ABOUT THE BIGOT KIM DAVIS............

[Dan]

If she wanted to get thrown in the slammer...

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!

[chuck_curtis]

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.

[sine-qua-non]

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

[1965hawks]

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?

[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.

[sine-qua-non]

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



See? 

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" 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
You make it tooooooo easy to prove what a moron you are! LOL !

[wmdn_bs]

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.

[1965hawks]

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. 

[sine-qua-non]

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!

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!

[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.

[1965hawks]

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."   

[Bob Huntress]

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?