Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

[Kondor3]

...I agree...you are not exactly the brightest crayon in the box... 60% of Americans support same sex marriage...

Agreed.

I'm not the brightest crayon in the box.

Then again, neither are you, so, it's a wash.

And, now that the pointless personal insults are out of the way...

That same 60% was part of the very large numbers of people who voted for Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute in many of our individual States, within the past decade, only to have their preferences overturned by activist judges, sympathetic to these sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).

Very great numbers of them are fickle, and can turn on a dime, and in a heartbeat.

All it takes is a strong personality or combination of strong personalities, leading the way in opposition to the Gay Mafia, and the stacking of a court here and there with a couple of judges more favorable to more righteous and traditional perspectrives on homosexuality and marriage, and it begins all over again, overturning many of your recent gains.

There are several ways to skin this cat, and the 3% of the population who identify as homosexuals cannot keep the other 97% in thrall for very long, as history measures time.

But you go right ahead and continue to smugly and arrogantly rely upon a few meaningless pissant polls, to back up your recent judicial rulings.

All the while, the forces of opposition will be marshaling, and will hit hard on the legal front, once the composition of the Federal government changes on January 20, 2017.

So... smoke 'em if you got 'em... and enjoy... while you can.

 

[playtime]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

Kim Davis was trying to introduce christian sharia law to her county. She got shut down have the appropriate court proceeding. Rosa Parks was just trying to sit down and not have to move back on her way home from work.

I guess to an idiot they would be about the same.

Read the article. Not much else will work talking to such an incompetent fool as you.Oh and if it was christian sharia law we would be tossing faggots off roofs like ISIS which sounds just fine to me!

Yes...we know....you envy ISIS. Why don't you go join them? Wait, that would actually require you leave Mommy's basement. Nevermind.

I'm good darling gonna sit here in my nice 5 bedroom 3 bath rental in a nice clean neighborhood and watch football and piss you scumbags off. Oh and since I am such a loving and thoughtful son my parents live downstairs because they are old and getting unable to care for themselves....that's what grateful kids do when they grow up.

You only RENT? LOL.

 

[Kondor3]

Ahhhhhhhhh...

So when it comes to Liberals using the Bible to argue on behalf of Illegal Aliens (welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the children), invoking Religious Conviction to engage in Civil Disobedience - in the establishment of Sanctuary Cities, and Executive Orders granting Shamnesty... that is OK.

But, when it comes to Conservatives using the Bible to argue in favor of Civil Disobedience, to protest what THEY perceive as Bad Law, well, that's NOT as OK, then, eh?

I call bullshit.

Your definition sucks, and it risks offending very large numbers of your fellow countrymen, whose support you will require over time, so that your recent gains are not overturned.

But you go right ahead and keep using it, in ever-widening circles.

And see what that gets you, in the long run.

As a private citizen, Kim Davis has every right to "protest" same sex marriage...grab a sign babe...

But as a public official whose job is to enforce the law, she has NO right to deny LEGAL marriage licenses.

But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.

She refuses to recognize recent judicial rulings to the contrary.

The idea that five (a bare majority opinion) old lawyers in Washington DC, can shove the legitimizing of sexual deviancy and perversion down the collective throat of 300,000,000 citizens, is preposterous, and Davis is merely one of the early harbingers of a valid and righteous resistance movement, using her office as a platform to give it high visibility.

Elected LibTards have done far worse things with their own offices over time, so... MEH... no big deal, in that context.

 

[Bfgrn]

...I agree...you are not exactly the brightest crayon in the box... 60% of Americans support same sex marriage...

Agreed.

I'm not the brightest crayon in the box.

Then again, neither are you, so, it's a wash.

And, now that the pointless personal insults are out of the way...

That same 60% was part of the very large numbers of people who voted for Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute in many of our individual States, within the past decade, only to have their preferences overturned by activist judges, sympathetic to these sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).

