book her Danno...

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-seeks-same-sex-marriage-license-reprieve-032137716.html (http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-seeks-same-sex-marriage-license-reprieve-032137716.html)#

Maybe her jail garb will be higher fashion:x

She will STILL look dumpy.

She can give Hillary some clues.

And the police state is in full effect.

I told ya so.

The judge missed the 1st Amendment in law school apparently.   This is far from over.   It is similar under law to sending a conscientious objector into combat and putting him in prison for refusing to go.   A pure violation of the Constitution.

oh fer crissakes, grow the hell up

all she's gotta do is have a stack of signed licenses at the counter and the sane clerk can issue them

jeez people love to think they are so friggen important......... stupid dame

how does she explain God not striking those homos dead on the spot ?

they must not be as evil as she thinks

how does she explain God not striking those homos dead on the spot ?


Read the Bible and you would know why...   Hate the sin not the sinner ring a bell?

Prior to Jesus God did strike them dead.

And the police state is in full effect.

I told ya so.

AND---FAG's Cheer!!!!


(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q81/randy762ak/POLITICS/IMG_4527_2.jpg) (http://s134.photobucket.com/user/randy762ak/media/POLITICS/IMG_4527_2.jpg.html)

Are you talking about sodom and gomorra, sweet?

cas, maybe she can ask her 1st or 2nd or 3rd husband or offspring by one dude while another adopted the child from yet another dude...if that makes sense which it doesn't.

she's just using religion as an excuse for staying stupid

caserio - SHUT THE H*LL UP.

We have HAD it with your judgmental, know-it-all attitude.  I swear, you would argue with God Himself.  Obviously, you must not have a single teensy-tiny CLUE what a CONSCIENCE is, or what MORALS are.

Every single American ought to be appalled by this.  It appears that we NO LONGER HAVE the God-given RIGHTS our Founding Fathers told the entire WORLD that we have been "endowed with by their Creator".  FIVE UNELECTED LAWYERS OVERRULED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION.  FIVE, NOT NINE - the other four justices wanted nothing to do with this horrible and Constitutionally-WRONG decision.  FIVE UNELECTED LAWYERS think they know more than the Almighty Ruler of the universe.  Their political agenda is more important than the First Amendment to the Constitution.

By this logic, those who refused to report for military service, claiming the status of "conscientious objector", can now be jailed.  In fact, I look for this to be done away with at some point - and the precedent was set TODAY.  We can no longer claim a "right of conscience" as a reason not to do something.

We have no representative government any more in this country.  We are all at the mercy of those UNELECTED LAWYERS who think they know more than God.

you shut up, goofy fake religious clown.  YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE IF IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO DO SO AS PART OF YOUR JOB.  a judge cannot punish a gay person for shoplifting more than a straight person, or a black more than an asian, based on his goofy religion. SHE TOOK AN OATH TO DO HER JOB, TO FOLLOW THE LAW, NOT TO FOLLOW HER OWN DUMBASS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  she is a liar.  she is not following the law, and she won election as a county clerk and promised to do so.  what she does in her spare time is her business, how she follows the law as an elected official is the court's business, is everybody's business, and you are too goddamn hung up in your fake christianity to see that.  who cares what you idiots think about gay marriage or equal rights?  leave it outside your workplace, idiot. 

There is no one so blind as the man who REFUSES to see.

 In one aspect, the majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty.

“Finally," the Court wrote, "it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

We’ll have to see what this actually means in coming years, but when filtered through any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, what it means is that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.” Ever.

There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Little doubt indeed.

The goal of “LGBT” activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion – Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.

And not surprisingly, homosexual activists are not content with the redefining of marriage that has been around for millennia. Immediately following the Supreme Court's decision, activists announced they would now target religious institutions. In other words, overhauling the true meaning of marriage is not enough. Activists are not content to just live their lives and let religious believers live theirs. Instead, homosexual activists want to force believers to give up their deeply held beliefs rooted in God by being active participants in their actions.

As for those who believe the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, and therefore conclude that same-sex "marriage" must be good, remember one thing: The Supreme Court also ruled that slavery was okay. Should we have believed them then as well?

What the five Supreme Court justices did is institutionalize and validate discrimination against people of faith while severely undermining, if not outright tossing out, our Constitution. It also seriously undermined an institution that existed primarily for the benefit of children and turned it into something that is only about adults.

This issue is much, much more complicated than the simple treatment it's getting in the media.

The decision also drew sharp criticism from the Court’s four justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, rightly observed that the activist majority opinion hijacks the democratic process and is not based on the rule of law: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” wrote Roberts.

Justice Scalia similarly called the ruling a “threat to American democracy.” The “pretentious” and “egotistic” decision, he railed, “robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges 'has been with us for millennia.'

The First Amendment ensures protection for religious organizations and individuals as they seek to teach the principles "that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths" and to "their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered." From majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.


Far from over...



Julie Szydlowski

Hooty wants an armed revolution...  He thinks he will win by hiding under his bed...

Me thinks this is not over...

Yep, and more to the point

Ac­cord­ing to Scalia, the five justices in the ma­jor­ity used the 14th Amend­ment in a way that was nev­er in­ten­ded by its writers. “When the Four­teenth Amend­ment was rat­i­fied in 1868, every State lim­ited mar­riage to one man and one wo­man, and no one doubted the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of do­ing so,” he wrote

They [the ma­jor­ity] have dis­covered in the Four­teenth Amend­ment a ‘fun­da­ment­al right’ over­looked by every per­son alive at the time of rat­i­fic­a­tion, and al­most every­one else in the time since.”

Scalia called out the ma­jor­ity for act­ing like act­iv­ists, not judges. (He was sim­il­arly crit­ic­al in Thursday’s rul­ing on health care.) “States are free to ad­opt whatever laws they like, even those that of­fend the es­teemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judg­ment,’” he wrote.

Scalia’s scorn went bey­ond pick­ing apart the ma­jor­ity’s leg­al judge­ment. He also made fun of their language.

The ma­jor­ity began its opin­ion with the line: “The Con­sti­tu­tion prom­ises liberty to all with­in its reach, a liberty that in­cludes cer­tain spe­cif­ic rights that al­low per­sons, with­in a law­ful realm, to define and ex­press their iden­tity.” (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif[/img]So Kim is allowed by law to express her belief without reprisal. Period [IMG]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)

me thinks?  typical teabagger attempt at a sentence.  what is jerkwater drooling about?  why would i want an armed revolution?  the good guys are WINNING...WINNING....this idiot has been punished for believing she gets to decide who gets marriage licenses based on her dumbass religious beliefs!!  schools can't force kids to pray.  that is great.  you racist pigs can't discriminate openly against blacks in almost every public business without getting fired.  that is great.  society is evolving.  you neanderthals are left high and dry in your caves still drawing stick pictures.  good luck with that, mouth breathers. 

You will always be a simple minded idiot, Hooty, so like Cas I will not explain it to you even if you had enough of an IQ to understand...   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/cool.gif)

The goal of LGBT has nothing to do with religion, the goal is simply to be treated the same as everyone else.

She was and is free to quit her job and find more suitable employment.

Or she could be reasonable and stop being such a self centered sanctimonious jack ass. Her choice.

And if she honestly thinks god would send her to hell for signing some marriage papers as her job, I suggest she find a different god because that god is an asshole.

Off with her head!

what a dumbass teabagger type argument.  if some clown VOLUNTEERED (there is no draft, remember?) and then decided he was a conscientious objector, and refused to shine his shoes or make his bed just right or learn to march in unison, then he would be drummed out for not following orders, not for his religious views.  if he was one of the few actually sent to a combat mission, and he claimed that conversion, he would be given a hearing to see if he was being sincere or not, and judged by that criteria.  if sincere, he would get an honorable discharge.  if not, a dishonorable or just a discharge.  the army does not want people who do not want to kill people being in combat where others have to depend on them.  duh. 

NO, the Gaystapo WANTED her punished for daring to tell them NO.

They wanted the judge to FINE her.  HEAVILY fine her - as in IMPOVERISH and BANKRUPTCY HEAVILY FINE HER.

The judge disagreed, saying he didn't believe that fining her would cause her to change her mind.

I don't believe that going to jail will, either.

They don't want her punished, they want the licenses.

She can RESIGN at any time. Nobody is forcing her to stay.

