Still confused I see nitwit ! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/kiss.gif)

A.

Because it IS for approval !  You are surely one stupid lefturd nitwit ! LOL !

Dan: That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the state can violate HER first amendment rights. [sic]

Dan, cite the First Amendment to the US constitution and then point out exactly which rights you're referring to. In other words, if as you say, the issue here is whether governmental oficials can violate Davis's First Amendment rights. Then cite those rights you're referring to, and explain how the Constitution allows here to deny rights granted by that same constitution; and especially explain how that same constitution allows here to be in contempt with impunity.   

sine, don't get upset and pissed off at me because you're stupid.  you're being stupid is not my fault.  blame your snaggle toothed parents.

Oh, I see now, LOL!

You don't like me calling you out on your stupidity and ignorance that you prove here proudly on a daily basis

but use you child like mind to deflect what is painfully obvious to the board

That you are one childish stupid lefturd as leftards go that is (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/emo_hattip.gif)

Evidently Dan and Sine both went to the same law school. I hope they saved the address they found on that sketchbook so they can ask for their money back. With their advanced knowledge of law I'm certain they will be victorious. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/rolleyes.gif)

Dan: She does not want to participate in facilitating something that she believes violates her religious views.

Then she should resign, Dan.

It would be like a prison guard being required throw the switch on the electric chair in a state that legalized executions subsequent to his being hired.

Dan, the hypothetical you presented above conveniently omits the guard's option to immediately resign his or her position on the first day capital punishment became legal in that state and, thus, avoid being put in a position that would require performing an act that he or she opposed.

 

Still she broke no law and the judge that jailed her

had to release her because he knew she broke no law

Again, for the dimwitted here, the SCOTUS rulings are not law

as only the legislature makes law. 

Still detractors cannot site the law that she broke

as the judge that had to release her was well aware(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

The law is plainly written so everyone can understand it

If it isn't the law says its void!


Too bad the leftist don't understand the law like they claim to understand the political

farce of AGW that makes leftist "supposed"experts in the field of  science (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

This thread, "About the Bigot Kim Davis," began with our forum's resident native-American bigot asking if we had been told a little bit of news concerning Kim Davis and Judge Tanya Parker. (See post #1 of this thread.) Well, I'm presenting this little bit of evidence that refutes the mostly false bullshit that our forum's Chief Lotsa Bull posted in support of the phony martyr, false heroine, and--last but not least--right-wingnut and crackpot Kim Davis.


http://m.snopes.com/tonya-parker/ (http://m.snopes.com/tonya-parker/)

SHEHAWK KIM DAVIS IS ONE OF YOU DEMORATSIT MUST SCARE SHIT RIGHT OUT OF YOU AND HAVE IT RUNNING DOWN YOUR LEGS THAT WE ARE CONVERTING EVEN YOUR KIND! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Snopes is only proof that a Cat lady in an apartment with a computer

and to much time on her hands can make the ignorant think that her opinions are credible

LOL! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

So, exactly how many cats do you have Sine. Is that why you subscribe to so many cockamamy conspiracy theories.

Even large bold all caps font doesn't make your argument less irrational. It looks like you choose to remain stuck on stupid. BTW, the Constitution does trump state law. Kentucky can't choose to override the SCOTUS decision.

It's obvious Kim is upholding Kentucky's state law... the left don't have a leg to stand on... until the state law is changed.

kim was tossed in the slammer for disobeying the judge

simple as that

And she was released by the same judge because
He knew that he had no grounds to keep her jailed or to jail her
In the first place

Period !

fuck off pedo

F** Off ....



And that is the apex of leftist intelligence (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)
Must be the degrading influence of supporting and practicing perversion on the leftist brain ! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

"[Kim Davis] broke no law[;] the judge [who] jailed her had to release her[,] because he  knew she broke no law."
___sine-qua-non, reply # 61 0f this thread.

"[Kim Davis's] detractors canot site [sic] the law she broke[.] The judge had to release her [, as he was well aware of the plainly written law that everyone can understand."
__sine-qua-non, reply #63 of this thread.

Despite sine-qua-non's repeated (and erroneous) assertion, David Bunning, a federal district judge, ordered the incarceration of Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, for her failure to comply with federal court orders that she resume issuing marriage licenses.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/03/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-jailed-for-contempt (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/03/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-jailed-for-contempt)

Davis was jailed for contempt of court.