Very great numbers of them are fickle, and can turn on a dime, and in a heartbeat.

All it takes is a strong personality or combination of strong personalities, leading the way in opposition to the Gay Mafia, and the stacking of a court here and there with a couple of judges more favorable to more righteous and traditional perspectrives on homosexuality and marriage, and it begins all over again, overturning many of your recent gains.

There are several ways to skin this cat, and the 3% of the population who identify as homosexuals cannot keep the other 97% in thrall for very long, as history measures time.

But you go right ahead and continue to smugly and arrogantly rely upon a few meaningless pissant polls, to back up your recent judicial rulings.

All the while, the forces of opposition will be marshaling, and will hit hard on the legal front, once the composition of the Federal government changes on January 20, 2017.

So... smoke 'em if you got 'em... and enjoy... while you can.

You can continue to make this an "us against them" issue...

But it is not an us against them issue. No one is "in thrall"...

It is a simple matter of equality under the law.

And granting ALL citizens the same rights...

 

[Kondor3]

...The ruling will stand...and will be enforced by the 45th President of the United States...Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Her Thighness, Madame Cankles, Shrillary, will not be the next President of the United States.

After 8 years of the Magic Negro and pseudo-socialism and a vast increase in the national debt and vast overreaching of the Federal government in a wide variety of areas, America has had enough of the Democrats for a while, as evidenced by the House falling to the GOP in the 2010 midterms, remaining under control of the GOP in the 2010 general, and in the 2014 mid-terms, and with the Senate falling to the GOP in the 2014 mid-terms as well. Both will remain in the control of the GOP in 2016, and the White House will fall to the GOP in 2016, as well, shunting the Liberals off to the side for a while, so that the Country can turn a fire-hose on LibTard idiocy and the damage done. Your turn is over.

 

[playtime]

[



she is appealing the unconstitutional opinion of the judge

A judge should not have the right to undo elections, which is what he did in this case.

If everybody is anxious to put an elected official in jail for not doing what the law says they should start with Obama for not enforcing the immigration laws of this country.

She chose jail over resignation & fines. apparently the legislature who can revoke er status as

Kim Davis has been divorced four times. Where were her religious principles when she was committing serial adultery?

Biblically speaking she STILL is. I don't see her running back to hubby #1.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ahhhhhhhhh...

So when it comes to Liberals using the Bible to argue on behalf of Illegal Aliens (welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the children), invoking Religious Conviction to engage in Civil Disobedience - in the establishment of Sanctuary Cities, and Executive Orders granting Shamnesty... that is OK.

But, when it comes to Conservatives using the Bible to argue in favor of Civil Disobedience, to protest what THEY perceive as Bad Law, well, that's NOT as OK, then, eh?

I call bullshit.

Your definition sucks, and it risks offending very large numbers of your fellow countrymen, whose support you will require over time, so that your recent gains are not overturned.

But you go right ahead and keep using it, in ever-widening circles.

And see what that gets you, in the long run.

As a private citizen, Kim Davis has every right to "protest" same sex marriage...grab a sign babe...

But as a public official whose job is to enforce the law, she has NO right to deny LEGAL marriage licenses.

But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.

She refuses to recognize recent judicial rulings to the contrary.

The idea that five (a bare majority opinion) old lawyers in Washington DC, can shove the legitimizing of sexual deviancy and perversion down the collective throat of 300,000,000 citizens, is preposterous, and Davis is merely one of the early harbingers of a valid and righteous resistance movement, using her office as a platform to give it high visibility.

Elected LibTards have done far worse things with their own offices over time, so... MEH... no big deal, in that context.

The legality of the marriages is no longer in dispute. They are legal, period.

 

[Kondor3]

...You can continue to make this an "us against them" issue...

No worries. I will. So will a very great many other Americans.

...But it is not an us against them issue...

Yes, it is.

...No one is "in thrall"...