If they really want a license there are over 150 places in KY that they can get one...   No one is forcing them to go to her office.

No, they want more than license

A license is just their beginning

The destruction of the family and of America is their sole aim.

Why is the left so easily duped by other leftards is the question that needs answer.

They are free to go elsewhere.  They want to punish her for daring to oppose their homosexual agenda.  This is how they got the reputation of being the "Gay Gestapo."

Everyone else don't want to cross dress in the work place.

If they reside in the county she clerks for they should not be forced to go to another county to receive services. They vote and pay taxes in that county, and the clerk works for them.

"The destruction of the family and of America is their sole aim."

What bullshit.

Also, they should not HAVE to go to another county. Especially since there is no guarantee the same will not happen there.

None of you would stand for being treated like that. It is wrong.

We endure it every day.  Welcome to our world.

bhsgrad1972: "We have HAD it with your judgmental, know-it-all attitude. I swear, you would argue with God Himself."
 
bhsgrad1972 are you sure you aren't talking about Dan?

"The goal of LGBT has nothing to do with religion, the goal is simply to be treated the same as everyone else.

She was and is free to quit her job and find more suitable employment.

Or she could be reasonable and stop being such a self centered sanctimonious jack ass. Her choice.

And if she honestly thinks god would send her to hell for signing some marriage papers as her job, I suggest she find a different god because that god is an asshole."   *Darkflower*

THAT pretty much sums it all up in a nut shell, Darkflower.

Kudos to your clarity of the situation.

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

I agree with Dan.  We Christians ARE being treated as pariahs, right here in our own country - in the country that was FOUNDED by people who left England / Europe in search of the FREEDOM to believe and worship as THEY CHOSE, not as the government TOLD them to do.

If all that was wanted was the licenses, those people could have gone to any other county, or to Ohio or West Virginia.  The Gaystapo PICKED Rowan County for this, because they KNEW that Kim Davis would not back down.  She was chosen to be their example of what happens to Christians who don't kneel down at the altar of immorality.  She and her husband have received death threats, threats of arson, and other vile wishes of harm to their persons.  That doesn't sound to me like "all they wanted was the licenses".

And NO, wmdn_bs, I am NOT talking about Dan.  I usually agree with Dan on MOST things.  I directed that specifically at caserio because I am tired of his CRAP.

sweet......  Excellent Post!!!  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/angel.gif)  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

sweetwater5s9 (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=165)Contributor Sr. Member Posts: 89099

Re: Kim Davis IN Custody for Contempt of Court (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=213838.msg1722713#msg1722713) « Reply #8 on: Today at 01:57:42 PM » (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Themes/Voicebbs/images/english/reply_sm2.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=213838.0;num_replies=33) how does she explain God not striking those homos dead on the spot ? Read the Bible and you would know why...   Hate the sin not the sinner ring a bell? Prior to Jesus God did strike them dead.

The Libs/Atheists/Fags/Dems obviously DON'T understand the fact that "Jesus DIED for OUR sins!!!".

By doing that, we were given a pathway to Heaven if we choose to follow it.  Accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and reject Satan and his ways.

It's as simple as that!!!!!!

Sins and the ways of Satan are outlined in the Bible. It's there for everyone to read or have someone tell them about.

Real Marriage is described there.

Homosexuality is described there.

Killing is described there, including babies.

Lying is described there.

Out-of-marriage sex is described there.

It's ALL in the Bible. Read it and you'll know how God expects you to live your life.

Very easy.

Of course, you still have Free Will and can sin to your heart's content. But, remember where that will send you. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/cry.gif)

More bullshit "scare tactics" from the republican/tea party traitor hypocrites..

Big Deal....

Meh......


Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

Free Will has been shown in EEG to be background noise.

"could have gone to any other county"

That is not acceptable. I am not the first to point that out.

The people treated like pariahs in their own country are gays not christians. Nobody is singling christians out and saying they must go find some other county for a marriage license.

There is no right to discriminate based on religious belief. There never has been. Religious freedom demands that government and business NOT discriminate like that, not they they be allowed to.

I can't believe that there are people on this Forum and on this Thread that actually call GOD and "a-hole"!!!!!!!!!!!!

What kind of people ARE YOU? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

If we were having this discussion in person, I would NEVER converse with them EVER again!!!!!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

so

jews and muslims are locked out of heaven

serves them right

I have called him much worse, because he is the most evil creature I know of.

that's an interesting concept

why do you say that?

"PICKED Rowan County for this"

No, they picked it because they live there. The only people looking for a fight are the fundamentalists.

She has said the couples could drive to a nearby county to get a marriage license. But the couples all say they want to get married in the county where they live, work and pay taxes. Here is a look at those couples:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kentucky-marriage-fight-20150902-story.html

Cas, if that is at me, it is because that is how the bible portrays him. Murderous, vengeful, arrogant, prideful, lying, treacherous, you name it. Jesus otoh was a nice guy.

yeah it's you

cas just never heard that before

he did free the jews from egyptian bondage

and send his son to save the world

and he made cas

So bhsgrad1972, in your opinion it is alright if Dan, or someone you agree with is argumentive to the point of ridiculousness, but not someone with an opinion differing from you?

I have no interest in converting anyone and only mentioned it on this thread because the lady claimed she would go to hell if she signed the marriage licenses. So I pointed out such a god (who would do that to her for that sole reason) is not worthy.

teabaggers believe PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH THEIR DISTORTED VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON OTHERS.  the rest of us say, step off, bozos.  if you don't want to serve blacks and homos and muslims then go get a job where you don't have to.  so simple even a dumbass fake christian teabagger can do it.  nancy dan actually believes every judge, every cop, every teacher, every baker, ever florist can decide if whomever he comes in contact with as part of his public job meets his own religious standards or he can refuse to serve them.  that is not the law.  you are idots.  quit being such stupid jerks.  if it were a muslim county clerk refusing to issue a marriage license to a couple because the woman was not covering her head and face and did not walk 3 steps behind the man, you might believe differently.  or if a catholic refused to issue a marriage license because either one of the marriage partners had been divorced before and it was adultery to get married again, you might have a problem.  we are a secular nation.  period. if you assholes don't like it, move somewhere else.  you are wrong and you are out of line. 

Except they really did push gay marriage down our throats against our will, just like we warned would happen.

We tried to warn you.  We told you so.

He created you, didn't he?

Just illustrating the absurdity of the positions of the left by being absurd.  I don't have to make anything up.  I can just emulate the left.

Yep.  You sure do.  Case in point - gay marriage.

why do you think you can get away with twisting facts?

grow the fuck up

cas doan "believe " in gay marriage

he believes people can marry who they want

cas knows the difference is foreign to you so go ask some young kid somewhere to explain it

an older person might pop you one

Gassadio says he believes people can marry who they want

But then as we all should be aware by now, gassadio is a pedophile
Who was banned here for a while for begging posters for pictures of children!

He's not only a serial, liar but one sicko f'd up pervert sicko who needs to be marginalized here


Manila, Philippines, Jan 16, 2015 / 01:32 pm
.- Remarking on Pope Francis' strong words against the threats which “ideological colonization” poses to the family, the Vatican's spokesman told journalists Friday that same-sex marriage falls within this category.

In an  address to more than 1,000 Filipino families in Manila on Jan. 16, Pope Francis decried the “new ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family.”

10 FACTS You Must Know About The Jesuits!
https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/10-facts-you-must-know-about-the-jesuits.html


Btw, destroying the family is in the Communist Manifesto!

wwv, I didn't call God an asshole...

You; on the other hand, are "horse's ass" of a different color..

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

Sweet, a conscientious objector can be ordered into combat and if he refuses, he will face disipline.

YES, Bob Huntress.  You are spot on.

There is now a precedent to ORDER a conscientious objector to serve in a combat role in the military, or face prison.  Today was the precedent.

We no longer have ANY accommodation for objections to ANYTHING the government decides we must do.  Our religious and/or moral beliefs mean NOTHING to those who wish to RULE us.

Hooty again confuses customs with laws to lamely defend what he is obviously

Incapable of defending. 

Like "we are a secular nation" when "we are a Christian nation" if one believes the stats and not some deranged racist commie America hater like Hooty portrays here daily!

That goes for the other arguments of the left which are based in ignorance
and a debased outlook.

Good advice would be to avoid the leftards and their perversions!