Contempt, in law , is the willful disregard or disobedience of public authority, such as a court or legislative assembly. Contempt is usually shown by failure to obey specific demands [Davis's offense], or by insults. Such acts are intended to challenge or reduce  public authority or dignity. There are two contempt of court; those committed in a court, which disturb or interrupt its proceedings, and those that result from a refusal to comply with an order of the court [Davis's offense]. Both are punishable by fine or imprisonment.
___ James O. Fickenauer, The World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Ci-Cz (2013)

contempt n  1.  a judicial or legislative finding of willful conduct disrupting the procedures of a court (contempt of court)  [Davis's offense] or legislature (e.g. contempt of Congress). Unless otherwise specified, "contempt" alone usually means contempt of court. The person or entity guilt of contempt is called a contemnor.

2.  civil contempt   continuing contempt for which the court imposes a sanction that is to be lifted as soon as the contempt ends. The usual case is refusal to comply with a court order [Davis's offense], for which the court places a person in jail or imposes a daily fine with the understanding that the fine or jailing will end as soon as steps are taken to comply with the the order.
___James E. Clapp, Random House Webster's Dictionary of Law (2000)

civil contempt. The failure to obey to obey a court order that was issued for another party's benefit. [Davis's offense]

A civil-contempt proceeding is coercive or remedial in nature. The usual sanction is to confine the contemnor until he or she complies with the court order. The act (or failure to act) complained of must be within the  defendant's power to perform and the contempt order must state how the contempt may be purged. Imprisonment for civil contempt is indefinite and for a term that lasts until the defendant complies with the decree.
___Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor In Chief (2004)

Contemnor Kim Davis was incarcerated for her failure to comply with a court order (civil contempt).

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/09/kim-davis-jailed-contempt (http://crooksandliars.com/2015/09/kim-davis-jailed-contempt)

She was released only after Federal District Judge David L. Bunning was satisfied the Rowan County Clerk's Office was in compliance with the court order that was imposed on it. Compliance with the court order occurred when deputy clerks in the Rowan County Clerk's office--with the exception of scofflaw Davis's son--stated, under oath, that they would  resume issuing marriage licenses to all legally qualified couples--including same-sex couples.





 

Contempt of court is not a law, it's a court order.  Again for the lame of brain
Only the legislature can pass laws !

You should practice reading first so you will be as good at understanding what you read

As you are at C&P'ing!  LOL!


Thanks again for proving my point, she broke no law! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Dan: By the way, it's Davis' (not Davis's).


Dan, it's roundly accepted that the possessive of singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe s.

Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend

Burns's poems

the witches malice

Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names ending -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for consciences' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Moses' Laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by

the laws of Moses

the temple of Isis

William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (2000), p.1.

Davis's is the singular possessive form of Davis, the plural possessive form is Davis'.

Thus, it's correct for me to write, "Federal District Judge David L. Bunning threw Kim Davis's scofflaw ass in the slammer after finding her in contempt, an act that caused intense and widespread indignation among Davis' right-wingnut supporters."

Um...by the way, take a seat and shut the fuck up, Debunked Dan.

69BirdBrain continues to fan the flames burning up his ass

with his ignorance, low info low mental capacity and hate which is typical of the deranged collectivist

socialist unAmerican left!

Even after being corrected for the umpteenth time showing us his inability to learn (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

I'm sure in some strange conspiracy nutty way sine believes her rantings make sense.

To: Chief Shitting Bull, our forum's Native-American loud-mouthed, bigot, ignoramus, and nutcase.
 
Evidently you must've had your head stuck up that red ass of yours again when the Supreme Court of the United States struck down state laws that prohibited same-sex marriages. Evidently, you still refuse the fact that same-sex marriages are constitutional and, thus, legal throughout the jurisdiction of the United States government and the United States Constitution upon which the laws of the United States are based. so your babbling about Kentucky's law banning same-sex marriage is irrelevant, just as that erstwhile law is now irrelevant. Same-sex marriage is now constitutionally protected in all the states--including Kentucky. The law you're harping on is now unenforceable; it's now null and void.