The Will of the People to hold sexual deviancy and perversion at-bay is being overturned by a tiny group of people. That constitutes being 'under the thumb' in 'in thrall'.

...It is a simple matter of equality under the law...

No. It is a matter of suppressing sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) rather than legitimizing and mainstreaming it.

...And granting ALL citizens the same rights...

In the past... as in the future... those citizens may marry anyone they like, of the opposite sex, as God, Nature and Man all intended.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This woman is fighting for Christianity to be the supreme law of the land.

 

[Kondor3]

..The legality of the marriages is no longer in dispute. They are legal, period.

For now.

But not for long.

Meanwhile the Opposition fights it tooth-and-nail, and fights every delaying action that it can, and dramatizes the issue, on behalf of the Country and its People.

Civil Disobedience.

A tactic long-familiar to Liberals.

 

[Kondor3]

This woman is fighting for Christianity to be the supreme law of the land.

Nope. She is fighting a recent court ruling legitimizing and mainstream sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

 

[bodecea]

...Christian Sharia is using YOUR interpretation of YOUR religion/god as the law instead of secular Constitutional law.

Ahhhhhhhhh...

So when it comes to Liberals using the Bible to argue on behalf of Illegal Aliens (welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the children), invoking Religious Conviction to engage in Civil Disobedience - in the establishment of Sanctuary Cities, and Executive Orders granting Shamnesty... that is OK.

But, when it comes to Conservatives using the Bible to argue in favor of Civil Disobedience, to protest what THEY perceive as Bad Law, well, that's NOT as OK, then, eh?

I call bullshit.

Your definition sucks, and it risks offending very large numbers of your fellow countrymen, whose support you will require over time, so that your recent gains are not overturned.

But you go right ahead and keep using it, in ever-widening circles.

And see what that gets you, in the long run.

If they are trying to use the bible (their interpretation) as opposed to the actual law....yes they are. It's not that hard now, is it?

 

[bodecea]

This woman is fighting for Christianity to be the supreme law of the land.

Nope. She is fighting a recent court ruling legitimizing and mainstream sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

That is YOUR interpretation of what your religion says. You are a supporter of Christian Sharia. There is very little difference between you and some muslim who interprets their religion to say women should be covered or else it's sexual deviancy and perversion and tries to ignore the law and force their interpretation onto others.

 

[bodecea]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

Kim Davis was trying to introduce christian sharia law to her county. She got shut down have the appropriate court proceeding. Rosa Parks was just trying to sit down and not have to move back on her way home from work.

I guess to an idiot they would be about the same.

Read the article. Not much else will work talking to such an incompetent fool as you.Oh and if it was christian sharia law we would be tossing faggots off roofs like ISIS which sounds just fine to me!

Yes...we know....you envy ISIS. Why don't you go join them? Wait, that would actually require you leave Mommy's basement. Nevermind.

I'm good darling gonna sit here in my nice 5 bedroom 3 bath rental in a nice clean neighborhood and watch football and piss you scumbags off. Oh and since I am such a loving and thoughtful son my parents live downstairs because they are old and getting unable to care for themselves....that's what grateful kids do when they grow up.

You only RENT? LOL.

I know...that kind of was a dead giveaway, wasn't it?

 

[bodecea]

..The legality of the marriages is no longer in dispute. They are legal, period.

For now.

But not for long.

Meanwhile the Opposition fights it tooth-and-nail, and fights every delaying action that it can, and dramatizes the issue, on behalf of the Country and its People.

Civil Disobedience.

A tactic long-familiar to Liberals.

Civil Disobedience....yes. She can civilly disobey in the name of Christian Sharia all she wants. Now.....let's see the rest of you back her up and fill those jails like those SNCC students did in Nashville.

 

[bodecea]

...You can continue to make this an "us against them" issue...

No worries. I will. So will a very great many other Americans.

...But it is not an us against them issue...

Yes, it is.

...No one is "in thrall"...

