Understanding What Kim Davis' Legal Argument Will Be..

[Asclepias]

And none of that will protect people Kim Davis will be suing for violation of her civil rights.

Anyone in america can sue for anything they can afford to. Doesnt mean they will win anything.

 

[Syriusly]

It has already been decided, your side lost.

It wasn't decided legally. Hence the reason we haven't lost. Stay tuned, like I said...

Two words: Ginsburg & Kagan.

Two words: Silhouette fail

 

[NYcarbineer]

And none of that will protect people Kim Davis will be suing for violation of her civil rights.

I ALMOST envy people like Silhouette who are totally devoid of being shamed by their own stupidity.

 

[Silhouette]

And none of that will protect people Kim Davis will be suing for violation of her civil rights.

Anyone in america can sue for anything they can afford to. Doesnt mean they will win anything.

Being jailed for her Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I think that's one case that has MERIT written all over its face.

 

[BULLDOG]

And none of that will protect people Kim Davis will be suing for violation of her civil rights.

Anyone in america can sue for anything they can afford to. Doesnt mean they will win anything.

Being jailed for her Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I think that's one case that has MERIT written all over its face.

Bullshit.She was jailed for contempt of court.

 

[Asclepias]

And none of that will protect people Kim Davis will be suing for violation of her civil rights.

Anyone in america can sue for anything they can afford to. Doesnt mean they will win anything.

Being jailed for her Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I think that's one case that has MERIT written all over its face.

Dont quit your day job. Pseudo attorney at law is not in your pedigree

 

[Silhouette]

Being jailed for her Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I think that's one case that has MERIT written all over its face.

Dont quit your day job. Pseudo attorney at law is not in your pedigree

Comfort in numbers...and denial...isn't going to change a thing when this thing makes it to the SCOTUS.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Being jailed for her Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I think that's one case that has MERIT written all over its face.

Dont quit your day job. Pseudo attorney at law is not in your pedigree

Comfort in numbers...and denial...isn't going to change a thing when this thing makes it to the SCOTUS.

It has already been there, dumbass. You lost. Deal with it.

 

[Asclepias]

Being jailed for her Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I think that's one case that has MERIT written all over its face.

Dont quit your day job. Pseudo attorney at law is not in your pedigree

Comfort in numbers...and denial...isn't going to change a thing when this thing makes it to the SCOTUS.

I guess you missed the memo while at your day job.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Being jailed for her Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I think that's one case that has MERIT written all over its face.

Dont quit your day job. Pseudo attorney at law is not in your pedigree

Comfort in numbers...and denial...isn't going to change a thing when this thing makes it to the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has already declined to hear her case.

Keep up.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Being jailed for her Christian beliefs?

Yeah, I think that's one case that has MERIT written all over its face.

Dont quit your day job. Pseudo attorney at law is not in your pedigree

Comfort in numbers...and denial...isn't going to change a thing when this thing makes it to the SCOTUS.

I guess you missed the memo while at your day job.

Sil's clock...

 

[Silhouette]

Wow, how weird, an ad hominem without substance "as rebuttal" to lucid points made to the thread topic....coming from the LGBT camp....shocking...


NOT.

You know, because "those opposed to the LGBT culture are haters"...

 

[Montrovant]

Wow, how weird, an ad hominem without substance "as rebuttal" to lucid points made to the thread topic....coming from the LGBT camp....shocking...


NOT.

You know, because "those opposed to the LGBT culture are haters"...

You've made a lucid point? That must be a first.

Tell us, how many legal predictions that you've made on this site have been correct? Can you name a single one? I know you've predicted the USSC would use the Prince's Trust Youth Index from....2013 was it?....in their Obergefell ruling. That turned out to be less than accurate. You've predicted two justices would be impeached for not recusing themselves from the Obergefell decision. Haven't seen that one come about yet either. You've also claimed that homosexuality is a verb, you've been unable to understand the meaning of wedlock (no, children in gay marriage do not have to have been born outside of wedlock), you've created your own definition of child-trafficking, you've claimed homosexuality can only be a race or a behavior.....actually, we'd probably save time by just trying to list the times you've actually been correct rather than pointing out your many, many, many false statements, mistakes, and lies.

Why should anyone bother with a serious rebuttal to your posts?

 

[Silhouette]

You've made a lucid point? That must be a first.

Tell us, how many legal predictions that you've made on this site have been correct? Can you name a single one?

Starts with a hateful comment and ends with topic related content. Montrovant, you are the diet-LGBT poster..

How many legal predictions of mine have been correct? This one. And I was correct on it before June 2015 and you will see that I am correct on it when Ms. Davis' case goes to SCOTUS..

How do I know? I've read the 1st and 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kim Davis is dead, same sex marriage is alive. End of story.

 

[BULLDOG]

You've made a lucid point? That must be a first.

Tell us, how many legal predictions that you've made on this site have been correct? Can you name a single one?

Starts with a hateful comment and ends with topic related content. Montrovant, you are the diet-LGBT poster..

How many legal predictions of mine have been correct? This one. And I was correct on it before June 2015 and you will see that I am correct on it when Ms. Davis' case goes to SCOTUS..

How do I know? I've read the 1st and 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Nobody doubts that you have read those amendments, but did you get someone to tell you what the big words mean?

 

[Montrovant]

You've made a lucid point? That must be a first.

Tell us, how many legal predictions that you've made on this site have been correct? Can you name a single one?

Starts with a hateful comment and ends with topic related content. Montrovant, you are the diet-LGBT poster..

How many legal predictions of mine have been correct? This one. And I was correct on it before June 2015 and you will see that I am correct on it when Ms. Davis' case goes to SCOTUS..