Kim Davis's religious beliefs, no matter how strongly held, do not trump those guaranteed by the US Constitution. If her religious beliefs prevent her from performing the duties required by her being a public servant--duties she swore an oath to perform--then she should had resigned her position. That would had allowed her to continue to practice her religious beliefs without trampling on the constitutional rights of her fellow citizens.

The fact that Davis isn't employed by the federal government does not mean she isn't bound by federal law. When the US Supreme Court ruled that laws banning same-sex marriages in this country are unconstitutional and, therefore, unenforceable, that ruling became the law of the land. When Davis failed to obey that law, and failed to comply with a court order demanding her compliance with that law,  Federal District Judge David L. Bunning ordered her indefinite incarceration until her office resumed issuing marriage licenses again. (Davis had forbade her deputy clerks to stop issuing all marriage licenses in a vain--and rather foolish attempt-- to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex marriage is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.)

And if you're attempting to argue that state law trumps federal law, then I suggest you read Article VI, Paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I'm sure  ....  sine believes her rantings mak sense ...














Only to reasonable, informed and intelligent folk, which leaves you out


nitwvit as you so aptly admit (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)

Looks like 69BirdBrain has lost it one more time here LOL!

I'm sure in some strange conspiracy nutty way sine believes her rantings make sense.

Now you are babbling nitwvit !

LOL ! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

no sine.  I'm saying that you are a conspiracy nutcase.  a complete moron.  as dumb as a bag of hammers.  looney tunes.  a few bricks shy of a load.  that your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.  that you are a complete idiot.

No, sine-qua-non. Truth is, your dumb ass has been babbling all the while. And in case you haven't noticed, all your right-wingnut pals have flown the coop and left you alone to make a fool of yourself--just like they always do. So keep on babbling your imbecilic tommyrot. Keep on showing the forum that you're still our official village idiot.

LOL

THERE IS ONE POINT I HAVE NOT SEEN BROUGHT INTO THIS DISCUSSION. MANY TIMES I HAVE HEARD FROM THE LEFT THAT SHE MUST UPHOLD HER OATH, BUT THE OATH SHE SWORE TO OBEY ALONG WITH THE LAW SHE SWORE TO OBEY, DID NOT AT THAT TIME, CONTAIN THE ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSES TO GAYS. THEREFORE THE LAW CHANGED SHE DIDN'T! SO FROM A VERY NARROW LEGAL POSITION SHE HAS NOT VIOLATED HER OATH OF OFFICE!!!!

I didn't see anywhere in the laws of the state or the oath that it said it was only good for the window of time that she made the oath.  where did you get this legal idea that the oath was only good for the laws at the time of her swearing in wazoo?

Oh look nitwvit !

Your babbling on has a contagious effect

Now you got 69BirdBrain making a bigger moron of himself as well !!!

Monkey see monkey do sure fits Y O U like a shoe!  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

no sine, you're the moron here.  a big old goofy conspiracy nutty moron.  hahahahahahahahaa.

Babblers are the morons and laughing idiots which means you two

"Fits you like a shoe too !  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Now run away and hide like you did from your other post when You got spanked
Like a lil beotch you are

what are you talking about sine?  I know you get upset because I make you look silly all the time, but what's the point of this post of yours?  I don't see that you've said anything at all about the topic at hand.  you just follow me from post to post begging for abuse.

Just the contrary

I've never seen as big a masochist as you are willing to get your stupid posts spanked 6 ways to Sunday laws here

So, it's either you have no shame, common among the leftards, or are a complete moron, also increasingly common

Or possibly both (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Now slink away while you still look only stupid

so you have nothing, is that what you saying?

Sine is as big a moron as I've seen on this board. I've not seen anyone that can type so many words in a string that makes absolutley no sense at all.
 
DaBoz is dumber than a stump, but at least he only posts one liners.

You were warned that I won't dumb down my posts made here for

The likes of you and nitwvit, W.,.BS
It wouldn't be fair to the sane and informed folks here!
That you obviously forgot that is very telling about you , none good (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Now run along until they call you for lunch, child ! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

so you still have nothing, is that what you saying?

I didn't see anywhere in the laws of the state or the oath that it said it was only good for the window of time that she made the oath. 