At least a conscientious objector knows there is a possibility of combat when he joins the military.  Kim Davis had no idea she would one day be asked to violate her moral beliefs.

As a 1-H objector, I could be ordered into combat

But not have to fight by being a medic.

Yes, we still have that choice!

No BHS, I meant it has been that way since we first had selective service. Dessmond Doss, a conscientious objector in ww2 was ordered into combat, where he earned the medal of honor, yet had he refused to obey his orders there would be consequences. One thing about standing for what is right in a world gone haywirem is that the evil doers will exact their hatred on you. No one can force her to do, anything, but Satan and his minions will make us hurt for it.

  (http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/09/5wSg7nE.png)

(http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/09/Screen-shot-2015-09-02-at-2.45.41-PM.png)

Thanks for the degenerates and perverts viewpoints, justanass! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Peoples sending flowers steak dinners ,candy,cakes and she has a following of good folks to root her on a true hero!

The judge didn't fine her cause he knew she had deep backing (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/angel.gif)

The money she would have been sent her by American good folks would make the judge look foolish! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

I haven't looked yet but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there weren't already contribution funds being set up for her by supporters!

Aww, heck.. Let the broad kewl her heels in jail and give her time to think about her options now...

Comply with the law, or sit in jail and rot...

We will see if she eventually cracks..

If she sits in jail long enough, her supposed supporters will dwindle and she will have to make up her mind whether she wants to remain in jail or perhaps get to go home...

Her choice. But after all of the silly foolishness she has perpetuated already, I have a feeling she will compromise to get out of there..

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

She is doing fine she has just as much right to her convictions as anyone else.

She can have all of the convictions she wants. She can pray to the "Spaghetti Monster," if she wants to. Nobody really cares...

But when those views interfere with the rights of others, it or is used as a sad sack excuse not to do the job she swore an oath to uphold..., then it becomes a HUGE problem..

Ldy R.* (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

Our rights don't come from the Gov. You useless tool

As our founding documents say, they come from God

And the courts can make up any rights they want to but

she is only obligated to follow Gods law hat trumps mans law

Is the master at beck and call to the servant?


Go back to sleep!

What Fed Law, exactly, did she violate?

She upheld Kentucky Law exactly as she pledged.

Really, Sine? Which God, you fool? There have been many over the centuries...

The entirety of this nation doesn't follow the so called "christian movement."

Not ALL of the "Founding Fathers" were christian...

So, which God are you referring to?

I think you are full of crap, sine.

Really..

Dismissed.,

Ldy R.*   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

She broke the law by not doing the job she swore an oath to do after she was elected. She broke the law by not heeding a judicial order.

So she got contempt charges brought against her and she sits in jail as we speak.

Any more questions, wwv?

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

What Fed Law, exactly, did she violate?








She supposedly violated a federally protected group
Who never was a group or needed the Fed for special rights before
and it's subsequent protection of those made up rights.

Eh?(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

You remind me of a quote I heard, you may have too L. Skanky....

"The fool says in his heart there is no God"

Its been around for some time, you may have heard it ???

Awww, what you whining about now, Sine?

I thought you republican/tea party/traitor types were really B-I-G on sticking to the letter of the law...

Well, the law that allows gay couples to married passed..

She wasn't following the law.. She got busted... *I really shouldn't have to explain it to you, but oh well....*

That's about all there is to it...

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

I never said there was no God, Sine..

But I am sure that he doesn't know you, you poor wretch..

Mores the pity for you...

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

"Not ALL of the "Founding Fathers" were christian... "
 
No, like Haym Salomon, a small handfull were Jewish, yet, they worship the exact same God. Don't let liberal revisionists fool you. America was by in large Christian, and specifically Protestant (Noteworthy exceptions in Maryland colony and later in area around Gulf Coast stretching across the southwest, but that was later).

really B-I-G on sticking to the letter of the law...










CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE
"THE WORD OF GOD"
PUBLIC LAW 97-280   OCT. 4, 1982



Apparently she is following the law, and a higher law as well!  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/angel.gif)


You should try it too L. Skanky, it would do wonders for your vile disposition (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/kiss.gif)

 the five justices in the ma­jor­ity used the 14th Amend­ment in a way that was nev­er in­ten­ded by its writers. “When the Four­teenth Amend­ment was rat­i­fied in 1868, every State lim­ited mar­riage to one man and one wo­man, and no one doubted the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of do­ing so,”

“They [the ma­jor­ity] have dis­covered in the Four­teenth Amend­ment a ‘fun­da­ment­al right’ over­looked by every per­son alive at the time of rat­i­fic­a­tion, and al­most every­one else in the time since


Leave it to perverts to pervert even the law

The SCOTUS is made up of learned constitutional scholars. I trust the justices have far more knowledge of the constitution than a hand full of forum trolling hacks, or a few dozen homophobic protesters.

Ms Davis is welcome to relax in jail until she decides to comply with the law or resign, while the deputy clerk fulfill her duties as prescribed by law.

Learned Constitutional Scholars carefully selected for their Ideological leanings...  Give us a break WD

"I thought you republican/tea party/traitor types were really B-I-G on sticking to the letter of the law... "
 
 
Perhaps you might want to share the letter of that law you feel she violated. Contempt of Court means she violated a judges order not a law. The judge, not a law allows gay marriage.

Really? the majority of them are conservatives. The difference is that you like to cherry pick the issues you would like them to support. The constitution doesn't work that way. It was written for everyone Byte.

It is law Bob. You and I don't get to choose which SCOTUS rulings are law and whaich ones aren't. Ms. Davis can sit in jail until she is voted out of office or decides to follow the law, or at least allow her deputy clerks to follow the law. Five of them have indicated they will do so beginning this morning.

Wmdn, judges make judgements, while laws are made by lawmakers, which btw is why we call them lawmakers. Perhaps the word "Legislature" confusses you. If you remember "Lawmakers", it might clear the matter up.

It is her choice to remain in jail. She can leave whenever she wants...



Judge Bunning approved a proposal by the plaintiffs' attorneys to allow the clerk to be released if she agreed not to interfere with her deputies issuing licenses for gay couples.

 Davis turned down the compromise, saying through her attorney that she "would not make any representation" that she would allow marriage licenses to be issued. She remains in custody.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/couple-suing-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-over-marriage-licenses-plans-n421402 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/couple-suing-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-over-marriage-licenses-plans-n421402)

She cited her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

The Apostolic Christian Church (ACC) is a religious body in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Japan.

Members are disciplined because of sin and not, as commonly misconceived, because of adherence to traditions. Traditions within the Apostolic Christian Church help encourage believers in their commitment to serving the Lord, help to knit generations together, and provide close harmony among the various congregations.

Members seek to obey the Bible, which they hold to be the infallible Word of God.

 Bob, Supreme Court Justices interpret the constitutionality of law. That is exactly what they did. The found the bans unconstitutional. They determine constitutionality for everyone, not just white straight people, or just Christians, or Jews, or blacks, or gays, or latinos, or any other isolated group. All people.

When the 14th Amendment passed in 1868, it was intended to give former slaves equal protection and voting rights under the law; it was not meant to protect women. In fact, it specified equality for male slaves, female slaves were excluded as were all women, regardless of race.

A year after the 14th amendment’s passage, Myra Bradwell tried to apply it to women’s rights. Bradwell, who graduated law school with honors and had passed the bar, challenged the Supreme Court of Illinois’ decision prohibiting her from practicing law in the state.

The case went to the United States Supreme Court with Myra Bradwell arguing that Illinois violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection provision. The Supreme Court saw otherwise, ruling that the amendment did not require states to open the legal profession to women. One justice wrote: “The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.”

There was wide political support for protecting the freed slaves, but not for giving women the right to vote.

Most of those who had argued for women's rights before and during the war had also allied themselves strongly with the movement to abolish slavery, linking the two causes on the basis of natural rights. But now, by the insertion of the word "male" into the amendment, the Constitution would no longer be technically gender-blind, but would actively "disfranchise" women.

The amendment that would guarantee them the right to vote—the 19th—would not become law until 1920.


The myth that the 14th Amendment was for "all"...

The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments and were passed for blacks only.


http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23652

I've read the 14th amendment, I don't recall it specifically saying it ws written for blacks only.

WWV10MHZ: What Fed Law, exactly, did she violate?

