Kim Davis needs to go to jail

[Pop23]

Here's a real clue. The far right is supporting Kim, no one else.

There are ways of handling this. Recall or impeach.

 

[Skylar]

When you violate the Order of a Court, in letter and principal, you need to go to jail.

kim "sanctity of marriage but married four times" walker, doesn't understand the English language or the fact that when the Court tells you to do something... you do it.

loon.....

Kim Davis went back to work as a Kentucky county clerk last week after a stint in jail and a pledge that she wouldn't interfere with deputies who were issuing wedding licenses to same-sex couples.

But in a court motion filed Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union said that she was doing just that.

After returning to her job on Sept. 14 as the Rowan County clerk, the filing said, Davis "immediately" began meddling with licenses that the office's deputy clerk, Brian Mason, was issuing.

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Is Meddling and Altering Marriage Licenses, ACLU Says

and no... no religion requires you to be a bigot... and if she can't do her job, the wacko bird, hypocritt needs to quit.

No you don't. The court just made the law out of thin air. You should know that.

So....anyone can ignore any court ruling they disagree with?

 

[Skylar]

I agree, she's a typical christian bigot.

She's a Democrat. ...what did you expect?

I did not expect GOP Presidential candidates to rush to her side to bask in borrowed Bigotry

In all fairness, these weren't exactly first tier candidates. I mean, one got cockblocked by Huckabee's aide for crying out loud.

 

[Skylar]

I am sure that she signed a moral and ethics paper when she took office which states if she had a conflict of interest she was to step down.

It was like she was waiting for a gay couple to come in, which would eventually.

All of the attention that she got will bring out other who want that 10 minutes of fame .

Cracked me up how Huckabee tried to use it for his campaign is now back in the shadows.








~

Someone might want her 7 figure book deal.

 

[easyt65]

So....anyone can ignore any court ruling they disagree with?

Again, as I pointed out and provided evidence to support, Obama has been found Guilty of Contempt of Court and has disobeyed Federal Judges' court orders at least 3 times...and has not gone to jail. This woman is only 'guilty' of following the example and precedence set by our Commander-and-Chief.

 

[Skylar]

She can be a Christian bigot. She just can't be a Christian bigot and have that job.

Ben Carson says:
the country cannot elect people “whose faith might interfere with carrying out the duties of the Constitution.”

Read more here: Republican Ben Carson claims benefits from Muslim criticism

Kentucky clerk could head back to court over licenses
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — She's already spent five days in jail, and now a Kentucky clerk could be back in court soon for altering marriage license forms issued to same-sex couples.

On Monday, lawyers for two gay couples and two straight couples questioned the validity of the new marriage licenses and asked a federal judge to order Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office to reissue them. If she refuses, the lawyers asked the judge to put the office in receivership and have someone else do it.

You're being entirely too consistent. A faith that might interfere with carrying out the duties of the constitution only courts if we're talking about Muslims. If we're talking about Christians, its the sacred duty of the faithful to refuse to carry out any constitutional duty that would interfere with God's law.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

So....anyone can ignore any court ruling they disagree with?

Again, as I pointed out and provided evidence to support, Obama has been found Guilty of Contempt of Court and has disobeyed Federal Judges' court orders at least 3 times...and has not gone to jail. This woman is only 'guilty' of following the example and precedence set by our Commander-and-Chief.

Which judges on which issues, backed by what evidence?

And when did Obama say he was enacting 'god's law'? Because that's Davis' justification.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So....anyone can ignore any court ruling they disagree with?

Again, as I pointed out and provided evidence to support, Obama has been found Guilty of Contempt of Vourt and has disobeyed Federal Judges' court orders at least 3 times...and has not gone to jail. This woman is only 'guilty' of following the example and precedence set by our Commander-and-Chief.

This woman is not guilty of anything.

The Scotus simply decreed that existing law is unconstitutional. There are no new laws which provide for the licensing of Degenerates to legally join as one legal entity outside of Formal Incorporation.
As a result the individual is correct to not issuing any license to marry for those who are otherwise disqualified from the institution of marriage, as nature defines marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

The States should simply return to provide for formal incorporation specific to degenerates.