ARE YOU REALLY CLAIMING TO HAVE READ THE LAWS OF THAT STATE AS THEY PERTAIN TO APPOINTED OR ELECTED OFFICIALS BECAUSE IF YOU ARE I AM CALLING YOU A LIAR!


where did you get this legal idea that the oath was only good for the laws at the time of her swearing in wazoo?

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THAT IS TRUE THE LAW SHE SWORE TO UPHOLD DID, IN FACT CHANGE, THEREFORE SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO SWEAR A NEW OATH IN ORDER FOR HER TO HAVE VIOLATED HER OATH!

You still have trouble with words

That is what you are saying !

IT'S A FELONY UNDER KENTUCKY LAW TO ISSUE A MARRIAGE LICENSE TO A QUEER COUPLE> KIM DAVIS HAS TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAW SHE WAS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2kaf843fecc6.jpg)

To: upyerwazoo

in re: Reply #97

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a law that Kim Davis had sworn to uphold: a law banning same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, that state laws banning same-sex marriage is now unconstitutional; the right of same-sex couples to marry is now the law, a law in effect and enforceable in every state--including Kentucky. On other hand, the state law banning same-sex marriage, a law  Kim Davis swore to uphold as County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, is now null and void and, thus, unenforceable, having been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

upyerwazoo: [Technically speaking], the law [County Clerk Kim Davis]swore to uphold did, in fact[,] change[.]Therefore[,] she would have had to swear a new oath for her to have violated her oath.

(That, in essence, is the same argument you presented back in reply #86. But it's as defective now as it was then.)

upyerwazoo,

A critical reader has no difficulty spotting the obvious flaw in your argument; its sophistry sticks out like a sore thumb. While it's indeed true that Kentucky's marriage law has changed due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, the oath Davis swore to perform the duties as County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, has not changed. It's still in effect. even though she willfully chose to ignore. Her willful violation of her oath of office notwithstanding, Davis is still duty bound--morally and legally obliged--to perform the duties her job requires her to do; and those duties now include issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

As a result of her willful disobedience of a court order demanding she perform her sworn duties, scofflaw Davis was held in contempt and punished with indefinite incarceration, and released only on condition that she not interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses--licenses issued in compliance with the new marriage law, which took immediate effect when that state's marriage law (a law Davis swore to uphold) was found unconstitutional in Obergefell. If Davis interferes again with issuing of marriage licenses (and apparently she's doing just that!), she will again be in willful violation of the oath she swore when she chose to perform the duties of County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. And, in addition to that, and more important, her interference will be grounds on which to hold her in contempt again.



 

You're right Sine, it was the same old law... clarified by the Supreme Court, which declared the Kentucky law banning same sex marriage unconstitutional. So the clerk was in violation of the constitution from day one. Thankfully, they can't prosecute her because her bosses got it wrong by allowing the ban in the first place.

Thanks for agreeing that 69BirdBrain is fully Shit W...BS

and doesn't even comprehend what he C&P's here.

Btw, there was nothing illegal done from "day one"

Not even the authors of the 14th never saw these "new rights" that this compromised SCOTUS court found and they wrote it!

as you can read about in the dissenting opinions if you want to be honest!

Don't you ever tire of being so wrong, so often. The Kentucky law and others were declared unconstitutional by a majority of the Supreme Court Justices, I did read the dissenting opinions, not that they mean anything other than they are on the losing side.
 
I do not agree that whoever you're talking about is wrong.

Nope, never tire of proving the leftards wrong ... It so easy

You don't agree?

That's not what you posted in # 103 (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

You really have trouble with words apparently

I try to keep that in mind when posting to you here, try is the operative word!

You are the troubled on Chemtrail. I suspect you've been huffing again.

Kim Davis - American Hero - deserves the Medal of Freedom!!!!

not really wavy. 

Medal of Freedom (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)


(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)Like A modern day Rosa Parks  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Standing up to tyranny takes a strong person
Something that is lost on the anarchist left!

WWV10MHZ: Kim Davis, American Hero, deserves the Medal of Freedom.