How do I know? I've read the 1st and 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

So none. Got it. Yet you expect people to take you seriously, because this time, you know what you're talking about?

 

[Montrovant]

You've made a lucid point? That must be a first.

Tell us, how many legal predictions that you've made on this site have been correct? Can you name a single one?

Starts with a hateful comment and ends with topic related content. Montrovant, you are the diet-LGBT poster..

How many legal predictions of mine have been correct? This one. And I was correct on it before June 2015 and you will see that I am correct on it when Ms. Davis' case goes to SCOTUS..

How do I know? I've read the 1st and 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Oh, yeah, and your signature line is, once again, wrong. A child can be born in wedlock yet end up raised by parents in a gay marriage. Being born in wedlock just means born to married parents. Even if you deny the marriages of gays, a child could be born into a heterosexual marriage and end up with a gay couple for any number of reasons, as has been explained to you already. You seem to have a fetish for inaccuracies in your sig line, though.

 

[Asclepias]

You've made a lucid point? That must be a first.

Tell us, how many legal predictions that you've made on this site have been correct? Can you name a single one?

Starts with a hateful comment and ends with topic related content. Montrovant, you are the diet-LGBT poster..

How many legal predictions of mine have been correct? This one. And I was correct on it before June 2015 and you will see that I am correct on it when Ms. Davis' case goes to SCOTUS..

How do I know? I've read the 1st and 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Youre an idiot. I told you not to quit your day job. You didnt know what the hell you were talking about.

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course she already had a lawyer or a team of them before she went to jail. But there seems to be quite a rukkus and misunderstanding of religion when it comes to how her attorneys will frame their argument. Here is a spot to debate Kim Davis' flaws and how they will weigh in on her arguments at trial(s) and on appeal to the US Supreme Court, probably by about late 2016 or early 2017.

The following comment sparked this topic:

Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock. Is that true? I can smell the hypocrisy.

Yes, she is a sinner. And that's why she is a Christian. It's a requirement to walk through the door of a church. You don't approach Christianity from a perspective of perfection, you approach it saying "I am a flawed being, I'm struggling, I need help". That's how it works.

On the topic of adultery and the famous story in the Bible of the stoning incident with Jesus, he said "let any of you who is without sin cast the first stone". His point was twofold: 1. To save the poor stoning victim and 2. To really seat in the minds of the angry mob that we are all sinners and must not judge; judgment is for God.

That being said, Jude 1 spells out that a Christian (who is also a sinner, remember) must reach out to homosexuals with compassion, "making a difference". But that to promote them as a group mentality into the fabric of any society is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. This message exists in the New Testament and in Jesus' teachings as I recall, there are very few examples of of him saying "Oh yeah, you know that Old Testament law and the shit that went down then with God casting people into Hell for eternity? Yeah, this one's like that. It's for realsies." Yet that's what we find in Jude 1.

And it makes sense if you understand sociology. When it comes to human behaviors and mimickry in youth, trends have a way of catching fire in any society. And what do we see today after 30 years of nonstop campaigning by LGBT cult to the youth in media? That's right, hordes of "bi-curious" or "gay" youth popping up like a dandelion-epidemic in a lawn that used to be relatively weed free. God's OK with his lawn having occasional dandelions but not the whole lawn being taken over with time. God remembers Ancient Greece and you don't. So he is wiser than you. God remembers Sodom and you don't. So he is wiser than you.

God teaches us to love the sinner but hate the sin. And that's what Jude 1 is all about. Jesus also extended compassion to prostitutes, thieves and lepers. Does that mean that anyone against or refusing to participate in promoting prostitution, robbery or coming down with leprosy is a "hater"? NO! Of course not! So, Kim Davis is in God's favor. The Bible's New Testament isn't all roses and hippy love fest. There are some hard rules and one of the hardest is not to tamper with God's lawn by helping to seed it with weeds. Otherwise the good grass will be choked out and wouldn't have a chance to grow in that enviroment even if it wanted to desperately. THAT is why the punishment for promoting homosexuality using God's sacred vehicle of the family (marriage) is such a pisser for God. And you will get eternity in the slammer if you fail to heed Jude 1's warning.

So, any lawyer coming forward saying "she's an adulterer! How can she object?!!" is flat out of line. Kim Davis isn't the Bible. Kim Davis is a flawed sinning Christian doing her level best to abide by the Bible in this particular instance. She has read the warnings in Jude 1, presumably. So she knows she must choose between eternal peril or jail. She has chosen wisely. But the people who put her in jail have not chosen wisely. They will be judged twice. Once here on earth in the dank and dusty courtooms. And a second time as they foolishly try to enter the Pearly Gates.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution protects the exercise of religion. It does so not for a building or a group of people, but for an individual following a known and accepted faith (not a cult). The differences between a sublime religion and a cult are determined by society, not one judge or a small panel of them. Christians were who founded our country. And it's going to be a long day in court for an attorney trying to argue how a Johnny-Come-Lately deviant sex cult has a "right" to force a Christian to their knees to bow at a new rainbow colored altar.

The 9th Amendment of the Constitution says that no law may come along and dilute the potency of the 1st Amendment. So Ms. Davis can use the 9th to drive a big fat nail in the wall and hang her 1st Amendment hat on it. "Public Accomodation" must and will take a back seat to the 1st Amendment. Public accomodation is a brand new concept of forcing people to go along with in this case, behaviors they object to.

There was a flawed premise at the very start of all this. And it was/is "behaviors = race". A waffling group of deviant sex behaviors who don't even understand themselves completely, cannot dictate to our nation's sublime stalwart religion since day one (Christians) that they will now have to essentially tear out sections of the Bible and burn them as newly-irrelevant.

There is something ironic about Sil creaming her panties over this woman, all in contempt for gay people.