Kim Davis loses again...

[Carla_Danger]

The Constitution supports her right to freedom of religion and her job has no right to change the rules midstream and force her to go against her own conscience and her own faith, Dante.

She was not defending Christianity nor was she acting in simpatico with Christianity at all.

I am a Christian and never in my 59 years have I ever heard my minister to admonish homosexuals nor refrain from commerce with them. Rather, he preached as Christ preached: love thy neighbor as you would be loved.

She seeks to twist a beautiful, loving and forgiving faith to seek cover for her bigotry. She is using a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose.

So she seeks protection from the judicial system by claiming these acts of bigotry and humiliation are protected rights. She is using a fair and equal system of jurisprudence to perpetuate inequality flaunting it in the face of secular law. All while serving in elected public office.

So she twists both faith and legal obedience just to inflict bigotry and perpetuate hurtful stereotypes and undeserved humiliation.

There is nothing noble here and certainly nothing Christian. How is it she and her supporters can suddenly abandon the principle tenets of Christianity; judge not lest ye be judged, love thy neighbor and don't cast the first stone as you bears sins too? What wicked dogma would included 'except for the Gays'?

Gay citizens are, by in large, just as sober, just as responsible, just as active in community organizations, church groups and philanthropic groups as their straight counterparts. The LGBTcommunity are business owners, neighbors, friends and family members. They serve our nation proudly in our armed forces. They are teachers, doctors, attorneys, and first responders.

By what authority should they be excluded from our system of justice and fairness? Why all the energy to make them less than, shunned and shamed?

I am not a Christian. Not in a million years. Men should not lay with other men, yadda yadda. Men having anal sex with each other, women fisting or having cunnilingus, HOW is that even comparable to your parents making YOU? Marriage equity? Jumbo shrimp, An oxymoron if ever.

That's the issue? Individual's private sex lives? What difference does that make in YOUErsnal seclude? By what authority should the American system of jurisprudence b nod to the whims of your personal peccadilloes in or out of the bedroom? Would you have state authority over the bedroom? What manner of Conservatism is this?

Spoooooo you want the state to force me to buy health insurance? What business of theirs?

Yet you ok the state to promote unnatural sex and marriage to spread H.I.V.?

Yea I am going there...

Your health insurance, necessary as it is but resented by you for strictly political reasons, is a matter of public health costs to all Americans.

And HIV is a blood borne virus that does not know the difference between a homosexual or a heterosexual. It is a sexually transmitted disease and is as commercially as syphillis, anothe STD common among heterosexuals.

As for 'unnatural', that is your interpretation, no the definition given by smarter folks than you and I who have actually studied human sexuality. You argue from anecdote. Is that any way to preserve justice among American citizens?

 

[Debra K]

I have to disagree on the whole bringing up her divorcees as a vehicle to attack her position. She is a saved woman so using her past transgressions against her now is pretty cheap.

Yes, because once you get "saved", it's like the best etch-a-sketch moment that Mitt Romney didn't get to enjoy.

Seriously?

Serial-killer? Did you dismember people? Eat some vital organs? But you're now saved, you say? Well, then, what's a little cannibalism among friends?!?!?

Damn, this saved stuff is an outstanding racket.

Free from sin and free from all past responsibilities.

Heavenly, just heavenly.

A Dateline episode just aired about a man -- David Moffitt -- who planned and committed the murder of his ex-girlfriend's fiancé. During his planning stages, he made numerous computer searches on the consequences of the murder in the event that he might be facing HELL in the afterlife ... and he therefore planned to find a clergyman--someone who was bound by the confessional to keep his secret--after he committed the murder so he could be forgiven and avoid eternal damnation.

 

[Debra K]

"Kim Davis is the new face of the religious right: Angry, marginalized and increasingly desperate

As their numbers dwindle and their cultural influence wanes, Evangelicals are seizing power any way they can"

And as a consequence they are extremely dangerous – they will only become more aggressive, more desperate, and more of a threat to the freedom and liberty of all Americans, by seeking to contrive and propagate heinous lies, such as their 'religious liberty' is being 'violated' by just, proper, and Constitutional laws.