You're ignoring the issue and, instead, attacking a straw man, WWV10MHZ. Kim Davis didn't go to gaol for violating a federal law, she was incarcerated for contempt of court, her willful disobeying a court order--a very serious offense.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=325 (http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=325)

She upheld Kentucky Law exactly as she pledged.

And what Kentucky law would that be, WWV10MHZ? You certainly can't be referring to a state law that forbids same-sex marriages. The US Supreme Court ruled those laws unconstitutional. Remember?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/06/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-is-a-constitutional-right/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/06/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-is-a-constitutional-right/)

No, WWV10MHZ. Contemnor Davis didn't uphold the law; she was in contempt of it. And, as punishment for her contempt, the right's fraudulent heroine and phony martyr, Kim Davis, was sent to the skookum house for an indefinite period.

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

So the problem is with Judge Bunning and his persecution of Christians.

sweetwater5s9: The myth that the 14th Amendment was for "all"...[sic] The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments [sic] and were passed for blacks only.


According to the misinformed sweetwater5s9, it's a myth that the 14th Amendment was meant for all persons under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. In addition to that, her preposterous assertion would have us believe the Reconstruction Amendments--the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments--apply only to blacks, and not to all other persons in the United States of America.

According to the author of the 14th amendment, it was not intended to be for foreigners, so he added the line "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Dan: So the problem is with Judge Bunning and his persecution of Christians.

No, Dan. that's not the problem. As is always the case, you're confused again. County Clerk Kim Davis created her own problem by willfully disobeying a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her being found in contempt has absolutely nothing to do with her being a Christian and, of course, it's not a persecution based on her religious beliefs. Davis was prosecuted for disobeying a court order and jailed for contempt of court.

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

So impeach her!

Holding her as a political prisoner will not do anything but prove the totalitarian nature of liberalism!

It is how I see it, Hawk.


She created the problem?  She changed the law?  Are you sure about that?  The way I understand it is the law was changed after she took office.


Like I said, the problem is with her persecutor.  She didn't bring this on herself.  It was done TO HER because she CONTINUED doing the job she had always done before the law was changed from under her.


She never swore an oath to do that.  In fact, she swore an oath to defend the law that prohibited same sex marriage.  Now you are asking her to violate her original oath.  You can't force her to do something she never agreed to do.

Now do you understand?

Bingo.  She was duly elected by the people of her county.  If they don't like the job she's doing, they can impeach her or vote her out in the next election.

They won't have to if she is stupid enough to still be sitting in jail for "contempt of court," dan...

Let her sit...

She put herself there by not adhering to a court order..

Stupid.

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

No.  The judge put her there because she refused to violate her original oath.......................................................

No, dan, she DID violate her oath..

Laws change all of the time..

Either you go with it and do your job, or resign and move on to another job..

Are you purposely being obtuse here?

Sounds like it...

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

Dan: According to the author of the 14th amendment [sic], it was not intended to be for foreigners, so he added the line "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."





What line in the Fourteenth Amendment are you referring to, Dan?

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxix) inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxvi), and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Dan: The judge put her there because she refused to violate her original oath....................................................... [sic]

No, Dan. Kim Davis is languishing in the hoosegow because a federal district judge found her in contempt--she willfully disobeyed a court order. Remember?

No, LRW, she never took an oath to uphold same sex marriage.  In fact it was quite the opposite.  She took an oath to defend the law that prohibited same sex marriage................................


Then produce a new contract with the new duties.  You can't just make a janitor perform open heart surgery without a new contract.

That one.

Right.  That's what I said.  She was persecuted for her religious beliefs.  Not because she broke the law or violated her oath of office.

No, dan..

She broke the law..

THAT is why she will continue to sit in jail..

Let her sit....

Dismissed...,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

So anyone who dares disagree with the liberal party line should be imprisoned until they get their minds straight and parrot the party line?

No, d2duh...

She is imprisoned for contempt of court, remember?

Let her sit...

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.* (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

Well, Dan, for your information, with the exception of children born to foreign diplomats officially representing their respective governments while here in the United States, "that one" means that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside.

Due to the policy of diplomatic immunity, neither foreign diplomats nor children born to them while in a host country are subject to the jurisdiction of the host country. In other words, a child born to a foreign diplomat serving in the United States is not under the jurisdiction of US law and, therefore, pursuant to Amendment XIV, is not construed to be a natural born US citizen. But all other children born in the United States--including children born to illegal immigrants--are US citizens, as explicitly defined by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv)   

So expressing an opinion different from the courts makes you guilty of Contempt of Court and should be imprisoned until you get your mind straight and parrot the party line?

I have ALREADY answered that question, d2duh...

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

D2D: So anyone who dares disagree with the liberal party line should be imprisoned until they get their minds straight and parrot the party line?

D2D,

Stop lying! What party line are you babbling about? Kim Davis isn't behind bars because she dared to "disagree with the liberal party." Her dumb ass is in the slammer because she was found in contempt; she defied a court order--from the highest court in the land at that!--and she got her just deserts.

D2D doesn't realize Kim Davis is a Democrat.

It really wouldn't matter if she was a martian,wmd-bs..

She broke the law..

Now she is facing the consequences of her actions.

Ldy R.*

My God...are gay people so thin-skinned that they cannot think outside the box?  What's stopping them from going to another clerk?  What the fuck was stopping the 5 of 6 other clerks in her office from defying her before today, given she was apparently defying the "law", she can't fire them for DOING THEIR JOBS!  So, why the furor over one woman's refusal?

It's the AGENDA people...nothing but the agenda...break down the ability of anyone to do anything but have a fucking sheeple mentality! 

How long before the judge in Oregon who is refusing to perform gay marriages will be raked over the coals in the same fashion?  He offers couples the names of other judges, but will that be good enough?  I bet not.   Kim Davis offered gay couples alternative locations and sources to get a license, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the gay agenda had to push till they got their way.  I am offended daily by shit that happens around me...does it mean I get to ruin lives to get my way?  NO !

grow up !!!

Takn, WHY in the world SHOULD they if they live and pay taxes in that county?

Be reasonable here.

The woman refused to do her sworn job..

Period!

It is the republicans and their minions who need to grow up and stop whining like 2 year olds..

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

wmdn_bs: D2D doesn't realize Kim Davis is a Democrat.


I wouldn't be surprised that she doesn't. But I've known that fact for quite some time now. And I've also known that the federal judge who  threw Kim's dumb ass in the slammer was a Bush appointee. And, in addition to that, I've also known that Judge Bunning really had no choice but to throw her stupid ass in the calaboose after she turned down his reasonable offer that would had prevented her incarceration.

During debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
<sup>[
2
]
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#cite_note-Congressional-2)


 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#cite_note-Congressional-2)


 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#cite_note-Congressional-2)</sup>

takncarabizniz: My God...are gay people so thin-skinned that they cannot think outside the box?  What's stopping them from going to another clerk?  What the fuck was stopping the 5 of 6 other clerks in her office from defying her before today, given she was apparently defying the "law", she can't fire them for DOING THEIR JOBS!  So, why the furor over one woman's refusal?

Why the furor? Should Davis be allowed to thumb her nose at a Supreme Court ruling and an order from that court to comply with that ruling? Should a Davis be allowed to deny others their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, privileges, and liberties--based on her personal beliefs and opinions? Should Davis be allowed to operate a Rowan County governmental office as if it were a fiefdom with her, its self-appointed tyrant?   

It's the AGENDA people...nothing but the agenda...break down the ability of anyone to do anything but have a fucking sheeple mentality!

What about the agenda of persons like Kim Davis, who defy the freedom of others under the guise of exercising their own freedom? What's the mentality of those fucking hate-mongers, Ms.Takn ?

How long before the judge in Oregon who is refusing to perform gay marriages will be raked over the coals in the same fashion?

Evidently not too much longer, given the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has found refusal to preform gay marriages to be unconstitutional.

He offers couples the names of other judges, but will that be good enough?  I bet not.

Of course it's not good enough!  The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. That means everybody must be treated the same. If a judge in Oregon--or in any other state--marries heterosexual couples, he cannot deny that same service to same-sex couples, using the unjustifiable excuse that his personal beliefs prevented him from performing the marriage. That's the bogus argument that put Davis in the slammer. Remember


Kim Davis offered gay couples alternative locations and sources to get a license, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the gay agenda had to push till they got their way.