Such would be codified as "NOT-MARRIAGE" and is incapable of legally being represented as Marriage, in any sense, with severe penalties ... for representing such as marriage. Providing degenerates with a formal not-for-profit enterprise, incorporated in that state with whatever economic advantages which set the degenerates economically equal with actual human beings, as the state feels appropriate.

The name should reflect the nature of the enterprise, such as Demonication, or Fudgepacker's Pact... or Cultination... or... my personal fave: Abomination, Inc.

 

[easyt65]

Which judges on which issues, backed by what evidence?

And when did Obama say he was enacting 'god's law'? Because that's Davis' justification.

Feel free to go back and look up what I posted on the issue...I refuse to repost for someone too lazy to do any work for themselves to educate themselves.

 

[Skylar]

This woman is not guilty of anything.

The Scotus simply decreed that existing law is unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS found that States had to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Its one of the two specific legal questions they were asked to answer. Which ends Davis' entire legal argument.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Which judges on which issues, backed by what evidence?

And when did Obama say he was enacting 'god's law'? Because that's Davis' justification.

Feel free to go back and look up what I posted on the issue...I refuse to repost for someone too lazy to do any work for themselves to educate themselves.

Can you give me the post number? If you're going to cite the evidence as a refutation of my argument, you'll actually need to present it.

So far you've given me excuses why you won't. Which is pretty much what I expected.

 

[easyt65]

WHY do states have to issue marriage licenses? If the Federal Government wants to get into the business of issuing such licenses, why doesn't the federal government do it? Oh yeah because there really isn't any Constitutional authority to financially regulate the practice of marriage.... while people have the right to happiness, does the Constitution actually say the government has a right to profit from it? If they want to call such a fee 'buying government-provided benefits allotted to legally recognized couples', which it pretty much is, that's another story.

 

[Skylar]

WHY do states have to issue marriage licenses? If the Federal Government wants to get into the business of issuing such licenses, why doesn't the federal government do it? Oh yeah because there really isn't any Constitutional authority to financially regulate the practice of marriage.... while people have the right to happiness, does the Constitution actually say the government has a right to profit from it? If they want to call such a fee 'buying government-provided benefits allotted to legally recognized couples', which it pretty much is, that's another story.

The States don't have to issue marriage licenses. But if they do, they have to issue them to straights and gays alike. All states do issue marriage licenses.

And the constitutional basis for overturning bans on same sex marriage had nothing to do with financial regulation. Making your argument a pointless strawman.

Read Obergefell. They lay out their constitutional basis. And its nothing you've cited.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which judges on which issues, backed by what evidence?

And when did Obama say he was enacting 'god's law'? Because that's Davis' justification.

Feel free to go back and look up what I posted on the issue...I refuse to repost for someone too lazy to do any work for themselves to educate themselves.

Can you give me the post number? If you're going to cite the evidence as a refutation of my argument, you'll actually need to present it.

So far you've given me excuses why you won't. Which is pretty much what I expected.

The best means to refute Skylar's would-be "Argument" is to simply determine which fallacy she has constructed her argument upon and cite that.

For instance, at the moment, her construct is the appeal to ignorance, wherein she is demanding that the argument she contests is false, while having not actually read the argument.

The simple truth is that obama was complicit in Fast and Furious, wherein it tried to frame US citizens for crimes IT COMMITTED! obama is also clearly and irrefutably complicit in its abuse of its authority to usurp the means of US Citizens from peaceably assembling, when it ordered the IRS to harass Americans forming organizations to contest its criminal cult. obama is complicit in the murder of US citizens abroad, through its failure to provide adequate security measures and to render aid when such was requested... obama is complicit in the attempt cover up its guilt by claiming that the attacks upon the US Consulate in Benghazi were the result of a Protest regarding a Youtube Video which IT advertised through the Middle East, over the days prior to that attack... despite its knowing full well that no such protect existed... so on and so forth.

 

[easyt65]

Can you give me the post number? If you're going to cite the evidence as a refutation of my argument, you'll actually need to present it.

So far you've given me excuses why you won't. Which is pretty much what I expected.