The hatred against Christians in America is increasing. No question about it. Christians are not trying to seize power any way they can but Christians most certainly have an obligation to endure until the end, to hold fast to our faith in Jesus Christ and to not be intimidated by wicked rulers in the land.

I don't think any Christians are being sawed in half. I think government officials are expected to serve the public in accordance with our secular laws.

 

[Debra K]

I have to disagree on the whole bringing up her divorcees as a vehicle to attack her position. She is a saved woman so using her past transgressions against her now is pretty cheap.

Yes, because once you get "saved", it's like the best etch-a-sketch moment that Mitt Romney didn't get to enjoy.

Seriously?

Serial-killer? Did you dismember people? Eat some vital organs? But you're now saved, you say? Well, then, what's a little cannibalism among friends?!?!?

Damn, this saved stuff is an outstanding racket.

Free from sin and free from all past responsibilities.

Heavenly, just heavenly.

I think her legal reasoning is faulty and foolish but she found redemption. I'll attack the shit out her legally position but I think it is untoward to attack the past of a woman that is trying to atone for her past. Just my two cents on that matter.

According to the Bible, she is presently living in sin with a man who is not her true husband. Nevertheless, she is casting stones at others and Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

We're not required to ignore her hypocrisy.

 

[bodecea]

airplanemechanic

It says, Pending an appeal.

appeal away.

We are a nation of laws, not of people, religious faiths, or gods

Laws written by the legislative branch, not the supreme court. You need to educate yourself where laws COME FROM.

Name a law the Supreme Court has written.

I'll wait around ... for a while .. you barone man

They can't...they keep trying to tell us that getting rid of a law is the same as making a law...that's how dense they are.

 

[bodecea]

The supreme court has written law that states that all 50 states must approve of same sex marriage. That's illegal. Laws are passed by the legislative branch.

This isn't rocket science but apparently your rocket don't get off the pad often.

Wrong wrong wrong. The Supreme Court had struck down laws forbidding same sex marriage...now it's just marriage. See? Too dense to see the difference? I bet you think dark is something we can make rather than it being the removal of light...and that cold is something we make rather than the removal of heat.....

 

[airplanemechanic]

You've got a liberal supreme court and it still barely slid by 5-4. I suspect the next president will have an R by his name and will put in a couple of conservative justices who will repeal this ruling.

One huge issue with the supreme court? It can overrule itself. It's chaos.

What happened to DOMA?

 

[bodecea]

You do realize this same supreme court that you worship also upheld laws in the past that were overturned:

10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases

And I agree with this from a past ruling that set forth this most recent one:

"The court got it wrong with DOMA. The justices ignored the votes of large, bipartisan majorities in Congress in 1996. It is absurd for the court to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes that Congress itself enacts. This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government. We must work to reverse it -- and to defend the rights of all Americans to make marriage policy."

Oh yea, the source: CNN

Opinion: Supreme Court got it wrong on gay marriage - CNN.com

The definition of marriage should not be up to the courts, it should be up to the states. The DOMA says so.

Yes...Supreme Court decisions can be wiped out by amendments or further SCOTUS rulings. Get on it, why don't you?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Well if they are so supreme, why and how could they possibly be wrong?

 

[ninja007]

in the big picture Kim Davis is a winner and non-Christians are the losers who will be very very sorry they did not choose life and Christ when they had the chance!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

in the big picture Kim Davis is a winner and non-Christians are the losers who will be very very sorry they did not choose life and Christ when they had the chance!

That Christians seek to compel conformity based on fear, threats, and intimidation renders their faith devoid of merit.

 

[bodecea]

You've got a liberal supreme court and it still barely slid by 5-4. I suspect the next president will have an R by his name and will put in a couple of conservative justices who will repeal this ruling.