Kim Davis had no business offering same-sex couples alternative locations to obtain marriage licenses. She was hired to issue marriage licenses in Rowan County. If she had simply done that, done what she was hired to do--instead of setting herself up as some kind of judgmental ass hole, she would had been taking care of business.

LOL




I am offended daily by shit that happens around me...does it mean I get to ruin lives to get my way?  NO !

grow up !!!


Here's what you need to do, takncarabizniz: Take a seat and shut the fuck up! You're talking out your ass and saying nothing.

To: Local5th

Again you've given our forum another example of your well-documented modicum of reading comprehension skills. And again your defective reading comprehension has resulted in your presenting yet another absurd argument.


As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."

Most revealing, however, was Senator Howard's contention that "every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/14/essays/167/citizenship (http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/14/essays/167/citizenship)


Obviously Senator Howard was referring to families of ambassadors and foreign ministers--persons not under the jurisdiction of the United States--when he referred to "foreigners" and "aliens." Evidently he clearly understood that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, every other person born within the limits of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction--"subject to its jurisdiction thereof"--is by virtue of natural law and national law a [natural born] citizen of the United States of America.   

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL FED LAW THAT SHE VIOLATED?

HOW, EXACTLY, DOES IT READ?

WWV10MHZ: WHAT IS THE ACTUAL FED LAW THAT SHE VIOLATED? HOW, EXACTLY, DOES IT READ?

Here are more relevant questions: On what legal grounds did Kim Davis base her refusal to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the US Supreme Court ruled that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex marriages are legal throughout the United States?  And on what legal grounds did Davis base her defiant refusal to obey a Supreme Court Order  that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

Hawks, the question was asked about federal laws being violated...yet you deflected?

LOL


BTW, Kim Davis offered couples alternate means of getting licenses from other clerks.  So, she was holding fast to her own beliefs, while offering them a way to get what they wanted.  What was wrong with that?

No lrw.  She didn't.

Hawk, that's what I said.

Bad shit happens to people who don't obey the law.

If you don't believe that ask Michael Brown.

 I am fully aware of that fact!

I also expect her to be purged from the democrat party for heresy!

That is why democrats imprisoned her instead of simply impeaching her!

Can't you read D2D? It was a Bush appointee that imprisoned her. Well, that's not exactly true. She imprisoned herself by choosing to be a scofflaw. She holds the keys to the jail cell as well.

He wouldn't have had to if she had been impeached!

You see democrats don't want here impeached as a republican would have been appointed to replace her!

Therefore she was imprisoned until she parrots the party line like a good little drone!

What bullshit, d2duh..

It's her own fault that she sits in jail right now..

She can't blame anyone or anything but herself and her OWN stupidity..

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

LRW says sticking to your principles is stupid!

Just what I would expect from a vacuous leftist!

"WHAT IS THE ACTUAL FED LAW THAT SHE VIOLATED? HOW, EXACTLY, DOES IT READ?

Here are more relevant questions: On what legal grounds did Kim Davis base her refusal to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the US Supreme Court ruled that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex marriages are legal throughout the United States? And on what legal grounds did Davis base her defiant refusal to obey a Supreme Court Order that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"
 
 
Those are not more relevant questions! I am drinking a cup of coffee with three creams and one sugar. if someone wants to jail me for this the most relevant question is not what legal grounds I excluded the second sugar or included an extra creamer. It would be incumbent on my accuser to show what law I violated.
 
The irony is that the courts have abandoned every speck of law in pandering to those pushing homosexual marriage. From the administrations refusal to even present the law to the high court the DOMA as was their job, to the Courts recent usurpage of all the states authority as well as sound reason, by making their blanket dictate to imposs gay marriage on all, nothing the courts have done has had even traces of the law

davis should stay as long as it takes to make her come to her senses

simple as that

 That's it send her to a Party re-education camp!

You never get tired of demonstrating your totalitarian leanings!

Why did the 14th amendment only give former slaves equal protection under the law when passed in 1868?    When and who changed it to mean something outside of its original intent?

she was told to obey the law

now obey it

When will Obama obey the law?

When will Obama enforce our immigration laws?

When will Obama enforce Obamacare as written instead of how he wishes it was written?

Care to answer those questions, Caserio?

According to Ben Carson, jail will turn poor Kimmy gay!

When will Obama obey the law?

When will Obama enforce our immigration laws?

When will Obama enforce Obamacare as written instead of how he wishes it was written?


If you have PROOF, then Congress should have no problem impeaching him...

And yet, I see no proceedings for impeachment.

I see no beginnings of a court case.

And yet the very thing you complain about, is what makes our Constitution so great.

I guess you want a Constitution like the Texas Constitution that has to be amended 10+ time every two years to make it function...

Obama could declare himself king and they still wouldn't impeach him!

For democrats power is far more important than the rule of law or the constitution!

just so long as you remember that and know yer place

 Again, Caserio demonstrates his totalitarian tendencies!

Yes, DVD is the pond scum of this sewage pool...

Deflection is all the America hating right has. Having lost the argument, they change the subject.

The borg collective is upon us...

Are you morons still going monomaniac this

Your case must be weak then

The fact is you don't want to admit is

The SCOTUS doesn't make laws no matter how much the left wants that to

be the case. So, you must cite the law being broken.

Post #80 & 81 proves she is following the law as written and passed by the Congress

so and contempt charges would not be for violating any specific law but for violating a judges

order. Contempt charges can be for reasons as benign as wearing a hat in the courtroom if the judge doesn't

allow it.  I've personally seen it happen.  So the judge in this case with no clear violation of any law on the books

is just showing all his tyrant abilities he can exercise from the bench and get away with it.

Meanwhile, our new Rosa Parks must pay for what degenerate perverts want everyone to accept as normal

and moral when it never has been in all the history of mankind! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

That should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the leftist hate America, Christians, the family and morality in favor

of gross and perverted sickness of their psyche.

And yet it was a decision from a Majority Conservative court, which forced a REPUBLICAN judge appointed by Republican George W Bush to put a Democratic Clerk in jail for NOT enforcing a SC order.  :P

Me thinks your argument is FALSE...

"it has been the decisions of a Republican judge appointed by a Republican president, George W. Bush, in a conservative state that have halted the latest effort to use religious freedom objections to the ruling."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/04/he-has-guts-judge-david-bunning-the-same-sex-marriage-decisions-unlikely-enforcer/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/04/he-has-guts-judge-david-bunning-the-same-sex-marriage-decisions-unlikely-enforcer/)

It is laughable to read the posts from these armchair legal experts that would have you believe they know more about the constitution than the supreme court justices that have made constitutional study their life career.  Especially those posted by chemtrail believing conspiracy theorists.

The bottom line is, she holds the keys to her jail cell. All she has to do is comply with the law. Maybe she is enjoying the company of all the women she is jailed with more than being with her redneck husband. She is probably already looking for husband number five. Maybe he has a little sumthin sumpthin going on too. He sure seems to be encouraging her to stay right where she is while he is free to do whatever he likes. I'm just sayin'.

Wow! I thought you republican/tea party/traitors and their minions types were "gung ho" to adhere to the letter of the law..

Davis BROKE the law and her ass sits in jail until such time she either complies with the law or resigns her job. Simple as that.

What hypocrites the republican/tea party/traitors and their minions are...

Pathetic!!!

Dismissed...,

Ldy R.* (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

"It is laughable to read the posts from these armchair legal experts that would have you believe they know more about the constitution than the supreme court justices that have made constitutional study their life career."
 
It was the belief of our founders that the law be simple enough that anyone know and understand it, not merely Constitutional experts. Judges would hear disputes, but in most cases the rulings would not be a surprise. If we remember that the recent issues in theology in their former countries had included translation of scripture and those who at the time comprised our Constitutional Convention had come from among those who advocated that the word of God should be translated, "...so that even the plowboy should know for himself God's will in his life". If our laws today are so complex that the average Joe is not able to read and understand them for himself, it raises the question of how does government expect average citizens to comply with this law? Necessay to obeying laws is an understanding of the law and toward this we will notice that our Constitution was writtenin clear English and brief enough to fit, with all amendments, on a small handbill that anyone can get thru the Heritage Foundation. Compare that to the ACA and it's 2,000 pages. Wmdn, the average person can read the Constitution and understand what is said, yet, if we are at a point where only a Supreme Court Justice can be expected to understand the law, we have a huge problem and complying with law is not going to be the expected.

