Jailed Kentucky clerk refusing to back down in gay marriage dispute

[TyroneSlothrop]

It wasn't a mortal sin, moron, it was a Venial sin

I have always made sure my sins are original and unique on account if Christ died for my sins and I do not sin he died for nothing...........

 

[danielpalos]

You follow the tradition of every scum that has persecuted people that followed their conscience.

The record is too clear and the consequences too great to allow your kind a place at the table ever again.

No one is persecuting her...if she quits her "cake job" the Judge frees her and she can go get an empty grocery cart and collect cans for a living ....

She has an 80 k a year Government job in an impoverished backwoods county in Ky and she wants to hang on to that job even though she does not want to do it the way she swore an oath to do...she is a perjurer ...

She swore an oath to the laws at the time. Gay marriage wasn't legal then.

I've never worked a job where policies didn't change at one point or another, have you?

It used to be a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays for Catholic...tough on those who went to hell before that...

The slut, Kim "pig face" Davis, who had children from husband # whatever, while married to husband # whatever, is hardly in a position to judge others. Maybe she should address the sexual abuse that's going on in her church, and clean up her own house.

Sexual Abuse Cases In United Pentecostal Churches

hey, all chics you chics are not "happy with" at the moment cannot all be all sluts; especially if they try to convince some of us they are really just misunderstood nice girls.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

It wasn't a mortal sin, moron, it was a Venial sin

On eating meat on Friday: Has the Vatican ever stated or pronounced that is a mortal sin?

Our Blessed Lord, through the Church, has always taught that there are 3 criteria necessary for a mortal sin:

• It must be a grave matter (according to the Church) done
• with full knowledge (they knew it was wrong but willingly did it any way), and
• with deliberate consent. (It was no accident.)

If any one of these criteria are missing, it is NOT a mortal sin.

If someone has met all three criteria above, and still eats meat on a Friday of Lent, they would have to go to Confession to remove the deadly/mortal sin from their soul.

A person who dies with mortal sin on their soul cannot be saved. (Go to Heaven)

Here is where I go WTF ? the law you broke was temporary but you who broke it are condemned to torture for "ETERNITY"...and this is an "All Merciful Lord"...get Real that is a Psycho..........

 

[GWV5903]

They are both elected government officials, how is this going to play in a court of law?

It already has. The fags won...

Deflect...

 

[GWV5903]

Davis' rights are not being infringed upon. She can get out of jail whenever she pleases.

Her rights have clearly been infringed upon...



Do you bleed much?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Davis' rights are not being infringed upon. She can get out of jail whenever she pleases.

Her rights have clearly been infringed upon...



Do you bleed much?

She does not have a Right to the position of county clerk . She has the right to have whatever Religious views she wants but if those interfere with her official duties as a member of Government she has to resign....If she resigns or promises not to interfere with the Licensing she is free...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Davis' rights are not being infringed upon. She can get out of jail whenever she pleases.

Her rights have clearly been infringed upon...



Do you bleed much?

They have not been infringed at all. If I'm a bartender, and I don't believe in serving alcohol, when I am fired that does not mean my rights were infringed upon.

Davis can get out of jail whenever she wants.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Jailed Kentucky clerk refusing to back down in gay marriage dispute

Stand strong Kim! That thug in a robes day will come.

First, there is NOTHING to "back down" from... . The facts are clear: The Law of Nature, defining Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman is clear and standing. The Law in her state is clear and standing.

If she authorizes such, she is guilty of violating the law of nature and the law of her own state, which she has sworn her sacred word to uphold.

To do that is death... .

Second... she's a DEMOCRAT!

The true shame in all of this is that there is only ONE COUNTY CLERK IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES WHO RESPECTS THE LAWS OF NATURE, THE LAWS OF THEIR STATE AND THEMSELVES TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

And THAT dear Reader, is a sign that the United States is all but Dead, in terms of recognizing, respecting and defending the principles that define America... OKA: That which sustains the viability of The United States.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Davis' rights are not being infringed upon. She can get out of jail whenever she pleases.

