DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Religion Discussion

Are you kidding, she is going to be rich....

To the best of my knowledge, she is still being paid while in jail.

Plus she's getting three hots and a cot. Sounds like a win/win to me!

She'll probably get a book deal out of this too. She gets to be a martyr.

She IS a martyr.

She's a parasite. And while I understand the judge's decision to jail her in lieu of fines that would ultimately just be paid by crowd funding, I think fines should be tacked on in the amount of her pay as well as the expenses of her jailing for as long as she continues her temper tantrum. It's not fair for the taxpayer to have to foot the bill for her insubordination.

She is serving her Master with jail time and ridicule while you serve your master with accusations and insults.

Donald Trump on Kentucky clerk: Same-sex marriage the 'law of the land'


Washington (CNN)—Republican front-runner Donald Trump said Friday that he wished a Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, was not jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but he added that the Supreme Court has ruled and it is "the law of the land."

"You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land," the real estate mogul said Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Trump declined to weigh in on the issue Thursday -- stating during a press conference he wasn't very familiar with the issue -- but said Friday that Davis should have let her deputies in the office certify the marriages.

"I would say the simple answer is let her clerks do it," he said. "Now from what I understand she's not letting the clerks do it either. The other simple answer is rather than going through this -- because it's really a very, very sticky situation and terrible situation -- 30 miles away they have other places, they have many other places where you get licensed. And you have them actually quite nearby, that's another alternative."

Trump's position puts him at odds with many of his primary opponents who have trumpeted Davis' fight as one for religious liberty.

Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, was jailed Thursday after refusing to allow her five deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/politics/d...s401pVodTopLink

he said something i agree with and wasn't offensive?

yep, now he's gonna decline in the polls.

So you are saying you will be voting for Trump?

Well in order to vote for him he would first have to win the GOP nomination. If that becomes a reality, I'll see who his opponents are and get back to you.

I just know you've been a vocal supporter of his and a vocal supporter of this Court Clerk so I thought you may find it interesting.

The next President and a Martyr, what's not to support?

I just felt you may wish to know that Trump said she should strike the deal to let others in her office issue wedding licenses to gay couples. She refuses.

Sounds like your beliefs that support her, Trump disagrees with. Just a little information for ya.

Pat robertson just blamed the recent stock market plunge on gay marriage.

k.

And?

Oh, thanks for that info. Do you agree with everything a
candidate says or just enough of it to vote for a him?

I look at every topic and do so for every candidate. I have a priority list as to what issues are the most important to me. After all of those things are considered, I vote for the candidate which most lines up with my priorities and beliefs.

I just like to be informed on exactly what my candidate believes on different issues and which issues he conflicts with my beliefs.

Just trying to help inform you on what Trump's stand was on this issue. I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of it.

it's dumb.

Pat Robertson did something dumb? Wow, who saw that coming.....

If you remove the punchline aspect from everything, and just look at what hes had to say about various issues of policies, Trump has been consistently left of center. He has to appeal to a Republican base now, but if you look at his comments over the past decade, he's pretty liberal. He called for the LGBT community to be added to the Civil Rights Act when Clinton was president. He was way ahead of gay rights issues than the Democrats.

but that's you guy's hero.

40's, at least.

Hmmm. Didn't know I was making a big deal it.

So in your search for a candidate who agrees with you on your list of topics, have you found a Gay Socialist Liberal candidate to support yet?

yes.

the socialist name is Jesus. just look at his policies.

No. You still know nothing of Christianity.

obviously you don't either.

Q/R

I can fix this gay marriage/legal/license/whatever problem with a few simple ideas.

1. Get rid of the IRS. Use either a flat or consumption tax. Everyone pays the same percentage.
2. No more IRS means the government can't tax or give tax breaks to married people.
3. No more marriage licenses. Let them be issued by the person/company/clerk performing the marriage and signed by witnesses. The happy couple/group have to submit their license to the state to put it on record.
4. Keep your own damn will up to date, including living wills, or the government gets to choose for you. If you write a bad will, it's your heirs' problem. Make sure to get it notarized.

Problem solved.