Skylar, stop whining and do some research. Better yet, don't look for my post and instead look for the information yourself. I spent 4 minutes on-line and found about 25 stories about Obama's violations of Court Orders and being found in Contempt of court. I will help you out, though... Look for his being found in Contempt of Court for refusing to lift his deep water drilling ban after the BP spill. Look for how he rejected several court orders, and is still doing so, regarding the Fast and Furious Scandal by refusing to turn over documents / e-mails between him and Holder. Look at the most recent case of him violating a Judge's court order regarding his illegal Amnesty.

I swear, the only time Liberals have problems looking things up is when it is about their own politicians' scandals and crimes.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

WHY do states have to issue marriage licenses? If the Federal Government wants to get into the business of issuing such licenses, why doesn't the federal government do it? Oh yeah because there really isn't any Constitutional authority to financially regulate the practice of marriage.... while people have the right to happiness, does the Constitution actually say the government has a right to profit from it? If they want to call such a fee 'buying government-provided benefits allotted to legally recognized couples', which it pretty much is, that's another story.

This is due to the extreme public interest in enforcing sound sustainable behavior by the citizenry. Precluding behavior which runs counter to the general welfare of the citizenry and the enforcement of such.

 

[Skylar]

Can you give me the post number? If you're going to cite the evidence as a refutation of my argument, you'll actually need to present it.

So far you've given me excuses why you won't. Which is pretty much what I expected.

Skylar, stop whining and do some research. Better yet, don't look for my post and instead look for the information yourself. I spent 4 minutes on-line and found about 25 stories about Obama's violations of Court Orders and being found in Contempt of court. I will help you out, though... Look for his being found in Contempt of Court for refusing to lift his deep water drilling ban after the BP spill. Look for how he rejected several court orders, and is still doing so, regarding the Fast and Furious Scandal by refusing to turn over documents / e-mails between him and Holder. Look at the most recent case of him violating a Judge's court order regarding his illegal Amnesty.

I swear, the only time Liberals have problems looking things up is when it is about their own politicians' scandals and crimes.

Or.....you can simply cite the evidence you're alluding to. You could have given the post number is seconds. Instead, you spent minutes giving me elaborate excuses why you can't.

Like many folks here, their evidence is quite irrefutable.....until you ask to actually see it. Then the stammering and excuses start.

 

[easyt65]

And the constitutional basis for overturning bans on same sex marriage had nothing to do with financial regulation. Making your argument a pointless strawman.

Read Obergefell. They lay out their constitutional basis. And its nothing you've cited.

I didn't say collecting money for issuing marriage licenses was a Constitutional reason to or not to issue them at all. I was just wondering if states do not HAVE to, why is a tax / fee charged for issuing them?

My point was, this fee is basically associated with the act of getting government benefits associated with being registered as a couple, not with 'getting married'. I imagine a couple can be married, assuming would perform the ceremony, without a marriage license if they only cared about the act and God's blessing on the union, which marriage is, and if they do not care about all the perks and 'bennies' provided by the government that comes along with getting a license and being 'officially registered and licensed' as a couple.

 

[Skylar]

WHY do states have to issue marriage licenses? If the Federal Government wants to get into the business of issuing such licenses, why doesn't the federal government do it? Oh yeah because there really isn't any Constitutional authority to financially regulate the practice of marriage.... while people have the right to happiness, does the Constitution actually say the government has a right to profit from it? If they want to call such a fee 'buying government-provided benefits allotted to legally recognized couples', which it pretty much is, that's another story.

This is due to the extreme public interest in enforcing sound sustainable behavior by the citizenry. Precluding behavior which runs counter to the general welfare of the citizenry and the enforcement of such.

The obvious problem with your reasoning being your concepts of causation. You've argued that any society that embraces homosexuality eventually collapses. Your problem comes in the fact that every society that rejects homosexuality eventually collapses too.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the existence of your 'cause', your cause isn't.

Demonstrating that your concept of 'sustainable' is merely a fallacy of logic. Your bread and butter.

 

[easyt65]

Or.....you can simply cite the evidence you're alluding to...

' Waaaaa....FEED ME!'