Her rights have clearly been infringed upon...



Do you bleed much?

They have not been infringed at all. If I'm a bartender, and I don't believe in serving alcohol, when I am fired that does not mean my rights were infringed upon.

Davis can get out of jail whenever she wants.

So you're arguing that as a County Clerk, she signed up to violate the laws of nature and the laws of her state, which were valid and standing, when she took office?

Now... are you an imbecile? Or are you just trying to make the Readers of this Board think you're an imbecile?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Erick Erickson Predicts Civil War if Fake Christians Can’t Persecute Gays

Red State's Erick Erickson thinks its a given there will be a civil war over marriage equality; he just doesn't have any goods reason for it…

 

[TheOldSchool]

Davis' rights are not being infringed upon. She can get out of jail whenever she pleases.

Her rights have clearly been infringed upon...



Do you bleed much?

They have not been infringed at all. If I'm a bartender, and I don't believe in serving alcohol, when I am fired that does not mean my rights were infringed upon.

Davis can get out of jail whenever she wants.

So you're arguing that as a County Clerk, she signed up to violate the laws of nature and the laws of her state, which were valid and standing, when she took office?

Now... are you an imbecile? Or are you just trying to make the Readers of this Board think you're an imbecile?

If she cannot perform the duties of her office she should resign. If she refuses, and her failure to perform her duties harms the community, she should be impeached, fined, or jailed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Davis' rights are not being infringed upon. She can get out of jail whenever she pleases.

Her rights have clearly been infringed upon...



Do you bleed much?

They have not been infringed at all. If I'm a bartender, and I don't believe in serving alcohol, when I am fired that does not mean my rights were infringed upon.

Davis can get out of jail whenever she wants.

So you're arguing that as a County Clerk, she signed up to violate the laws of nature and the laws of her state, which were valid and standing, when she took office?

Now... are you an imbecile? Or are you just trying to make the Readers of this Board think you're an imbecile?

If she cannot perform the duties of her office she should resign. If she refuses, and her failure to perform her duties harms the community, she should be impeached, fined, or jailed.

She IS DUTIFULLY serving her office.

If you had the slightest understanding of what "Duty" means... you'd know that.

And what's more... your IGNORANCE of the word's meaning, is irrelevant to her dutiful service.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Davis' rights are not being infringed upon. She can get out of jail whenever she pleases.

Her rights have clearly been infringed upon...



Do you bleed much?

They have not been infringed at all. If I'm a bartender, and I don't believe in serving alcohol, when I am fired that does not mean my rights were infringed upon.

Davis can get out of jail whenever she wants.

So you're arguing that as a County Clerk, she signed up to violate the laws of nature and the laws of her state, which were valid and standing, when she took office?

Now... are you an imbecile? Or are you just trying to make the Readers of this Board think you're an imbecile?

If she cannot perform the duties of her office she should resign. If she refuses, and her failure to perform her duties harms the community, she should be impeached, fined, or jailed.

She IS DUTIFULLY serving her office.

If you had the slightest understanding of what "Duty" means... you'd know that.

And what's more... your IGNORANCE of the word's meaning, is irrelevant to her dutiful service.

Oh well if that's true then, I guess, they would never do anything like oh, I dunno, put her in jail or something like that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Her rights have clearly been infringed upon...



Do you bleed much?

They have not been infringed at all. If I'm a bartender, and I don't believe in serving alcohol, when I am fired that does not mean my rights were infringed upon.

Davis can get out of jail whenever she wants.

So you're arguing that as a County Clerk, she signed up to violate the laws of nature and the laws of her state, which were valid and standing, when she took office?

Now... are you an imbecile? Or are you just trying to make the Readers of this Board think you're an imbecile?

If she cannot perform the duties of her office she should resign. If she refuses, and her failure to perform her duties harms the community, she should be impeached, fined, or jailed.