This is why you lose all credibility in debates and aren't really worth the time bothering.

ok

I'm good with that. If the state is too stupid to know what marriage si about they should excuse themselves from it and just let willing people make written contract that they can actually be legally bound to.

Here in my glorious state of friggin Indiana adultery carries no legal penalties. It's a friggin joke.

I feel bad for the clerk in Kentucky. It's really difficult to work in a place where you feel your own beliefs and morals are being challenged. I have dealt with that many times in my work. Some times I have dealt with it and stayed, and some times I have just moved on. I think she made a stand, and then felt backed into a corner. I wish for the best for her, I don't like to see anyone struggle, and I don't like seeing her in jail.

There are many differing religious beliefs in this world. I have talked about mine a few times on this board and have been met with contempt and hatefulness. I get it, and I can take it, I just don't feel the need to be subjected to a whole lot of nastiness , so I just do a few visits here when I have some extra time, but this is no longer a regular posting destination. That is not meant as a complaint because this is a great site, just a personal preference now.

I wish I were your friend or coworker

Love this take
The author is also not a bigoted religious white man.. For those that don't click the link.
http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/folks-your...il-sentence/And so it begins. Sadly, it seems America has truly forgotten the intent of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Convention on the subject of separation of church and state. It was Jefferson’s intent to not have in America a head of state who was also head of church, ala King Henry VIII and the establishment of the Church of England.


Jefferson didn’t want the state to establish religion that would lead to state persecution of religious freedom — the reason why the Pilgrims came to America. That’s why the First Amendment to our US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In America, the citizen has the freedom of religion; the state can’t institute an atmosphere of freedom from religion.

And so I find it rather interesting that in Kentucky, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis found herself spending last night in jail for her religious belief. And spare me comparisons to segregation. Blacks were granted rights by way of the 13th-15th Amendments, and it was the Democrat party who sought to deny them.

What I found most absurd were the comments of White House press secretary Josh Earnest when asked about Mrs. Davis’ situation. Earnest declared yesterday, “No public official is above the rule of law”; the hypocrisy of the White House spokesperson saying such is absurd, at a minimum.


Earnest speaks for a president who’s lied on countless occasions and violated the rule of law — the US Constitution — in as many situations. Congress, not Obama, has the enumerated power to make rules in matters of naturalization. Congress, not Obama, has the enumerated power to makes rules regarding captures on land and sea.

It was President Obama, along with candidate for president Hillary Clinton, who abandoned four Americans to die in Benghazi, Libya — and did I mention his “overseas contingency operation” was in violation of the War Powers Act — and then they both lied about the impetus behind the attack. And in the case of Hillary Clinton, well, ask any uniformed service member if they’re allowed to deal with classified materials on their own private server.

Promoted Links by Revcontent
Obama Will Not Finish His 2nd Term - Watch Disturbing Video!
Should Americans Be Worried? The Answer is Yes!
The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Consider how it can be that five activist judges can create a new individual right based on personal behavior and subjugate an established individual right — a First Amendment right? How can it be that five activist judges can create a new right and impose their will upon the states — a complete violation of federalism — but not demand every state recognize the Second Amendment rights of individual Americans? My concealed carry license from Florida is not permitted in every state in the Union? If five activist judges belief every state must accept same-sex marriage (as a reminder I support civil unions), then every state must accept my established right to keep and bear arms — and not infringe upon it.

Kim Davis went to jail simply because she was exercising her First Amendment right — which no five activist judges can deny, disregard or denigrate. It’s her First Amendment right that cannot result in her being disparaged — and certainly not arrested. And if the President of the United States can himself float above the rule of law, then how can one arrest Kim Davis for embracing the rule of law — her First Amendment right?

Can it be that the “guarantee of happiness” granted to a special interest group, by way of judicial privilege, supersedes the US Constitution?

And so when will we start seeing pastors carted off to jail? Matter of fact, the mayor of Houston already tried by demanding sermons be surrendered. And we have bakers, florists, pizzeria owners and photographers being fined by the state. Not to mention death threats issued against them by the oh so “tolerant.”

