(09-03-2015 02:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Judge Orders Defiant Kentucky Clerk Who Refused to Grant Gay Marriage Licenses to Jail

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/...s-to-jail/

Quote:Matthew 24:9 "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers."

Here's the judge's remarks from a few minutes ago...

Bunning, however, apparently felt she deserved jail time, but he also told Davis she could end her incarceration by complying with the Supreme Court order and telling her deputy clerks to do the same.

So now they're using bullying tactics against Christians.


Then there's this...

"Kim Davis is being treated as a criminal because she cannot violate her conscience. While she may be behind bars for now, Kim Davis is a free woman. Her conscience remains unshackled," he said in the statement. "The tragedy is that there are simple ways to accommodate her convictions. Just remove her name from the marriage licenses. That's all she has asked from the beginning. Today's events will escalate this debate to a new level."

Hmm, interesting. First I've heard about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/k...kim-davis/

(09-03-2015 02:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Judge Orders Defiant Kentucky Clerk Who Refused to Grant Gay Marriage Licenses to Jail

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/...s-to-jail/

Quote:Matthew 24:9 "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers."

Except she's not being arrested for being a christian, do you really not grasp this painfully simple concept?

She's also not being killed, but she's being persecuted and she's hated all over the place for standing strong in her beliefs.

(09-03-2015 02:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  As the judge presiding stated

Quote:“I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs,” the judge said, but “I took an oath.” He noted: “Mrs. Davis took an oath. Oaths mean things."

I wonder how often the sin of lying is mentioned in the bible compared to homosexuality?

Does that apply to Clinton and Lerner too?

(09-03-2015 03:50 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But he cannot do that, so commenting that he should do that is asinine.

You are making as ass of yourself.

Plenty of people out there are of the opinion that we should be able to remove people in this situation, even if we can't yet. But it would be the better solution here in the future imo.

I'm sorry that opinion is pissing you off so much. Perhaps you are a lot more emotionally caught up in this story that you realize.

If your intention is to propose legislation which allows the removal of elected officials, you shouldn't make posts commenting on the current situation like this one

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  She shouldn't be jailed at all. That is laughably overboard.

She should willingly step down, if not then she should be removed. If she feels unable to preform her Job because of her religions objections, then she should find another job, period.

Its is not her place to grandstand and protest from her professional perch.

Nowhere in this statement do you state anything along the lines of 'hopefully future legislation will pass which will allow XXXXX to happen', and in fact are using the present tense to describe the current situation as it currently exists. If your intention was to propose ways in which this situation could be helped in the future, then I apologize for my posts, but there is no reasonable way in which someone would read that statement and be able to assume that was your meaning.

(09-03-2015 03:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Here is her oath she pledged before taking office.

Quote:“I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

She is lying the second she denied those marriage licenses.

She's a democrat, what did you expect?

(09-03-2015 03:58 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Judge Orders Defiant Kentucky Clerk Who Refused to Grant Gay Marriage Licenses to Jail

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/...s-to-jail/

Quote:Matthew 24:9 "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers."

Here's the judge's remarks from a few minutes ago...

Bunning, however, apparently felt she deserved jail time, but he also told Davis she could end her incarceration by complying with the Supreme Court order and telling her deputy clerks to do the same.

So now they're using bullying tactics against Christians.


Then there's this...

"Kim Davis is being treated as a criminal because she cannot violate her conscience. While she may be behind bars for now, Kim Davis is a free woman. Her conscience remains unshackled," he said in the statement. "The tragedy is that there are simple ways to accommodate her convictions. Just remove her name from the marriage licenses. That's all she has asked from the beginning. Today's events will escalate this debate to a new level."

Hmm, interesting. First I've heard about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/k...kim-davis/

1. That is literally the same thing he's been saying the entire time. She can either resign, sign the licenses, or go to jail.

2. They cannot remove her name from the marriage licenses if she is acting clerk of the courts, which is why she must be jailed to allow it to happen.

The religious right is really staking their claim to the wrong issue, because she is wrong in literally every aspect of what she's doing.

(09-03-2015 04:00 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Judge Orders Defiant Kentucky Clerk Who Refused to Grant Gay Marriage Licenses to Jail

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/...s-to-jail/

Quote:Matthew 24:9 "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers."

Except she's not being arrested for being a christian, do you really not grasp this painfully simple concept?

She's also not being killed, but she's being persecuted and she's hated all over the place for standing strong in her beliefs.

