Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Kondor3]

..."Family Values"

"Thousand points of light"

"Silent Majority"

"Take our country back!"

lol...

 

[Preacher]

Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.

You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you. Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.

I am not a christian nor do I believe in ANY spook in the sky,I still support religious freedom.

Sure you do. You worship at Hitler's cock, day in and day out. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if you had a swastika dildo up your ass. Really. I mean that quite seriously. Poor odious.

Still crying over spilled milk? Oh I mean 6 million.....burned to a crisp!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Kim Davis Would Have Fit in Here—Texas Lawyer Exposes Religious Hiring Test for Peace Officers

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Still crying over spilled milk?

I prefer non crucified Messiahs ....plus Jesus was poor.....

 

[Kondor3]

...Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?...

Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?

3000 (3007, actually, but let's make it a nice, round number)...

3000 counties in the United States...

2100 Christian county clerks ( 3000 X 70% ) ( 70% Christian population in the US )

Narrow it down...

How many are 'Sunshine Patriot' -type Christians and rarely (if ever) exert any effort to adhere to the practices of their denomination? Ten percent?

2100 X 10% = 210 clerks who might even consider doing such a thing.

How many of those are scared of losing their jobs and pensions, to the point of paralysis and accommodation? Ninety-five percent?

210 X 5% = 11 ( 5% survivors of the 210 who aren't paralyzed by fear, and rounded up from 10.5)

Out of those 11, how many decided to wait until somebody else went first? 10 out of 11? Seems believable.

11 - 10 = 1

1 = Kim Davis

================================

You can throw rocks at the numbers until the cows come home, but, at least it's a first pass, at quantifying your inquiry, and introducing another concept or two (paralysis, due to fear over loss of job, pension, etc.) in a context that demonstrates just how overwhelmingly significant that particular element of the equation is.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Vandalshandle]

The holiday having past, I am sure that there will soon be another media event regarding this, so Kim is climbing back up on her cross.....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Send out for some Pillars and Cecil B DeMille

 

[Vandalshandle]

...so she can die happily ever after......

 

[Carla_Danger]

The holiday having past, I am sure that there will soon be another media event regarding this, so Kim is climbing back up on her cross.....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Source: Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

Not territorial jurisdiction... merely jurisdiction. Which could make a difference, if the 14th is re-evaluated to split 'jurisdiction' into its constituent parts.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck An 1886 case about a Chinese laundry?? It's one hell of a stretch, especially coming from someone who admittedly knows NOTHING about constitutional law. I wonder why SCOTUS nor any of the lawyers didn't think of this ?? You must be way smarter then all of them.

 

[Silhouette]

Behaviors don't have special Constitutional protections. This would be the first time they ever did. Behaviors cannot trump the 1st Amendment and the 9th affirming its potency. And this of course is on its way up to SCOTUS again. They should've thought that through but then when you blindly accept a false premise (behavior = race) and work your legal conclusions off of that, you're going to be revisiting that foolish progression and facing the flawed premise sooner or later.

Seems like Kim Davis just bumped it up into "sooner"...

Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?

Because Kondor, all it takes is one lawsuit to challenge the illegal revision of the US Constitution done by 5 people last June. The 1st Amendment and the 9th affirming its potency and just one little old litigant can change things.

But you already know this because that's what your group has been doing for years professionally. You are professional litigants using the courts as a form of blackmail. The bakers in Oregon are standing their ground too. And some photographers, Memories Pizza, caterers, florists...did you forget about all them?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Behaviors don't have special Constitutional protections. This would be the first time they ever did. Behaviors cannot trump the 1st Amendment and the 9th affirming its potency. And this of course is on its way up to SCOTUS again. They should've thought that through but then when you blindly accept a false premise (behavior = race) and work your legal conclusions off of that, you're going to be revisiting that foolish progression and facing the flawed premise sooner or later.

Seems like Kim Davis just bumped it up into "sooner"...

Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?

Because Kondor, all it takes is one lawsuit to challenge the illegal revision of the US Constitution done by 5 people last June. The 1st Amendment and the 9th affirming its potency and just one little old litigant can change things.

But you already know this because that's what your group has been doing for years professionally. You are professional litigants using the courts as a form of blackmail. The bakers in Oregon are standing their ground too. And some photographers, Memories Pizza, caterers, florists...did you forget about all them?

