Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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,
She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.
I think you know very little about how the founders and framers thoughtShe is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.
Such STUPIDITY.........Davis took an oath which specifically stated that her duties entailed issuing marriage licenses.....She no longer can say that she is just a private citizen and she did NOT campaign for the job stating that she would not perform SOME of her duties.
The best part of the arguments of the crazies is the law was different BEFORE she swore her oath.
Imagine a Mayor, a Governor, or a President saying they did not have to obey the law of the land because it changed AFTER they swore their oath?
Madness
It is a perverse and wicked law and if the founding fathers were alive they would wholeheartedly agree with Kim Davis's refusal to participate, Dante.
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,
Well, if Davis opted to quit her job but was compelled to stay, THEN, you'd be correct.
Since the job's duties are no longer compatible with her [supposedly] religious beliefs, her duty to herself is to QUIT and not demand that her job description be changed to suit her religion.
Keep in mind that her duties also entail giving out liquor licenses..
appeal away.It says, Pending an appeal.
We are a nation of laws, not of people, religious faiths, or gods
Stat left that part out. As he said in his OP -
This graphic tells it all:
I felt he should have included that piece of information. I'm merely pointing out that it says, Pending an appeal.......
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,
Well, if Davis opted to quit her job but was compelled to stay, THEN, you'd be correct.
Since the job's duties are no longer compatible with her [supposedly] religious beliefs, her duty to herself is to QUIT and not demand that her job description be changed to suit her religion.
Keep in mind that her duties also entail giving out liquor licenses..
She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.
Her faith demands of her to discriminate against other people in a job that is a SECULAR job? Really?
appeal away.It says, Pending an appeal.
We are a nation of laws, not of people, religious faiths, or gods
If we were a nation that upheld our constitution and the law of the land the Supreme Court would never have been able to get away with overruling the will of the people and voting on a law they had no business voting on in the first place.
The same people who complain about Kim Davis I did not see respond to the duly elected Barack Obama when he ignored the immigration laws, Dante. Why?
She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.
Her faith demands of her to discriminate against other people in a job that is a SECULAR job? Really?
No. The Constitution protects her from discrimination and being targeted for persecution at her workplace. The same sex couple were not put in jail. Kim Davis was, Stat.
She was targeted for her faith as a Christian. It's called persecution and it should not be happening, Dante.
It says, Pending an appeal.
She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.
Such STUPIDITY.........Davis took an oath which specifically stated that her duties entailed issuing marriage licenses.....She no longer can say that she is just a private citizen and she did NOT campaign for the job stating that she would not perform SOME of her duties.
The best part of the arguments of the crazies is the law was different BEFORE she swore her oath.
Imagine a Mayor, a Governor, or a President saying they did not have to obey the law of the land because it changed AFTER they swore their oath?
Madness
It is a perverse and wicked law and if the founding fathers were alive they would wholeheartedly agree with Kim Davis's refusal to participate, Dante.
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.
It says, Pending an appeal.
Oh, and BTW, such things almost always say "pending appeal", because according to our system of justice, known adversarial, appeals are to be expected.
You do realize this, right?
And then there is this:
Davis’ Religious Beliefs Are Substantially Burdened By Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate. Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, along with post-Obergefell pending legislation in Kentucky and the undisputed evidentiary record on this appeal, support the conclusion that Davis’ religious beliefs are substantially burdened by Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate forcing her to authorize SSM licenses.
Davis indisputably holds sincere religious beliefs about marriage and her inability to issue SSM licenses is motivated by those convictions. VTC, ¶¶ 17-18.
In her belief, marriage is the sacred union of a man and a woman, only. VTC, ¶ 17. The prescribed marriage license form required under Gov. Beshear’s SSM Mandate provides no opportunity for the religious objector (Davis) not to participate in endorsement and approval of SSM.
The specific form uses the word “marriage” at Kentucky marriage law cannot be interpreted without also considering and applying the Kentucky RFRA. Case: 15-5961 Document: 25-1 Filed: 09/07/2015 Page: 9 (9 of 82) 8 six different places, requires Davis’ name to be on the license at two different places (at least) for any license issued in Rowan County, Kentucky, and also requires her to authorize the “join[ing] together in the state of matrimony” a proposed union that she cannot approve. VTC, ¶ 11, and Exs. A, D.
But Davis cannot authorize a union of two persons which, in her sincerely-held belief, is not marriage. VTC, ¶¶ 17-18. Gov. Beshear has flatly rejected Davis’ request for religious exemption. In his view, Davis must either comply with his SSM Mandate, or resign from office. VTC, ¶¶ 28, 36. On Gov. Beshear’s own initiative, the KDLA prepared a revised marriage form in response to his SSM Mandate, which was then distributed to county clerks for them to begin using immediately, without exception, per Gov. Beshear’s directive. VTC, ¶¶ 25-26, and Ex. C.
see link for further information.
It says, Pending an appeal.
Oh, and BTW, such things almost always say "pending appeal", because according to our system of justice, known adversarial, appeals are to be expected.
You do realize this, right?
I realize you didn't mention it which is why I did, Stat.