One huge issue with the supreme court? It can overrule itself. It's chaos.

What happened to DOMA?

Sure...and pigs can fly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well if they are so supreme, why and how could they possibly be wrong?

You don't understand.

Obergefell is the progeny of over 130 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence reflecting and reaffirming the original intent of the Amendment: to prohibit the states from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are, in this case gay Americans.

The Obergefell Court would have been wrong to not rule as it did, in conflict with that settled and accepted jurisprudence and the original intent of the 14th Amendment. (See, e.g., Civil Rights Cases (1883))

 

[ninja007]

in the big picture Kim Davis is a winner and non-Christians are the losers who will be very very sorry they did not choose life and Christ when they had the chance!

That Christians seek to compel conformity based on fear, threats, and intimidation renders their faith devoid of merit.

actually just the opposite.

 

[bodecea]

in the big picture Kim Davis is a winner and non-Christians are the losers who will be very very sorry they did not choose life and Christ when they had the chance!

That Christians seek to compel conformity based on fear, threats, and intimidation renders their faith devoid of merit.

They want Christian Sharia in the US.

 

[ninja007]

in the big picture Kim Davis is a winner and non-Christians are the losers who will be very very sorry they did not choose life and Christ when they had the chance!

That Christians seek to compel conformity based on fear, threats, and intimidation renders their faith devoid of merit.

They want Christian Sharia in the US.

are you guys that gullible? You libs have been saying that for 40 years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

AIRPLANEMECHANIC SAID:

"You've got a liberal supreme court and it still barely slid by 5-4. I suspect the next president will have an R by his name and will put in a couple of conservative justices who will repeal this ruling."

The Roberts Court is in no way 'liberal.'

The Supreme Court cannot not act unilaterally and 'overturn' a previous ruling absent a controversy ripe for review, where lower court rulings are in conflict, or where the merits of a case otherwise warrant review.

A state would first need to enact (or enforce) a measure denying same-sex couples access to marriage law. And upon appeal a Federal court would need to rule in favor of the state – which won't happen because that judge is bound to follow precedent, that measures hostile to same-sex couples violate the 14th Amendment; such a case would never make it to the Supreme Court, regardless its ideological make up.

 

[Flopper]

This graphic tells it all:

And here is the actual document denying her injunction:

103-ORDER-denying-injunction-pending-appeal.pdf

BOOM.

FYI.

Discuss. Is Kim Davis smart enough to know when to give up and simply be a human being?

Kim Davis doesn't have a clue. Liberty Council is footing the bill and making the decisions. When her backers drop this, that will be the end of Kim Davis and this will be just one of many failed attempts to block gay marriage.

 

[amrchaos]

Well if they are so supreme, why and how could they possibly be wrong?

You are confusing 'supreme' with 'infallible'

The supreme court is the highest court in our nation. Here, supreme means superior to the other courts. This does not mean it is infallible.

Infallible means incapable of being wrong, incorrect or deceived. It is claimed that the Pope is infallible.

No where in our constitution is the word infallible applicable. In fact, our constitution is designed to overcome the failure of a branch of government. However, If two branches fail, we are looking at systematic dysfunction in government.

Just remeber, there is the amendment process. You can always use it to curb freedoms. Although, that is a foolish misuse of the process.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

in the big picture Kim Davis is a winner and non-Christians are the losers who will be very very sorry they did not choose life and Christ when they had the chance!

That Christians seek to compel conformity based on fear, threats, and intimidation renders their faith devoid of merit.

They want Christian Sharia in the US.

It's a blend of ignorance and arrogance.

Most are ignorant of, or have contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law; they seek to conjoin church and state in violation of the Framers' mandate.

As a consequence of their arrogance – that Christianity is the 'one, true' religion, they believe they can seek to compel conformity by codifying religious dogma into secular law all must obey.

The religious right and social conservatives pose the true threat to citizens' civil rights, not 'terrorists.'