She IS DUTIFULLY serving her office.

If you had the slightest understanding of what "Duty" means... you'd know that.

And what's more... your IGNORANCE of the word's meaning, is irrelevant to her dutiful service.

Oh well if that's true then, I guess, they would never do anything like oh, I dunno, put her in jail or something like that.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element in reason which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to sound reason.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

 

[TheOldSchool]

They have not been infringed at all. If I'm a bartender, and I don't believe in serving alcohol, when I am fired that does not mean my rights were infringed upon.

Davis can get out of jail whenever she wants.

So you're arguing that as a County Clerk, she signed up to violate the laws of nature and the laws of her state, which were valid and standing, when she took office?

Now... are you an imbecile? Or are you just trying to make the Readers of this Board think you're an imbecile?

If she cannot perform the duties of her office she should resign. If she refuses, and her failure to perform her duties harms the community, she should be impeached, fined, or jailed.

She IS DUTIFULLY serving her office.

If you had the slightest understanding of what "Duty" means... you'd know that.

And what's more... your IGNORANCE of the word's meaning, is irrelevant to her dutiful service.

Oh well if that's true then, I guess, they would never do anything like oh, I dunno, put her in jail or something like that.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to reason soundly.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

She wasn't doing her job. You can't spin your way out of that one.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you're arguing that as a County Clerk, she signed up to violate the laws of nature and the laws of her state, which were valid and standing, when she took office?

Now... are you an imbecile? Or are you just trying to make the Readers of this Board think you're an imbecile?

If she cannot perform the duties of her office she should resign. If she refuses, and her failure to perform her duties harms the community, she should be impeached, fined, or jailed.

She IS DUTIFULLY serving her office.

If you had the slightest understanding of what "Duty" means... you'd know that.

And what's more... your IGNORANCE of the word's meaning, is irrelevant to her dutiful service.

Oh well if that's true then, I guess, they would never do anything like oh, I dunno, put her in jail or something like that.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to reason soundly.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

She wasn't doing her job. ...

False... and hysterically so.

.

.

.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element in reason which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to sound reason.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

 

[TheOldSchool]

If she cannot perform the duties of her office she should resign. If she refuses, and her failure to perform her duties harms the community, she should be impeached, fined, or jailed.

She IS DUTIFULLY serving her office.

If you had the slightest understanding of what "Duty" means... you'd know that.

And what's more... your IGNORANCE of the word's meaning, is irrelevant to her dutiful service.

Oh well if that's true then, I guess, they would never do anything like oh, I dunno, put her in jail or something like that.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to reason soundly.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

She wasn't doing her job. ...

False... and hysterically so.

.

.

.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element in reason which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to sound reason.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

Part of her job is to issue marriage licenses. She was not issuing marriage licenses and not allowing her office to issue marriage licenses. She was not doing her job. That's not relative.

 

[Katzndogz]

What about the Muslim refusing to serve alcohol on an airplane. How come that isn't on the news. She claims forcing her to do her job violates her religion.

How about the nurse that goes to pray while her patient dies because prayer is *sic* more important than doing her job.

You cantseriously believe you've given similar scenarios

people who placed religion ahead of doing their jobs.
Yes similar scenarios.

Religion, my foot...the dingbat has been married 4 times.

Not after she became a Christian.

really? that's convenient.

It's the whole concept of being forgiven and not committing other sins.

It's not like she can become a Christian then go back in time and undo all her prior sins. She has given her sin to Christ. Now she is to go and sin no more.

 

[Asclepias]

You cantseriously believe you've given similar scenarios

people who placed religion ahead of doing their jobs.
Yes similar scenarios.

Religion, my foot...the dingbat has been married 4 times.

Not after she became a Christian.

really? that's convenient.

It's the whole concept of being forgiven and not committing other sins.

It's not like she can become a Christian then go back in time and undo all her prior sins. She has given her sin to Christ. Now she is to go and sin no more.

Too late. She has already signed divorce papers as a christian.