The Will of the People to hold sexual deviancy and perversion at-bay is being overturned by a tiny group of people. That constitutes being 'under the thumb' in 'in thrall'.

...It is a simple matter of equality under the law...

No. It is a matter of suppressing sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) rather than legitimizing and mainstreaming it.

...And granting ALL citizens the same rights...

In the past... as in the future... those citizens may marry anyone they like, of the opposite sex, as God, Nature and Man all intended.

Yes, we get it...you want YOUR interpretation of YOUR religion (christianity) to override the nation's laws. That's Christian Sharia.

 

[Roudy]

I am against gay marriage but not against gay unions, which gives gays all the legal rights of married couples. To bring a priest and conduct a marriage ceremony for two gay people is a mockery of many faiths and the concept of marriage.

Kim Davis' actions on the other hand, although heroic is misguided. This is a secular country and the office of the clerk is a secular institution as well. So what happens if someone who's Catholic refuses to give out a divorce certificate because Catholicism says you'll go to hell? This is a slippery slope we are going down.

I don't think she should be in jail. They can just fire her.

America made a mistake of electing Obama and unfortunately this is what we get. And as Oblahblah said himself, elections have consequences.

 

[playtime]

Only a clown could equate Davis with Parks.

A racist clown.

"Racist"?!!! How did racism get into this issue?!

Rosa Parks got in trouble for disobeying an unjust, perverse law.

Kim Davis is getting into trouble for disobeying an unjust, perverse, and patently unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.

But of course you just can't see the parallels, and then you have to drag race into the issue. Sad.

The people who persecuted Rosa Parks thought it was okay to force blacks to sit on the back of the bus. The people who are persecuting Kim Davis think it's okay to force Christians to support ceremonies that they find morally offensive and to force local officials to abide by a Supreme Court ruling that is plainly and clearly unconstitutional and immoral.

You liberals are the modern defenders of the Dred Scott decision of our day.

Kim Davis is in trouble for trying to tear down the wall between Church & State.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I suppose the 32 other threads on Davis wasn't good enough. lol

This one is different because the OP used a different angle to look at it. Now had that clerk been muslim the court would have ruled they must accommodate her on religious grounds.

That woman's religious right is as much a civil right as the muslim's right.

Not hardly.

Would you be fine if a Muslim manger of at the DMV ordered his staff to not issue drivers licences to women on the basis of his deeply held religious beliefs? I sure as hell wouldn't be cool with it.

Pretty sure the regulations for issuance of drivers' licenses weren't illegally imposed by judicial fiat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am against gay marriage but not against gay unions, which gives gays all the legal rights of married couples. To bring a priest and conduct a marriage ceremony for two gay people is a mockery of many faiths and the concept of marriage.

Kim Davis' actions on the other hand, although heroic is misguided. This is a secular country and the office of the clerk is a secular institution as well. So what happens if someone who's Catholic refuses to give out a divorce certificate because Catholicism says you'll go to hell? This is a slippery slope we are going down.

I don't think she should be in jail. They can just fire her.

America made a mistake of electing Obama and unfortunately this is what we get. And as Oblahblah said himself, elections have consequences.

You can't "just fire" elected officials. Also, the fact that she's elected, not hired, changes the complexion of her job responsibilities somewhat. She has an obligation to the people more than just "we hired you, we pay you, do as you're told".

I don't really see this as much about "living her religious beliefs" and "religious freedom", as I do civil disobedience against an illegally and unjustly imposed law. If homosexual "marriage" had been legalized in Kentucky at the ballot box by the voters, or by the Kentucky legislature, then I would see her obligation to comply with that law differently. But the Supreme Court had no business injecting itself into the government functions of the states, or to invent new Constitutional "rights" that appear nowhere in the actual text of the document and regarding things that have never been the purview of the federal government before.

From that standpoint, Ms. Davis and other elected officials at the state and local level can be seen as having an absolute obligation to protect the sovereignty of their state and local governments by refusing to comply.