No, WWV10MHZ, Kim Davis is a right-wingnut scofflaw, a phony heroine and false martyr of the far-right's lunatic fringe. And if allegations are true that she's interfering with the issuing of marriage licenses again, then she deserves to be held in contempt again, and to be thrown in the slammer again.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/22/440860617/kentucky-clerk-again-accused-of-interfering-with-county-marriage-licenses (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/22/440860617/kentucky-clerk-again-accused-of-interfering-with-county-marriage-licenses)

http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20150922/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-could-head-back-to-court-for-altering-marriage-licenses (http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20150922/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-could-head-back-to-court-for-altering-marriage-licenses)

More like a modern day George Wallace standing up for bigotry and discrimination.

sine-qua-non,

Your logical fallacies:

Faulty Comparison--comparing one thing to another that's not really related in order to make one thing more desirable than it really is.

False Analogy--Assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in soe other respect.

You're confused again, sine-qua-non: civil rights icon Rosa Parks was thrown in jail for demanding constitutional rights she was entitled to have. Scofflaw Kim Davis was thrown in jail for denying constitutional rights that others were entitled to have.

Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/10/kim-davis-no-rosa-parks-critics-say/72016182/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/10/kim-davis-no-rosa-parks-critics-say/72016182/)

you woulnt recognize a strong person resisting tyranny
if one was standing in front of you 69BirdBrain
you just proved what i said "something lost on the left "
were you always this dumb ???

sine-qua-non: you woulnt ....

"Woulnt?"

 Shut the fuck up you ignorant ass clown. I've grown tired of your stupidity and imbecility. Better luck next time, you blithering idiot.

HAHAHAHA

Jesus H Christ.  Cant we put this meaningless piece of shit thread out of it's misery?

Negroes always come down on the side of Fags.

Why IS that?

Looks like I hurt 69BirdBrains feelings(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/cry.gif)

But, he did prove me right " lost on the left" again and himself a dummy (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

WHY DO LIBERALS FIGHT TO DESTROY THOSE THAT FOLLOW THE LAWS THEY DON'T LIKE??

Hayes: WHY DO LIBERALS FIGHT TO DESTROY THOSE THAT FOLLOW THE LAWS THEY DON'T LIKE?

Chief Shitting Bull, Why did  Kim Davis deny willfully deny constitutional rights to those to whom they were due; and, in addition to that, why did she willfully disobey the law of the land and also disobey a court order to follow the law of the land?

Why?



Why do the founders of America disobey unjust laws or their wrong interpretation

that started this country ???

Byteryder: Jesus H Christ.  Cant we put this meaningless piece of shit thread out of it's misery?

Oh Yeah! This a "piece of shit thread" because our forum's right-wingmut ass clowns are getting their dumb asses handed to them; and, of course, your invoking Jesus isn't helping at all. Right, byteryder7?

HAHAHAHA


                                                                                                                                       

 
sine-qua-non,

Yesterday you made the asinine attempt to elevate bigot and right-wing kook Kim Davis to the status of civil riights icon Rosa Parka. And today you're making the ludicrous attempt to elevate  right-wingnut kook Kim Davis to the status of the Republic's founders. Well Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks and she can't hold a candle to either the  founders of our Republic or the framers of our Constitution. Damn! You get even more ifiotic with each passing day. Take a seat and shut the fuck up, fool!

sine-qua-non: Of course, you seem to think that the Constitution even mentions the right of marriage

I've never made that claim, because--as you've correctly stated--the Constitution makes no mention of a "right of marriage." What the Constitution does say, however, is that all persons under its jurisdiction is afforded equal protection under the law i.e. no state shall pass any law which allows heterosexual couples to marry but prohibits same-sex couples to marry.   

and that the SCOTUS makes law.

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), did the Supreme Court actually "make" a law or did it strike down an unconstitutional law? And if the high court strikes down all state laws as being unconstitutional (e.g. state laws banning same-sex marriage), doesn't that, in actuality, make same-sex marriage the law of the land?
 

No, it doesn't and you can't parse words to make it so or have it both ways

Kim was following the law of the land as Congress acknowledged  ...

CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE "THE WORD OF GOD". PUBLIC LAW 97-280 OCT. 4, 1982. Public Law 97-280 96 (http://tel:97-280) STAT. 1211 97th Congress. Joint Resolution.

Religious liberty is guaranteed by our constitution and federal law requires the government to find reasonable accommodations for people who, like Kim Davis, have deeply held religious beliefs.