[Are you leftward morons still going stupid about this?

Your case must be weak then

The fact is you don't want to admit is

The SCOTUS doesn't make laws no matter how much the left wants that to

be the case. So, you must cite the law being broken.  Can't do it can ya? LOL!

Post #80 & 81 proves she is following the law as written and passed by the Congress

so any contempt charges would not be for violating any specific law but for violating a judges

order. Contempt charges can be for reasons as benign as wearing a hat in the courtroom if the judge doesn't

allow it.  I've personally seen it happen.  So the judge in this case with no clear violation of any law on the books

is just showing all his tyrant abilities he can exercise from the bench and get away with it.

Meanwhile, our new Rosa Parks must pay for what degenerate perverts want everyone to accept as normal

and moral when it never has been in all the history of mankind! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

That should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the leftist hate America, Christians, the family and morality in favor

of gross and perverted sickness of their psyche.

davis is wrong

davis is a nut

cas doubts that davis can learn

but she may get sick of prison food and apologize and do her freakin' job

She will remain in jail until she becomes a good democrat drone!

She must only think as the Party thinks!

one should only think when one is equipted to think

She probably chose jail so she could get a change of clothes.


She is already a Democrat. Her problem is she has a severe case of Kentuckyitis.

 That leaves you out!

Mindless drones don't think!

well cas knows that defying a judge is stupid

and you don't

that makes you the stupid one

Caserio admits he would abandon everything he stands for if a judge demanded it!

that's what cas said

you believe defying a judge is a right

and a judge's ability to jail you for it is wrong

Shouldn't every American citizen be an "armchair legal expert"?  After all, our nation was founded on the ideals that any person, who met certain qualifications, could be elected to represent their fellow citizens, whether it be in the courthouse (jurors) or the state house...

Every person in this nation, who has the passion to represent and lead, should have the opportunity to represent, and then, just as our founding fathers intended, complete their term of service and return to private life.  Every VOTER should be looking an individual's qualifications, beliefs and record and base their vote on that, NOT on a party designation!!

Davis BORKE the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. which provides Due Process for EVERYONE!

And if you read the decision there are NUMEROUS cases to back that up.

If you invalidate this decision, then ALL the other decisions are worthless, and any clerk in ANY state can make up their own minds on who can or cannot get married.

Put in a Mormon Clerk and polygamy is back!
Put in a Muslim and 10 year old can marry!
Put in a KKK Clerk and no more inter-racial marriages!
Put in a NAMBLA guy and little boys can marry older men!
etc,... etc,... etc...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Is THIS what you want?

BTW did you guys happen to know that it was a 5 to 4 decision of a 9 man committee which agreed to the Great Compromise at the Constitutional Convention.

It was the Great Compromise which paved the way for the Constitution to be agreed upon.

Since you seem to have problems with 5 to 4 decisions, maybe you just move to a country with more of a majority in charge?

There is a small island off San Francisco you can buy for $5 million...  :P

Davik, you raise an interesting point, yet follow that to it's next level. If the judge is...
 
Put in a Mormon judge and polygamy is back!
Put in a Muslim judge and 10 year old can marry!
Put in a KKK judge and no more inter-racial marriages!
Put in a NAMBLA guy as judge and little boys can marry older men!
etc,... etc,... etc...
 
This is why I have no sympathy with the clerk not obeying the rulling that disregards law.

Nope, they are being treated equally so that's a No-Go duhdick!

Everyone can marry any person of the opposite sex that is of legal age they want to.

The courts can't make up new rights for Federally protected groups

If they could, Pedophila and bigamy would also be legal, which no one but them wants!

You must be one of them then! 

Bob, very good point.  However, the fact remains that every couple Davis refused was referred to other clerks and her superiors had the ability to simply empower the 5 of 6 other clerks in that office to be able to sign off on licenses, but they didn't...

The agenda wants to ruin a life, that is the bottom line.  To scare EVERY person into believing that they better cave on every issue, lest they don't want to become a pariah in their hometown. 
This is how sheeple are created and controlled.

The agenda wants to ruin a life, that is the bottom line.

That is true but it will backfire as she is now a worldwide celebrity, due to her convictions she held without wavering (right or wrong), who will make a fortune on royalties from her story.   They failed, imo.   There are so many places in KY to get a license that it makes them look like petty activists more interested in forcing their issue rather than wanting a license and to go on with their lives.

She is a celebrity toa handful of morons. She is a celebrity sitting in Fla jail cell be cause she is a moron.

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/41.gif) , WMD_BS!!

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

Oh, look above

Two morons here congratulate each other

Bwahahahah! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Typical though (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Oh, sine, you fucking bitch...

Take your whines and your jealous mewls some place else..

You ARE truly laughable!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

sine has a problem with the real world.  she lives in some conspiracy theory world where nothing is as it seems and truth is just whatever she decides it to be at the moment.

Yup! 

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

Sine,

No, bitch, you are just PLAIN STUPID.

PERIOD!

Dismissed.,

Ldy R.* (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

Name the statute she supposedly violated.

Yep.  She can forfeit her Constitutional rights and surrender to the tyrannical state.

Actually she was doing the job she swore to do.  She refused to do a new job that a judge ordered her to do.

L. Skanky,

No, you've been proven over and over here to be the stupid one!

as we all can plainly see.  You must be to stupid to see that for yourself

Or you wouldn't have to have it explained to you ad naseum! (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)

LOLOLOLOL!!

THAT has GOT to be the most hilarious post of the day, sine bitch, when EVERYONE HERE KNOWS the bullshit and lies you have posted on these threads from day one..

keep whining, bitch..

Your stupidity has no end, it seems..

Just keep twirling and whining in place!

MUHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!

Dismissed..,


Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)[IMG]

 
Dan. you are apparently still stuck in Bizarro World with our resident conspiracy theorist, Sine.  I doubt even you can believe yourself with that steaming pile.

So, laws you don't agree with or are ignorant of are to you "a stinking pile"?

Your warped views of reality don't fly with the informed here or anywhere

But I see your low info., low mentality bunch here agree with you!

It's always the case that the ignorant being embarrassed by their betters

fight back with denial to save face.  Hint, it isn't working for you now or ever

so, your best bet is to educate yourself or stop proving your stupidity here by denying the demonstrable facts! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

I couldn't help but notice you failed to offer a logical reply to my obvious factual statement.  You don't have a logical reply because you know I am correct.  Therefore your only alternative is to make personal attacks.

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

be assured wm

dan is up to his old tricks

Yep.  It's called logic.

exactly

(1.) It's an observation, not an attack. (2.) I replied to your flawed (il)logic in other threads and quite possibly in the earlier pages of this one. Your repetition of nonsensical arguments don't bring them any closer to reality. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/hattip.gif)

you need to go back to your 3rd grade special ed reading class, nancy dan, and read what she swore to do, or affirmed, if she did not want to swear:

Here is the oath of office taken by county clerks in Kentucky:
———
Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys:
Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ___________ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
———
— Source: Kentucky Legislative Research Commission

as justincase noted:


Notice it doesn't say "according to law when I took this oath," it says "according to law." Current law is that gay marriage is legal and a Constitutional right.  You don't have to agree with the law, but it IS the law, which she swore to execute. She has failed to execute her duty.

notice, too, she also swore to support the Constitution.  by the authority of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has said that any state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional and therefore invalid.  period.  she is not following the law of Kentucky, and she is not supporting the Constitution.  nancy dan has had his ass handed to him once again.  what else is new?

.

OK, I "observe" that you are a lying moron.

Sure it does.  "According to the law" is in the present tense.  Notice it doesn't say "according to current and future laws..."

I observed here that she is following the law of the land and even quoted

the exact law passed by U.S. Congress.

When asked to produce a state or federal laws that mentions marriage and mentioned perversion and degeneracy that she broke,

we get crickets from the boards supporters of degeneracy. 

You sickos are your own proof that sicko degeneracy you adhere to makes one stupid! LOL!

dan, truth be told, you are as brainwashed in malfeasance here as much as any of the brain dead morons that have supported davis and her ilk.

This isn't about her phony bologna religion.

She can pray to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" for all anybody cares.

When her beliefs interfere with the rights of others, she SHOULD be called on it and brought to justice.