In what way was the Constitution revised----EXACTLY?? Show us the clause or the amendment that was altered.

 

[Vandalshandle]

She has become the tool of that Liberty litigation group. They are willing for her to spend as many years in jail as it takes for them to exhaust every possible legal remedy.

Interestingly enough, since Josh has embarrassed them, the Family Research Council seems to be keeping a low profile.

 

[Uncensored2008]

lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?

You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.

 

[Debra K]

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.

no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.

Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.

You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!

It is a losing proposition.

The decision to license degeneracy indicates a severe collapse of the moral foundation of the culture. As a result, history shows that Western Civilization will soon collapse and a new culture will rise from it, sans the degenerates, as a more well centered people seek to do business, absent the idiots.

My guess is that 60-80% of the US population will be dead inside 10 years, as a result of the looming civil war.

At the end of that, you will not be able to start a poker game in the US with people who will admit to ever having an unclean thought... let alone that they've sexual feelings for people of the same gender.

Europe will of course be governed under Sharia Law... and shortly after we get our shit together here, we'll be forced to burn Europe to the ground, via nuclear means. With the goal being to eradicate every living thing on the continent.

Your words are no better than Kim Davis's words. She claims to be God's vessel ... acting under God's authority ... and those who clamor to her side don't care that she's a false prophet. How often does the Bible have to warn "true believers" about the evils of wolves in sheep's clothing?

 

[rdean]

Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock. Is that true? I can smell the hypocrisy.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock. Is that true? I can smell the hypocrisy.

She claims that all that happened before she and god became pals....

 

[westwall]

So, I read the entire thread.

Whew, someone throw me a sweat towel!

Now, there were tons of interesting responses, but one response kept NOT showing up, which is why I rotor-rooted my way through this epic thread. So, I am gonna throw this original thought out there:

There are literally thousands clerks of courts in the USA who issue marriage licenses. In fact, there have to be at least 3,143 of them total, if not many more, for many counties have more than one clerk who issues marriage licenses. But either way, we are talking about THOUSANDS of public officials who issue marriage licenses every week. If Kim Davis is so right, why is she is the only clerk doing this?

Also, "Christians" now have a choice. They can either apply the tactic that Kim Davis is just so totally right and all the other other clerks, the majority of which, I bet, are also Christian, are wrong, in which case, they should be condemning those clerks with all their might, right here and now - lol -

- or, they can take the tack that there are far fewer Christians out there processing and giving out marriage licenses than they are willing to admit -

- or, they can just claim that the other many thousands of clerks are all apostates.

Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?

Of course, the most sane answer is that possibly ex-Clerk, currently Jailbird Kim Clark comes from a backwater, insane hillbilly church where her pastor is probably pressuring her to go through all of this shit at no cost to himself but at a massive cost to her and that this actually has precious little to do with Christianity at all. It's politics, it's publicity and at the end of the day, it's part of the "Christian" $$$$-mill. This is a cottage industry thing, nothing less and nothing more.

-Stat

ABikerSailor
Luddly Neddite
AVG-JOE
ogibillm
westwall
bodecea
AvgGuyIA
Kondor3
jon_berzerk
Wry Catcher
C_Clayton_Jones
RodISHI
Dot Com
JOSweetHeart
mudwhistle
NYcarbineer
Coyote
BlueGin
AceRothstein
TheOldSchool
frigidweirdo
BlindBoo
Asclepias
David_42
HUGGY
EriktheRed
WinterBorn
Skylar
Faun
TheProgressivePatriot

Probably because she's batshit crazy. Why is that not one of your options. And that wasn't an original thought BTW.

 

[Debra K]

Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.

Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions. SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class. Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?

Really?

You have not demonstrated that you know anything about the Constitution.

The content of your post is strong evidence of your ignorance. Have you ever tried to educate yourself? are you capable of learning and understanding basic concepts?

Homosexual persons are not calling themselves a race of people.

Anytime the government classifies people (whether by race, nationality, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc.) and treats the classes of people differently under the law, then the classification is subject to review to determine if the classification is constitutional or unconstitutional. There are different levels of review.

If you care about educating yourself, start here:

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause