Kim Davis loses again...

[nat4900]

How is it surprising that Democrats, whose only God was a community organizer, find it incredible that some folks have principles that aren't negotiable?

...and here chimes in yet ANOTHER moron who confuses "duties of an elected official" with the "principles of a religious zealot".......
Exactly WHERE were Davis' religious principles when she DIVORCED 3 times before???

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

Wrong.

The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play – invoking the First Amendment is as ignorant and as ridiculous as invoking the 16th Amendment or the 22nd.

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.

Wrong.

The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play – invoking the First Amendment is as ignorant and as ridiculous as invoking the 16th Amendment or the 22nd.

You had better read this:

Thus, Gov. Beshear is imposing a direct, severe, and substantial pressure on Davis by the SSM Mandate when he forces Davis “to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits [her job], on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work [keep her job], on the other hand.” Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963). 8

This Hobson’s choice places undue pressure on Davis to choose between her job and her religion.

In addition to his unmitigated “approve or resign” rule, Gov. Beshear has ominously declared that “the courts” will deal with county clerks who do not comply with his SSM Mandate. VTC, ¶ 35.

Moreover, immediately after issuance of the SSM Mandate, Atty. Gen. Conway even threatened possible legal action against county clerks who did not comply with the SSM Mandate, even seemingly inviting statement by the county clerk or a deputy county clerk of the county in which the marriage license was issued”; and (4) the “the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued.” KY. REV. STAT. § 402.100(1)-(3) (emphasis added).

As county clerk, Davis is provided this form by the KDLA, and she has no local discretion in the composition and requirements of that prescribed form. VTC, ¶¶ 7, 10. 8 See also Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862 (2015) (government places a “substantial burden” on religious exercise if policy requires person “to ‘engage in conduct that seriously violates [her] religious beliefs” or “contravene that policy and . . . face serious disciplinary action”); Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554, 565 (6th Cir. 2014) (government places a “substantial burden” on religious belief when it......

link here:

https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/..._and_Motion_for_Injunction_Pending_Appeal.pdf

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

Well, mention away!!!

Why thank you, Stat.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

She was targeted for her faith as a Christian. It's called persecution and it should not be happening, Dante.

She is NOT being targeted for her faith. This is a lie and should be treated as one by people who profess a moral superiority based on their individual faith(s). Christian Clerks are issuing licenses. I believe she is also only 1 of 3 Clerks in her whole state out of 116/117, who have initially refused to fulfill their sworn duty.

 

[Statistikhengst]

How is it surprising that Democrats, whose only God was a community organizer, find it incredible that some folks have principles that aren't negotiable?

...and here chimes in yet ANOTHER moron who confuses "duties of an elected official" with the "principles of a religious zealot".......
Exactly WHERE were Davis' religious principles when she DIVORCED 3 times before???

Hmmmm, interesting.

I think that she and Josh Duggar should elope.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Wrong.

The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play – invoking the First Amendment is as ignorant and as ridiculous as invoking the 16th Amendment or the 22nd.

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.

Wrong.

The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play – invoking the First Amendment is as ignorant and as ridiculous as invoking the 16th Amendment or the 22nd.

You had better read this:

Thus, Gov. Beshear is imposing a direct, severe, and substantial pressure on Davis by the SSM Mandate when he forces Davis “to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits [her job], on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work [keep her job], on the other hand.” Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963). 8

This Hobson’s choice places undue pressure on Davis to choose between her job and her religion.

In addition to his unmitigated “approve or resign” rule, Gov. Beshear has ominously declared that “the courts” will deal with county clerks who do not comply with his SSM Mandate. VTC, ¶ 35.

Moreover, immediately after issuance of the SSM Mandate, Atty. Gen. Conway even threatened possible legal action against county clerks who did not comply with the SSM Mandate, even seemingly inviting statement by the county clerk or a deputy county clerk of the county in which the marriage license was issued”; and (4) the “the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued.” KY. REV. STAT. § 402.100(1)-(3) (emphasis added).

As county clerk, Davis is provided this form by the KDLA, and she has no local discretion in the composition and requirements of that prescribed form. VTC, ¶¶ 7, 10. 8 See also Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862 (2015) (government places a “substantial burden” on religious exercise if policy requires person “to ‘engage in conduct that seriously violates [her] religious beliefs” or “contravene that policy and . . . face serious disciplinary action”); Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554, 565 (6th Cir. 2014) (government places a “substantial burden” on religious belief when it......

link here:

https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/..._and_Motion_for_Injunction_Pending_Appeal.pdf

a losing legal argument?

 

[HenryBHough]

...and here chimes in yet ANOTHER moron who confuses "duties of an elected official" with the "principles of a religious zealot".......
Exactly WHERE were Davis' religious principles when she DIVORCED 3 times before???

You raise an interesting question.

Please share with what your obviously intensive research revealed.

Or were you not so much "researching" as stalking?

 

[Statistikhengst]

She was targeted for her faith as a Christian. It's called persecution and it should not be happening, Dante.

She is NOT being targeted for her faith. This is a lie and should be treated as one by people who profess a moral superiority based on their individual faith(s). Christian Clerks are issuing licenses. I believe she is also only 1 of 3 Clerks in her whole state out of 116/117, who have initially refused to fulfill their sworn duty.

Yepp.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

She was targeted for her faith as a Christian. It's called persecution and it should not be happening, Dante.

She is NOT being targeted for her faith. This is a lie and should be treated as one by people who profess a moral superiority based on their individual faith(s). Christian Clerks are issuing licenses. I believe she is also only 1 of 3 Clerks in her whole state out of 116/117, who have initially refused to fulfill their sworn duty.

Please examine the links and material the proves otherwise, Dante. Thank you in advance for reading - I'd like to hear your thoughts - afterwards..

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Really? Where in the bible does Jesus say that the gays can't marry? She's NOT following the christian faith. She and some so called christians just made up what she is following.

The part where she claims she talks with god just proves she is bat shit crazy. If it is true that she talks with god then where are the audio recordings? Where are the video recordings? Unless she is lying of course. Would a christian lie about such a thing? That's all they do is lie.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

She was targeted for her faith as a Christian. It's called persecution and it should not be happening, Dante.

She is NOT being targeted for her faith. This is a lie and should be treated as one by people who profess a moral superiority based on their individual faith(s). Christian Clerks are issuing licenses. I believe she is also only 1 of 3 Clerks in her whole state out of 116/117, who have initially refused to fulfill their sworn duty.

Yepp.

I disagree with you and Dante. I believe she was persecuted for her faith and as it became increasingly apparent that was the case? They decided to release her from jail.

 

[nat4900]

As I had mentioned on a previous thread, the judge made a mistake in jailing Davis instead of fining her thousands of dollars every day she did not perform her duties....THEN, we would see for how long all the "good evangelicals" who chipped in to pay for the fines, would keep up this little media-grabbing charade.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

Really? Where in the bible does Jesus say that the gays can't marry? She's NOT following the christian faith. She and some so called christians just made up what she is following.

The part where she claims she talks with god just proves she is bat shit crazy. If it is true that she talks with god then where are the audio recordings? Where are the video recordings? Unless she is lying of course. Would a christian lie about such a thing? That's all they do is lie.

Jesus Christ is the Word in Genesis 1:26, Huggy.

It is written:

Genesis 1:26 - 28:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
_____
What does this mean? It means that Jesus Christ - the Word was with God in the beginning and that they made man in God's image and after God's likeness. He created them male and female. And God blessed Adam and Eve and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it...........
God created a woman for man. Not a man for man. Not a woman for a woman. He created one man and then he created one woman for that man. He created Adam and Eve. A man and a woman.

A man and a man cannot be fruitful and multiply.
A woman and a woman cannot be fruitful and multiply.
Only a man and a woman can be fruitful and multiply.
Why? Because God never intended for a man to lie with a man or a woman with a woman. It is an abomination unto God, Huggy.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How is it surprising that Democrats, whose only God was a community organizer, find it incredible that some folks have principles that aren't negotiable?

...and here chimes in yet ANOTHER moron who confuses "duties of an elected official" with the "principles of a religious zealot".......
Exactly WHERE were Davis' religious principles when she DIVORCED 3 times before???

She wasn't a Christian when she divorced you low info buffoon

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And here is the proof, per settled and accepted case law, that there are no First Amendment issues at stake:

“The Court therefore has the ability to grant Davis’ Motion, but only to the extent that she seeks to compel enforcement of her free exercise and free speech rights under the First Amendment. However, Davis has failed to convince the Court that such relief is appropriate.”

http://files.eqcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/103-ORDER-denying-injunction-pending-appeal.pdf

 

[nat4900]

She wasn't a Christian when she divorced you low info buffoon

In other words she got ALL her "morality" after she became a Christian??? What was she before?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

Wrong.

The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play – invoking the First Amendment is as ignorant and as ridiculous as invoking the 16th Amendment or the 22nd.

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.

Wrong.

The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play – invoking the First Amendment is as ignorant and as ridiculous as invoking the 16th Amendment or the 22nd.

You had better read this:

Thus, Gov. Beshear is imposing a direct, severe, and substantial pressure on Davis by the SSM Mandate when he forces Davis “to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits [her job], on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work [keep her job], on the other hand.” Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963). 8

This Hobson’s choice places undue pressure on Davis to choose between her job and her religion.

In addition to his unmitigated “approve or resign” rule, Gov. Beshear has ominously declared that “the courts” will deal with county clerks who do not comply with his SSM Mandate. VTC, ¶ 35.

Moreover, immediately after issuance of the SSM Mandate, Atty. Gen. Conway even threatened possible legal action against county clerks who did not comply with the SSM Mandate, even seemingly inviting statement by the county clerk or a deputy county clerk of the county in which the marriage license was issued”; and (4) the “the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued.” KY. REV. STAT. § 402.100(1)-(3) (emphasis added).

As county clerk, Davis is provided this form by the KDLA, and she has no local discretion in the composition and requirements of that prescribed form. VTC, ¶¶ 7, 10. 8 See also Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862 (2015) (government places a “substantial burden” on religious exercise if policy requires person “to ‘engage in conduct that seriously violates [her] religious beliefs” or “contravene that policy and . . . face serious disciplinary action”); Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554, 565 (6th Cir. 2014) (government places a “substantial burden” on religious belief when it......

link here:

https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/..._and_Motion_for_Injunction_Pending_Appeal.pdf

a losing legal argument?

Has it been heard in a court of law and decided yet? If not, shouldn't we wait for the case to be fully heard and a verdict before calling it a losing argument, Dante?

 

[Statistikhengst]

'Here, let me tell you about the love of Christ. But first, I gotta hate on those fags over there. And just cuz I let myself get popped in the pussy by 4 or 5 different men and have affairs and children out of wedlock, it's still my holy deeeyuuuuty to hate those fags. Hallelujah, amen.'

 

[SassyIrishLass]

She wasn't a Christian when she divorced you low info buffoon

In other words she got ALL her "morality" after she became a Christian??? What was she before?

A sinner who didn't believe and hadn't repented

 

[G.T.]

Lol she deserves every denial she gets.