Kim Davis was elected or appointed to issue marriage licenses as only
one of the MANY duties of a County Clerk. Nobody anticipated that five
lawyers, who happen to be sitting on Supreme Court Benches THREE of whom
were REQUIRED by LAW to recuse themselves and were PROHIBITED by LAW of
entering opinions because by LAW they WERE REQUIRED to Recuse
themselves! Kagan and Sotomayer had already been paid attorneys for one
side of the issue and Ginsburg should long ago have been impeached for
her OPEN CONTEMPT for the Constitutiion she SWORE to protect and defend.

You lucifarians America haters lose again (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/emo_hattip.gif)

sine-qua-non: Kim was following the law of the land as Congress acknowledged:

CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE "THE WORD OF GOD". PUBLIC LAW 97-280 OCT. 4, 1982. Public Law <a href="97-280 96 (http://<a") STAT. 1211 97th Congress. Joint Resolution.

Religious liberty is guaranteed by our constitution and federal law requires the government to find reasonable accommodations for people who, like Kim Davis, have deeply held religious beliefs.

Kim Davis was blah blah blah....

sine-qua-non,

You're confused again: Congress's  joint resolution declaring the Bible the "Word of God" made neither Christianity itself--nor Kim Davis's extreme interpretation of it--the "law of the land." And, obviously, Davis was not following the law of the land when she denied rights afforded by the US Constitution: the Supreme Law of the Land). And yes, while it's true our religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, it contains no guarantee that rights guaranteed in the Constitution can be denied in the name of religion. Davis's religious beliefs--regardless of how deeply held-- do not trump rights afforded and guaranteed by the Constitution.


And your arguing about which Supreme Court Justices heard Obergefell v. Hodges is irrelevant. The case hinged not on who heard the case and handed down the decision, but on their interpretation of the Constitution. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favour of same-sex unions...finding that the right to marry is a fundamental right (same-sex couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples), and that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriages are, therefore, unconstitutional. And, needless to say, your rambling (and rather ridiculous) tirade at the conclusion of your post is nothing more than the usual right-wingnut claptrap we've come to expect from you.






Public Law 97-280  96?


Yeah...Right, sine-qua-non.
[snicker]


 

You've already proven here that you don't understand what you read or post 69BirdBrain

Your babbling and drooling now doesn't help you and your warped misinterpretations

look any better than they originally did! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Apparently that you are to dumb to understand what recluse means is no surprise to those that read your laughable posts here
Now, go to your room and wait to be called for dinner child (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/kiss.gif)

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/43.gif):You've already proven here that you don't understand what you read or post 69BirdBrain

Truth is, sine-qua-non, you've allowed me to let you prove again how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are.
Your babbling and drooling now doesn't help you and your warped misinterpretations look any better than they originally did.

Have you been a lunatic all your life, sine-qua-non?

Apparently that you are to dumb to understand what recluse means is no surprise to those that read your laughable posts here.

Actually it was your asinine  "recluse" argument laughable, sine-qua-non.
 
Now, go to your room and wait to be called for dinner child. [sic]

Shut the fuck up, you demented ass clown!

HAHA

Wow! A post of nothing but ad hominems. Apparently you're still too dumb to realise that your logical fallacies will never trump factual evidence. Huh, you little simple-minded moron? Go ahead and admit it! You're a DUMB little bitch. Aren't you, sine-qua-non?

LOL

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2k1e39399994.jpg)

Double Standard.....  Negroes and Homos can do whatever they please without fear of any consequences under SOBama.

The bigot Kim Davis is no different than the bigots who want to restrict the rights of gun owners.

Give Local5th credit for admitting that racist and homophobe Kim Davis is a bigot.

Yup. A bigot just like you Hawk.

(http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Mf0c91b29f13b72360035356d34fde7beo0&w=157&h=211&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0)
Uh-oh, Local5th.  Look's like you've turned to the Dark Side of Rationality. Now you're as bat-shit-crazy as D2D, jst-the-fax, and all the other ass clowns in this forum.

I thought they solved the Kim Davis issue in Kentucky?   Was she booted out recently or does she still have her job without having to violate he Christian beliefs?   What's new?