She was.

If she continues in her fraudulent ignorance, she will find herself back in jail in contempt of court.

It's not about religion. It's about justice.

She broke the law.

Just like the old saying..

"You break it, You pay for it."

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

OK, here we go with the personal attacks again.  I'll tell you what, when you come back with a substantive counter argument to my statements, then I will listen to what you have to say.


Name the statute.

Just like the saying,
"When one aims low, one brings down to mediocre or sicko in this case instead of uplifting


Seems the perverts on the left want to bring down society to their degenerate level.

Kim and honest Americans don't want to see our country taken over by psychos or degraded by sicko perverts

she like all good Americans wants to uplft the law and uplift society, a progressive concept that is lost

on the sicko looneys on the left (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)

Awww Dan... now you've gone and hurt my feelings.

You know... because I care so much what your opinion of me is. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/laugh.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/laugh.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/laugh.gif)

How can that be?  As you say, I was just making an observation, not a personal attack.

Hahahahahahahaha! You can't attack me. There is nothing you can say that I would take as an attack. That would mean I give you credit for being something other than a post editing, argumentative, agitator.

But we move off topic. The fact is Kim Davis broke the law, and the law won. If she breaks the law again she will find herself right back in the crossbar hotel.

What are you talking about?  As you said, I was just making an observation, not an attack.

You seem to be overly sensitive about observations.  Why is that?

Observe away, you have nothing but words. Why don't you want to get back on topic?

Can wmd be the first to name the statute she broke?  I say no.


What law?


What law did she break?

I will if you will stop making personal attacks (er "observations").  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

If you don't know by now that she failed to do her job and deserved to be jailed for dereliction of duty I can't help you. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it FOR you.

Kim Davis was FORCE to make a decision between her job and her God, If Gay marriage was part of "the job" then I suspect she would NEVER have taken the job in the first place. She went to jail for her belief in God. Can't spin the facts Sparky

It is a part of her job now, so she has a decision to make. Obey the law or resign her position so someone willing to obey the law can step into her position. Actually there is another option, she can go back to work, refuse to do her job and go back to jail, sparky.

It is a part of her job now, so she has a decision to make. Obey the law or resign her position so someone willing to obey the law can step into her position. Actually there is another option, she can go back to work, refuse to do her job and go back to jail. She didnt go to jail for her belief in God. She went to jail for contempt of court. Can't spin the facts Sparky.

She failed to do the NEW job that the courts told her to do.  When your employee does not agree to a contract amendment, you can either make an accommodation or you can buy out his/her contract.


No, nobody deserves to go to jail for not doing what they did not agree to do.  Not even Obamacare.


No, you can't.  There is no justification for it.

OK, so offer her a new contract and have her take a new oath.  If she declines, you are obligated to pay the balance of her contract or you must give an accommodation.


Name the law.  You still can't do it.  I haven't seen anyone yet name the statute she supposedly violated.  I predicted WMD couldn't name it and I was right.

Nor did she go to jail for breaking any law.

She went to jail for contempt of court. That is one of the laws she broke. Whether you like it or not, contempt of court is a jailable offense. The SCOTUS got it right, and the Federal Judge that jailed also did.

Yes, and who paid to house her in jail?

The taxpayers!

Who paid her wages while she was in jail?

The taxpayers!

In the end, the only ones punished were the taxpayers!

I think this topic can move now...

She's prepping to go back to work...

does ding dong dan really believe no one notices his altering posts to suit ?

Yes she is, but will she now comply with the law, or will she return to jail knowing her deputy clerks won't follow her?

Right.  That's what I said.  Not for breaking the law.


Contempt is not a crime.


No.  They got it wrong.

How old did you say you were, Cas?

They better not forge her signature without her consent or they will be guilty of fraud.

She agreed to use of her digital signature when she was sworn in. She broke the law by discriminating against legally eligible applicants for marriage licenses, then by refusing to issue marriage licenses to all legal applicants, thus refusing to do her job.
 
She may not have broken Dan's laws, but she broke the law in Rowan County, the state of Kentucky, and is in violation of Federalw law against discrimination too. You may not think so, but let's see what happens when she returns to work. Will she comply or will she go back to her cell. She knows what to expect for sure.

if she were honest

she would let a clerk handle it

it's not a treaty between nations

it's a goddam permit fer crissakes anybody could issue it as it's already signed

it's as routine as sharpening pencils

she's a nut

Since you cant name the law in Kentucky that you claim she broke

Even after many request made here

We must all be convinced that W.. BS

Is stuck on stupid!  If one needed further proof of that that is (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Yep.  Back when same sex marriage was illegal.


No she didn't.


Wrong.  She did not discriminate against anyone for who or what they were.


She did not refuse to do the job she agreed to do.  She refused to do the NEW job that she was ordered to do without her consent.


No she didn't.


Name the statute.  You can't.


I already told you, she didn't discriminate against anyone.

If you want to impose new duties on your employee, you can ask for their consent or you can pay her the balance of her contract.  You have a simple solution right before you.  You don't have to infringe on her religious freedoms.  You can just buy out her contract.

I don't disparage anyone for their beliefs - even if I don't share them.  I would caution you all for trashing people who do not share your beliefs, for some day somewhere there may be someone who doesn't agree with YOUR beliefs.  And who will be around to defend YOUR rights?

All Davis is asking is that she not be forced to endorse same sex marriage in violation of her beliefs.  If another clerk wants to affix his name to those licenses, that's fine.  But don't force her to do it.

Let that leftarded jackass stay delusional Dan

He is hopelessly ignorant and glad to be apparently!

Which one?  WMD or Cas?

How can you be in Contempt of Court in a Court that has no jurisdiction over what they claim you did?

There is NO Fed Law regarding Marriage!

The KY Laws that she swore an oath to uphold are still on the books & haven't been changed by the KY Legislature.

She violated NO Law anywhere!!!!

There are federal laws against discrimination.

There is no law against discrimination when I choose what to eat for breakfast.  There is no law against discrimination when I choose my friends.  There is no law against discrimination regarding behavior or action.

The laws against discrimination pertain to who or what people are, not what they do.

For example, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because he is white.  But it is not illegal to discriminate against a white person if the discrimination is on his behavior or action, if the same standard applies to people of all colors.

there must be something in the alaskan air to create such stupidity

dan fancies himself as smart, but really he just twists words and plays games with them. 

I noticed the two idiots cannot argue substantively against my statements.

Then when he feels backed into a corner of his own making dan will start editing quotes.

Kim Davis did not "break the law".
 
 
Kim Davis violated a legally binding court order, and was placed in jail for contempt of court.
 
 
shoud Kim Davis interfer with the issuance of marriage licences to same gender couples again, she will sent back to court to face the judge and face whatever penalties the judge finds fit.
 
 
that right wingers don't know the difference is no suprise.

Liar.  I didn't edit a god damned thing.  I presented several statements to which you failed miserably to refute.  So you resorted to your tired tactic of making personal attacks.

sine-qua-non: Since you cant name the law in Kentucky that you claim she broke Even after many request made here

We must all be convinced that W.. BS Is stuck on stupid!  If one needed further proof of that that is  [sic]

Wow, sine-qua-non! Three logical fallacies and fallacies of argumentation and debate : avoiding the issue, interjecting a red herring into the debate, and attacking a straw man.

Kim Davis was incarcerated for contempt of court, which is, by the way, against the law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. And, furthermore, that gibberish you posted above is further proof of your being a functional illiterate and of your bing still mired in imbecility.

That is not a crime.


She has no intention of doing any such thing unless someone forges her signature without her consent.

No, it's not.

If "contempt" was a crime, you would be entitled to due process and a trial by jury.

anchoragedaniel, you have a habit of altering quotes.

it is 100% intellectually dishonest of you to alter quotes.

it is no suprise that you would lie about altering quotes.

no, I won't produce the evidence.  you are guilty, and you know it.

according to jim...that's not a letter of the law violation of the TOS and even if it was, jim says he let's people violate his TOS, becasue policing people like anchoragedaniel is a pain.

Depending on the jurisdiction and the case, the same judge who decided to charge a person with contempt may end up presiding over the contempt proceedings. Criminal contempt can bring punishment including jail time and/or a fine. Contempt of court can take place either "directly" or "indirectly."