She's hated for not doing her job, literally no one would care if she was just a random person who didn't like homosexuals, they only care because her beliefs are tangibly affecting other peoples lives. The right for you to swing your fist ends at my nose, and the right for her to hold arbitrary religious views ends at other citizens rights to get their marriage licenses. This is a simple concept. So very, very simple.

(09-03-2015 04:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Nowhere in this statement do you state anything along the lines of 'hopefully future legislation will pass which will allow XXXXX to happen', and in fact are using the present tense to describe the current situation as it currently exists. If your intention was to propose ways in which this situation could be helped in the future, then I apologize for my posts, but there is no reasonable way in which someone would read that statement and be able to assume that was your meaning.

You didn't even bother to ask, you just went on a smart azz rant.

I personally would have assumed the person knew because it was already discussed throughout the thread.

Its common knowledge that people in government are often not able to be fired. Elected officials are difficult to remove. DUH

Its not hard to see that this is misdirected rage over the issue itself. This is extremely personal to you and you are typically way over emotional on these subjects.

(09-03-2015 03:39 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the LGBT people are extremely intolerant... Why the hell are gays coming from miles away to get married in a little rural 96% white county with a population of 23K?

They must be coming in from Ohio, not to raise their girly voices and point their limp wrists at Kim Davis, but to visit the Carrington Rock or the Folk Art Center while they're in town to get hitched...

How freaking ironic. On top of that, they make sure there are blood thirsty media gays surrounding them while they do all this.

Dude, that's why people say gays have a chemical imbalance or mental illness, because a normal couple would have gone one town over if getting out to a wide open country county was that important. Quite typical of the attitude you get when you tell a gay no.

The original couple were residence of the county. I don't know about others. I think there were 4 couples in the lawsuit, 2 gay & 2 straight.

Regardless I don't think anybody is saying they're sole purpose is to get married (not that I doubt they do) because like you said they could go to a different county. They're obviously fighting for what they think is right & just, you and many more obviously don't see it that way but they do. I mean what kind of person goes to jail instead of stamping a piece of paper? Is the clerk chemically unbalanced?

The clerk isn't stomping her feet and pouting because someone told her no. She hasn't issued ANY licenses, and said she wouldn't until her name was removed from them. Heard about that yet?

(09-03-2015 04:11 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:39 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the LGBT people are extremely intolerant... Why the hell are gays coming from miles away to get married in a little rural 96% white county with a population of 23K?

They must be coming in from Ohio, not to raise their girly voices and point their limp wrists at Kim Davis, but to visit the Carrington Rock or the Folk Art Center while they're in town to get hitched...

How freaking ironic. On top of that, they make sure there are blood thirsty media gays surrounding them while they do all this.

Dude, that's why people say gays have a chemical imbalance or mental illness, because a normal couple would have gone one town over if getting out to a wide open country county was that important. Quite typical of the attitude you get when you tell a gay no.

The original couple were residence of the county. I don't know about others. I think there were 4 couples in the lawsuit, 2 gay & 2 straight.

Regardless I don't think anybody is saying they're sole purpose is to get married (not that I doubt they do) because like you said they could go to a different county. They're obviously fighting for what they think is right & just, you and many more obviously don't see it that way but they do. I mean what kind of person goes to jail instead of stamping a piece of paper? Is the clerk chemically unbalanced?

The clerk isn't stomping her feet and pouting because someone told her no. She hasn't issued ANY licenses, and said she wouldn't until her name was removed from them. Heard about that yet?

Is it not a requirement for her name to be on marriage licenses? And does that not go against her oath she took when she took this job>

She violated a court order. When you do that, you go to jail. Period. You don't get to hide behind political or religious beliefs in violating a court order. The fact that she is, depending upon your point of view, either a religious freedom champion or a homophobic bigot is also irrelevant. It's as neutral of an enforcement of a law as you can get: a court order *must* be followed. As a result, she can't pick and choose who to issue marriage licenses to based on homosexuality any more than she can pick and choose it based on race, religion or prior marital status. If you want to challenge the underlying constitutionality of that court order, you can sit in jail or pay bail to get out and then wait for several years until your case gets up to the Supreme Court (if anyone even allows it that far). That's applicable to both conservatives and liberals who believe that they're above the law.

(09-03-2015 03:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yes, how dare those people being denied their rights at all stand up for themselves. Dramaqueens, right? I'm sure if you were denied the right to get married that you would just go elsewhere, right?

Absolutely. If you don't want to service me, I'll go elsewhere no matter what it's in regards to. It wouldn't be the first time and I highly doubt it'd be the last. You act like you've never been turned down or told no and I know that's a lie.

