Reply With Quote
your ship is sinking sir.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf
Soooooooo good
.... According to hoards of citizens, her own governor, multiple courts, the ACLU, and at least three presidential candidates, Davis should check her First Amendment rights at the door -- as well as rights protected by the Kentucky Cons ution and her state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That is appalling, but not surprising or new. Two thousand years ago, the apostles were ordered to stop preaching Christ, but like Davis they refused to obey man’s law over God’s, despite the threat of punishment.
What is new, however, is the shameful abandonment of Davis by so many Christians and conservatives. One of America’s bravest Christians is being thrown under the bus for simply following the example of Christ’s original followers.
Almost as disturbing are conservatives who are pressing Davis to capitulate -- suggesting or demanding that Davis hand out sexual ‘marriage’ licenses or resign. Such a position shows little appreciation for religious freedom and the rights of conscience.......
....more
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/john-h...ro-not-villain
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf
No I don't think that that was exactly my point
Last edited by Trainwreck2100; 09-03-2015 at 05:25 PM.
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The pe ioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in pe ioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed.No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the pe ioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest ins utions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Cons ution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
She's going to go through all of this because she can't hand a piece of paper over to strangers
So you can copy.....and paste, fascinating not you hitman
I posted the SCOTUS decision telling KY officials to stop denying same sex marriage licenses. What's fascinating is that you need your hand held to connect the dots.
That's great now how does that put her in contempt of court, the crime with which she's charged? Oh that's right it doesn't her failure to listen to a Kentucky judge made this contempt of court. Her loss of appeal made it contempt of court. And the Supreme Court not listening to her means it want an issue for the Supreme court. The claim you made was this was athe Supreme court flexing their muscle. When it's really just what states do when people break the law. The state sends them to jail. What's fascinating was that you needed your hand held to connect the dots
Not remotely near what I said
Last edited by Trainwreck2100; 09-03-2015 at 05:54 PM.
Wonder if this whole thing gonna end up in her 5th divorce, tbh...
She remains in jail because she refuses to allow her deputies (5 of 6 have agreed to do her job for her) to issue marriage licenses. I admittedly don't know the procedures well enough, but what could her reasoning be for this refusal? She's not signing her name I don't think.
I believe her name is on the licenses.
But not her signature. She's trying to co-opt her own rights (perceived, not actual) into forcing her beliefs on others (deputies). If she had no ground to stand on before, she's basically floating in space now. Who is paying for her legal counsel btw?
I don't see you saying much of anything then. SCOTUS decision was the driving force behind the lower court ruling. No SCOTUS ruling then she wouldn't have gone to jail.
My favorite so far:
I don't support this woman, but this story has way too much longevity.
I don't disagree. Plus, AFAIK, it's a government license, not her personal license. She can consciously object all she wants, but when she's conducting her ministerial work for the government, it's government speech.
She's clearly a very confused person that doesn't understand the difference between her personal beliefs and simply conducting her job. And if she can't separate them, then she needs to step down.
What exactly is your point?
Right agreed. The problem is there are so many people, judging by social media, who are just as "confused" as she is about how our cons ution and legal system work.
You said "SCOTuS doesn't put up with contempt of its decisions" SCOTuS have all to do with this case. She's on contempt for violating a judges order. And when she went to SCOTuS they didn't give a . And said off
Can you imagine what that would do to our insurance premiums
Dan Savage had a good point/thought experiment. What if a Quaker govt official refused to give out gun permits on the sincere religious belief in pacifism? What would conservatives who support Kim Davis say then? I have a feeling they'd cling to dem guns and toss her straight under a bus. Hopefully a big one.
The story hasn't ended. You don't get to arbitrarily end news stories because you're tired of hearing about them. I know you live in a two-sided "cheer for my side and ignore all of its flaws" world but this how news works.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
