CDZ Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

[Statistikhengst]

But she should take another post

She shouldn't have to do any damn thing, she didn't create this situation.

She is getting paid 80 k a year in a county where I am sure the average person makes under 30 k...I believe this is what she is protecting.....not the teachings of God....

Yes, that shocked me to see. She is getting paid a LOT of money for that gubbermint job.

 

[Moonglow]

She has no problem denying straight people their ability to get married, she has no problem with her multiple (Biblical philosophy) adulterous affairs and children of other men while married to another, she has no problem with nepotism in her office yet she wants to play pick and chose about the homersexuals....Clearly a case of bigotry, not one of religion..She should do best to contend with her own sin before crying about other sinners...

 

[Statistikhengst]

She has no problem denying straight people their ability to get married, she has no problem with her multiple (Biblical philosophy) adulterous affairs and children of other men while married to another, she has no problem with nepotism in her office yet she wants to play pick and chose about the homersexuals....Clearly a case of bigotry, not one of religion..She should do best to contend with her own sin before crying about other sinners...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

 

[Boss]

The solution cannot be for Gay AMERICANS to give up their Right to Equality under the law....

Well you need to find a way that can be reconciled with the Constitutional rights of Kim Davis to not condone something her religion forbids. She is not compelled by the Constitution or "rule of law according to SCOTUS" to give up her religious beliefs in the line of duty.

Again-- IF SCOTUS were to rule that it is a Constitutional "right" for us to shoot liberal degenerate pinheads on sight because they constitute a threat to our nation.... Lots and lots of people might LOVE such a ruling and declare open season... But if I don't feel that is within my moral beliefs, I don't have to condone it or abide by that law. If I am in a position of government, I don't have to put my name on the execution orders. I have the Constitutional right to conscientiously object.

The SCOTUS is NOT PERFECT! They made a very bad ruling and it has very consequential ramifications. They should have thought this through more thoroughly because they now have a ruling that directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment rights of Davis and millions of other Christian Americans.

 

[Moonglow]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

She ordered the clerks not to comply, therefore dictating her ideas on religion to others, which would violate the clerks freedom to choose what actions they would take...

 

[Boss]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

No she is not. She is simply refusing to sign her name to something she fundamentally and religiously doesn't condone. She has every Constitutional right to do so.

 

[Moonglow]

The solution cannot be for Gay AMERICANS to give up their Right to Equality under the law....

Well you need to find a way that can be reconciled with the Constitutional rights of Kim Davis to not condone something her religion forbids. She is not compelled by the Constitution or "rule of law according to SCOTUS" to give up her religious beliefs in the line of duty.

Again-- IF SCOTUS were to rule that it is a Constitutional "right" for us to shoot liberal degenerate pinheads on sight because they constitute a threat to our nation.... Lots and lots of people might LOVE such a ruling and declare open season... But if I don't feel that is within my moral beliefs, I don't have to condone it or abide by that law. If I am in a position of government, I don't have to put my name on the execution orders. I have the Constitutional right to conscientiously object.

The SCOTUS is NOT PERFECT! They made a very bad ruling and it has very consequential ramifications. They should have thought this through more thoroughly because they now have a ruling that directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment rights of Davis and millions of other Christian Americans.

She does not have to sign the licenses...She must not interfere with other clerks that will issue the license..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

she was voted in

as was Adolph Hitler.......

actually you are incorrect on that

No, he is quite correct. True, in 1932, the NSDAP did not get a plurality in the German popular vote, but that's not how their system works. It's a coalition formula to get, with two or more parties together, to 48.6% of the popular vote, which is considered absolute majority in Germany. So, actually, yes, although I find it quite distasteful, Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected in the 1932 parliamentary elections and his party was one of the two which formed the winning coalition. And in the next parliamentary election, the NSDAP came in around 98%. Sad, but true.

German electoral politics of then and also of now did not / do not work like our electoral politics.

you know hitler seized control as well as everyone else ( or at least you should know it)

stop with your stupid games

Kim Davis was not elected to inflict her Religious sect's belief on others...The Office she heads has to run by Constitutional protocols ...its not complicated.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

No she is not. She is simply refusing to sign her name to something she fundamentally and religiously doesn't condone. She has every Constitutional right to do so.

Since its her job to sign them....she is in a pickle...the Gays are going to get their licenses whether Kim approves or not......

 

[Boss]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

She ordered the clerks not to comply, therefore dictating her ideas on religion to others, which would violate the clerks freedom to choose what actions they would take...

Right... She is the authority in charge... giving them permission is the same as her condoning it... she doesn't condone it and will not condone it in her name, directly or indirectly.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The solution cannot be for Gay AMERICANS to give up their Right to Equality under the law....

Well you need to find a way that can be reconciled with the Constitutional rights of Kim Davis to not condone something her religion forbids. She is not compelled by the Constitution or "rule of law according to SCOTUS" to give up her religious beliefs in the line of duty.

Again-- IF SCOTUS were to rule that it is a Constitutional "right" for us to shoot liberal degenerate pinheads on sight because they constitute a threat to our nation.... Lots and lots of people might LOVE such a ruling and declare open season... But if I don't feel that is within my moral beliefs, I don't have to condone it or abide by that law. If I am in a position of government, I don't have to put my name on the execution orders. I have the Constitutional right to conscientiously object.