(09-03-2015 04:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:58 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Judge Orders Defiant Kentucky Clerk Who Refused to Grant Gay Marriage Licenses to Jail

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/...s-to-jail/

Quote:Matthew 24:9 "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers."

Here's the judge's remarks from a few minutes ago...

Bunning, however, apparently felt she deserved jail time, but he also told Davis she could end her incarceration by complying with the Supreme Court order and telling her deputy clerks to do the same.

So now they're using bullying tactics against Christians.


Then there's this...

"Kim Davis is being treated as a criminal because she cannot violate her conscience. While she may be behind bars for now, Kim Davis is a free woman. Her conscience remains unshackled," he said in the statement. "The tragedy is that there are simple ways to accommodate her convictions. Just remove her name from the marriage licenses. That's all she has asked from the beginning. Today's events will escalate this debate to a new level."

Hmm, interesting. First I've heard about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/k...kim-davis/

1. That is literally the same thing he's been saying the entire time. She can either resign, sign the licenses, or go to jail.

2. They cannot remove her name from the marriage licenses if she is acting clerk of the courts, which is why she must be jailed to allow it to happen.

The religious right is really staking their claim to the wrong issue, because she is wrong in literally every aspect of what she's doing.

Yet she's a lefty...

(09-03-2015 04:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Is it not a requirement for her name to be on marriage licenses? And does that not go against her oath she took when she took this job>

She wanted it off due to her beliefs. I don't find that anymore shocking than wanting to totally redefine a traditional term that's been interpreted only one way for thousands of years. Can her job not be redefined too, or is her wheel just not squeaky enough for grease?

(09-03-2015 04:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yes, how dare those people being denied their rights at all stand up for themselves. Dramaqueens, right? I'm sure if you were denied the right to get married that you would just go elsewhere, right?

Absolutely. If you don't want to service me, I'll go elsewhere no matter what it's in regards to. It wouldn't be the first time and I highly doubt it'd be the last. You act like you've never been turned down or told no and I know that's a lie.

This is a government office, not a Dairy Queen. Regardless of your feelings about the infamous bakery issue, this is totally different.

(09-03-2015 04:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Is it not a requirement for her name to be on marriage licenses? And does that not go against her oath she took when she took this job>

She wanted it off due to her beliefs. I don't find that anymore shocking than wanting to totally redefine a traditional term that's been interpreted only one way for thousands of years. Can her job not be redefined too, or is her wheel just not squeaky enough for grease?

Two completely different issues, and conflating them together is in no way a defense of her actions. She agreed to follow the law in an oath she swore under god, she refuses to do that. She had every right to resign and make her point, instead she chose to go to jail. Her decision isn't admirable, it's objectively idiotic and hypocritical.

She promised, so help her god, to follow the laws and judicial rulings as part of her job. If she were truly worried about sin, she would look inward and resign.

(09-03-2015 04:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yes, how dare those people being denied their rights at all stand up for themselves. Dramaqueens, right? I'm sure if you were denied the right to get married that you would just go elsewhere, right?

Absolutely. If you don't want to service me, I'll go elsewhere no matter what it's in regards to. It wouldn't be the first time and I highly doubt it'd be the last. You act like you've never been turned down or told no and I know that's a lie.

Seriously? This is a *government* office. There is no choice in who they can "service". We're not even in the grey area of a private business.

(09-03-2015 03:50 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But he cannot do that, so commenting that he should do that is asinine.

You are making an ass of yourself.

Plenty of people out there are of the opinion that we should be able to remove people in this situation, even if we can't yet. But it would be the better solution here in the future imo.

I'm sorry that opinion is pissing you off so much. Perhaps you are a lot more emotionally caught up in this story that you realize.

If she's not doing her duty, she needs to be removed. Jail is overkill. Fine her the amount of her paycheck until the state removes her.

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Then why is she being arrested?

For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

And why is she refusing a court order?

And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood just so some degenerates can commit sin?

**** YOU *******. I AM NOT A DEGENERATE.

People like you, and Davis, are the scum of the earth. You and your type of no place in the United States. The USA is NOT a ******* Theocracy.

If you are so high and mighty about being a Christian, then ban divorce and a multitude of other things that Jesus actually preached about.

If not, STFU about calling AMERICANS and Humans degenerates.

One couple got inconvenienced by having to go to the next county so we are throwing her in jail.

Now Bunning is probably a Republican, but federal judges are not very tolerant of people not doing what they are told to do.