Criminal Contempt of Court - FindLaw

Contempt takes two forms: criminal contempt and civil contempt. Actions that one might normally associate with the phrase "contempt of court," such as a party causing a serious disruption in the courtroom, yelling at the judge, or refusing to testify before a grand jury, would often constitute criminal contempt of court.

Civil contempt of court most often happens when someone fails to adhere to an order from the court, with resulting injury to a private party's rights. For example, failure to pay court ordered child support can lead to punishment for civil contempt. Typically, the aggrieved party, such as a parent who has not received court ordered child support payments, may file an action for civil contempt.

Unlike criminal contempt sentences, which aim to punish the act of contempt, civil contempt sanctions aim to either: (1) restore the rights of the party who was wronged by the failure to satisfy the court's order; or (2) simply move an underlying proceeding along. Civil contempt sanctions typically end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or when the underlying case is resolved.

Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants.

- See more at: http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/civil-contempt-of-court.html#sthash.meEZcB0b.dpuf

I see that anchoragedaniel is demonstrating his ignorance of judicial procedure.

There is no due process, jury trial or any other trial for contempt of court.

please spare us your feigned (or real) ignorance of the matter.

A contempt citation can be appealed to the sitting judge, if refused, it can get appealed to the next level in the system (state or, as in this case, federal).  The chances of one judge overruling another judge's contempt citiation are close to zero chance.

you can finght your silly battles in your head daniel, that won't change reality.

Prove it, johniel


It is intellectually dishonest of YOU to lie about what I said and did.  You have a nasty habit of doing that, johniel.


Then STFU, jackass.


But dragging my family and personal life into the conversation without my permission is, johniel.

Then it is not a crime, johniel.

There Will Be No GoFundMe for Kim Davis (http://www.alternet.org/culture/no-gofundme-kim-davis-crowdfunding-puts-brakes-disturbing-bigots-get-rich-quick-trend)



It's a narrative so familiar by now that we can all recite the script.

As Sarah Thyre laid it out Thursday: "1. Jail 2. Book deal/Fox News guest 3. jillion dollar @gofundme page w/donations from fellow bigots." ...

The expectation that part of the Davis strategy included playing the victim card and letting the donations roll in has been a real and present aspect of the case.

But crowdfunding has come under deeper scrutiny lately. ...



Getting paid to not do your job is a great gig if you can get it.  ~  The Republicon Moto

poor daniel,  posters have described what contempt of court is, yet you keep spinning your delusions.
 
 
you are certifiably insane, incapable of distinguishing between facts and your delusions.
 
 
 

Is that all you have are disgusting pathetic personal attacks, johniel?  What good are you then?

dan thinks any criticism of him is a personal attack.  He falls back on that often when he tries to debate, usually about the time he starts altering quotes and playing word games.

Dan thinks any criticism of him is a personal attack.

Give me an example of the criticism you're talking about and I will tell you whether or not it is a personal attack.

Is that criticism or a personal attack?

Dan: I noticed the two idiots cannot argue substantively against my statements.

No, Dan. What critical readers noticed immediately is your failure to defend your preposterous statements and absurd argument. Your argument is based on the false premiss that contempt is not a criminal offense in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

There is no law against discrimination when I choose what to eat for breakfast.

Dan, not only does your ridiculous argument avoid the issue, it's a false analogy. What you choose to eat for breakfast and Kim Davis's choosing to ignore a court order are obviously not analogous.

There is no law against discrimination when I choose my friends.

That's another inane false analogy, Dan. Kim Davis was held in contempt for choosing not to comply with a US Supreme Court order to resume doing what the tax payers of Rowan County, Kentucky, pay her to do: issue marriage licenses in Rowan County, Kentucky, to persons who meet the legal requirements to be issued a marriage license. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same-sex marriages are legal throughout the United States of America (including Kentucky). Yes. You have the personal right to choose your friends, but Kim Davis certainly doesn't have the right--especially when acting as a public servant!--to choose to discriminate against those who don't share her beliefs. Does she, Dan?   



 There is no law against discrimination regarding behavior or action.

My analogies were accurate.  You just didn't know what I was comparing.

I was talking about discrimination, not contempt.

She didn't discriminate.  She treated everyone equally, Hawk.

(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/53642585.jpg)

see hawk, dan compares his personal discrimination to the legal laws about discrimination and tries to pass them off as being one in the same.

are word games and misleading statements all you have dan?

Wow, Jw2 supports web sites denying customer service based on political/religious affiliation!

Damned bigot!

See Hawk?  I was informing Wvit that not all discrimination is illegal.  Do you think he got it?

How about the other lesson I taught him, about the difference in discriminating against behavior and discriminating against people?  Do you think he understood that lesson?

Dan: She didn't discriminate. She treated everyone equally, Hawk.

Indeed she did, Dan. She treated everyone "equally" to avoid  issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; her "equal" treatment--refusing to issue marriage licenses to all couples--made possible her discriminatory intent to deny issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

And, by the way, explain why Kim Davis didn't violate her oath by willfully taking the law into her own hands and making the personal choice not to issue marriage licenses to all persons who are legally entitled to receive a marriage license? And, in addition to that, explain how Davis can claim her religious belief justifies her violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights and prevents her from being held in contempt for refusing to obey a lawful court order to perform the duties for which she was hired to do?   

youm doan know?

God tole her

Dan: See Hawk?  I was informing Wvit that not all discrimination is illegal.  Do you think he got it? How about the other lesson I taught him, about the difference in discriminating against behavior and discriminating against people?  Do you think he understood that lesson?

Let's see if you understand this, Dan? Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that same-sex marriages are legal in every state in this country, it's illegal for Kim Davis or any other governmental official to deny issuing a marriage license to eligible, same-sex couples under any circumstances. And if Davis chooses to follow the same course and interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses, as she did before, then there will be legal grounds on which to hold her in contempt again, and she will most likely be thrown in gaol again.
   

anchoragedan doesn't let facts get in the way of his delusions.

Dan: Is that all you have are disgusting pathetic personal attacks, johniel?

Blame those personal attacks on your obstinate stupidity an ignorance, Dan, not on your opponents in this debate.

Wrong.  She issued marriage licenses to everyone who was getting married to an opposite sex partner, regardless of who they were.  That's why it's not discrimination.


She didn't take the law into her own hands.  She didn't violate her oath.  She upheld the law she swore to uphold.


She issued licenses to all people who qualified under the law she swore to uphold.  She did not discriminate.


She violated nobody's constitutional rights.  The courts, however, violated HERS.


She did perform her duties to which she was hired to do.  Your problem is you want to hold her responsible for performing NEW duties to which she never agreed to do. If you want her to perform those new duties, offer a new contract.  If she declines, you have to pay the balance of her existing contract.

Johniel is delusional and filled with hate.

I can't be held responsible for your stupidity and ignorance, Hawk.  That's on you.  Don't attack me because of your shortcomings.

Jw2: anchoragedan doesn't let facts get in the way of his delusions.

Jw2,

Haven't you noticed? Dan's delusional drivel is always based on his flawed logic, unsound reasoning, and (of course!) his playing fast and loose with the facts--to make them suit his fallacious arguments. Don't let the name change fool you. He's still anchoragedunce.

Dan: I can't be held responsible for your stupidity and ignorance, Hawk.  That's on you.

Every critical reader in this forum holds your stupid and ignorant ass responsible for the asinine bullshit you're wont to post here, Dan. That's on your delusional ass.


Don't attack me because of your shortcomings.

You're confused again, Dan. I've never attacked you on the pretense my shortcomings. No; I've always pointed out the stupidity and ignorance of your fallacious arguments and then proceeded to debunk them--much to my delight and to the delight of all the other rational discussants in this forum.

LOL

For once we agree Sine.

Nice of you to admit it here W! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

takncarabizniz: Me thinks this is not over.


To: takncarabizniz and her supporters in this thread--daBoz, sweetwater5s9, HK91-762mm, bhsgrad1972, sine-qua-non, WWV10MHZ, Bob Huntress, ttopcat, Local5th,wxzy321, and Baretta19

It's over.

The Kim Davis saga seems to have just ended in a whimper. Returning to work Monday morning, the embattled Kentucky county clerk announced (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html) that though she still refuses to issue marriages licenses herself, she will abide U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s order not to interfere with her deputies issuing them.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/09/14/3701104/kim-davis-saga-over/