The SCOTUS is NOT PERFECT! They made a very bad ruling and it has very consequential ramifications. They should have thought this through more thoroughly because they now have a ruling that directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment rights of Davis and millions of other Christian Americans.

She does not have to sign the licenses...She must not interfere with other clerks that will issue the license..

 

[Statistikhengst]

she was voted in

as was Adolph Hitler.......

actually you are incorrect on that

No, he is quite correct. True, in 1932, the NSDAP did not get a plurality in the German popular vote, but that's not how their system works. It's a coalition formula to get, with two or more parties together, to 48.6% of the popular vote, which is considered absolute majority in Germany. So, actually, yes, although I find it quite distasteful, Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected in the 1932 parliamentary elections and his party was one of the two which formed the winning coalition. And in the next parliamentary election, the NSDAP came in around 98%. Sad, but true.

German electoral politics of then and also of now did not / do not work like our electoral politics.

you know hitler seized control as well as everyone else ( or at least you should know it)

stop with your stupid games

That is also not true, not in the electoral sense of the word. In the 1932 parliamentary elections, the two strongest parties were Hindeburg's (represented by von Papen) and the NSDAP. Yes, through backdoor maneuvering, Hitler got the post of Chancellor, which is usually reserved for the stronger of the two parties that form the winning coalition. But it doesn't change the fact that Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected because they get enough votes to be part of a ruling coalition.

It's pure numbers, and not stupid games.

Do I find it distasteful and gross? Yes, I do.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

She ordered the clerks not to comply, therefore dictating her ideas on religion to others, which would violate the clerks freedom to choose what actions they would take...

Right... She is the authority in charge... giving them permission is the same as her condoning it... she doesn't condone it and will not condone it in her name, directly or indirectly.

well she cannot insist that Gays give up their Rights based on her whims......

 

[Statistikhengst]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

She ordered the clerks not to comply, therefore dictating her ideas on religion to others, which would violate the clerks freedom to choose what actions they would take...

Right... She is the authority in charge... giving them permission is the same as her condoning it... she doesn't condone it and will not condone it in her name, directly or indirectly.

Which means that she is very likely going to go back to jail, this time for a considerably longer time span.

Could get interesting.

 

[Boss]

she was voted in

as was Adolph Hitler.......

actually you are incorrect on that

No, he is quite correct. True, in 1932, the NSDAP did not get a plurality in the German popular vote, but that's not how their system works. It's a coalition formula to get, with two or more parties together, to 48.6% of the popular vote, which is considered absolute majority in Germany. So, actually, yes, although I find it quite distasteful, Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected in the 1932 parliamentary elections and his party was one of the two which formed the winning coalition. And in the next parliamentary election, the NSDAP came in around 98%. Sad, but true.

German electoral politics of then and also of now did not / do not work like our electoral politics.

you know hitler seized control as well as everyone else ( or at least you should know it)

stop with your stupid games

Kim Davis was not elected to inflict her Religious sect's belief on others...The Office she heads has to run by Constitutional protocols ...its not complicated.

She is not inflicting her religious beliefs on others. She is refusing to ignore her religious beliefs and do something that contradicts them. She has that right under the 1st Amendment.

 

[Boss]

well she cannot insist that Gays give up their Rights based on her whims......

Wasn't her whim... it was Anthony Kennedy's whim.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

as was Adolph Hitler.......

actually you are incorrect on that

No, he is quite correct. True, in 1932, the NSDAP did not get a plurality in the German popular vote, but that's not how their system works. It's a coalition formula to get, with two or more parties together, to 48.6% of the popular vote, which is considered absolute majority in Germany. So, actually, yes, although I find it quite distasteful, Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected in the 1932 parliamentary elections and his party was one of the two which formed the winning coalition. And in the next parliamentary election, the NSDAP came in around 98%. Sad, but true.

German electoral politics of then and also of now did not / do not work like our electoral politics.

you know hitler seized control as well as everyone else ( or at least you should know it)

stop with your stupid games

Kim Davis was not elected to inflict her Religious sect's belief on others...The Office she heads has to run by Constitutional protocols ...its not complicated.

She is not inflicting her religious beliefs on others. She is refusing to ignore her religious beliefs and do something that contradicts them. She has that right under the 1st Amendment.

Yes she is inflicting pain and is inflicting denials of Rights ...the videos show humans in pain because of her .....Its a good thing she did not convert to Christ the Scientist as no medical clinics could be approved....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

well she cannot insist that Gays give up their Rights based on her whims......

Wasn't her whim... it was Anthony Kennedy's whim.

it is her whim there is no Anthony Kennedy involved,...its Kim Davis vs Constitutional rule...

 

[Boss]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

She ordered the clerks not to comply, therefore dictating her ideas on religion to others, which would violate the clerks freedom to choose what actions they would take...

Right... She is the authority in charge... giving them permission is the same as her condoning it... she doesn't condone it and will not condone it in her name, directly or indirectly.

Which means that she is very likely going to go back to jail, this time for a considerably longer time span.

Could get interesting.

You are jailing someone because they have a religious belief that prohibits them from condoning what SCOTUS says is the law. The 1st Amendment is clear on what her rights are to religious freedom.