But ponder this: a public figure, Lois Lerner, is free and receiving a taxpayer-funded six-figure retirement check while Kim Davis sat in jail. Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter — for whom six American soldiers lost their lives during search and rescue operations on his behalf — roams free while Kim Davis sat in jail. Eric Holder — who was held in contempt of Congress and responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, resulting in the death of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry —walks about free and probably on a speaker’s circuit while Kim Davis sat in jail. Al Sharpton — who owes the IRS millions in back taxes and has visited the White House some 80 times — did his show on MSNBC while Kim Davis sat in jail. Louis Farrakhan incites violence and talks of killing white people while Kim Davis sat in jail.

So spare me the drivel about how Kim Davis has to realize she cannot act above the rule of law; the progressive socialist left has embraced the sheer essence of lawlessness.

Thanks to President Obama, there is not a single Christian in Mosul, Iraq for the first time in 2,000 years. Christians are being crucified, tortured and raped by the folks he called the JV team. But who would have EVER thought a Christian would be carted off to jail in America because they simply believed marriage is between one man and one woman? Thomas Jefferson must be disturbed to know that the State in America is persecuting Christians for their religious beliefs.

However, let me highlight a very important point. In the 2012 election cycle, some 7-8 million Christians did not vote, and that’s out of the number registered to vote. The lack of participation in the electoral process meant the secular humanist left has a willing ally in the White House. A deceiver and liar, who during the 2008 election declared he supported marriage as between one man and one woman. All of a sudden, Barack Obama “evolved,” just as Bill Clinton did — it was under Clinton that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed — with bipartisan support.

What changed? It’s all about special interest politics, not principle.

Kim Davis knows she will one day answer not to Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States — she will answer to the Supreme Judge of the Universe. And just as Saul, the persecutor of Christians, was converted on the road to Damascus and became the Apostle Paul, so did Mrs. Davis have a life-changing event. I say to Mrs. Davis, read my favorite book in the Bible, Philippians, and know Paul wrote that text while imprisoned awaiting his execution. And there he wrote these words, Philippians 4:19 (New International Version): “And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.”

So Ma’am, put on the full armor of God, Ephesians 6:10-18, and know as it states in Isaiah 54:17 (New International Version), “No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the LORD.

Because if God is for you, who can stand against you? Certainly not those who seek your demise. My prayers and those of millions are with you.

"And so I find it rather interesting that in Kentucky, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis found herself spending last night in jail for her religious belief". Utter nonsense. Kim Davis wasn't jailed because of her religious belief. She was jailed because she defied the direct order of a federal judge, an order which instructed her to do her job. Here is a pretty sound conservative take on the issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423534/kim-davis-gay-marriage-law-breaking

On Tuesday of this week, David French offered up a half-defense of Kim Davis, the rebellious Kentucky clerk who, since June of this year, has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I must respectfully disagree with his conclusion. What he is defending is not in fact “revolution,” as he puts it, but secession. As I have written elsewhere, I am in total agreement with David’s contention that the Obergefell decision was nothing less than an act of constitutional vandalism. But I cannot suppose as he does that it will help matters to meet one tragedy with another. If flagrant law-breaking is the way to fight overreach, count me out of the insurrectionary crew.

Until such time as the Constitution is amended, the Court’s attitude changes, or the republic falls to revolution, Obergefell will remain on an equal legal footing with the other precedents that make up our contemporary legal oeuvre. Weak as its reasoning is, there is no such thing as an “almost ruling.” In practice, a 5–4 decision has the same effect as a unanimous one; structurally, an iffy justification is as potent as the most solid of rationales. However much a state employee might disdain a particular judgment, it simply cannot do to have him translating that disapproval into professional action. If he wishes to privately protest a given ruling — or to refuse to abide by its consequences — that is his inalienable right. “Take what you want,” the old proverb holds, “but pay for it.” He cannot, however, credibly work for the government while doing so — or, at least, he cannot expect to be spared the consequences if he insists upon remaining in power. The rule of law is just that: a rule.

There is no such thing as a selective revolution. Frankly, Davis does not have a leg to stand on. It is true that in such cases as overarching constitutional questions remain in play, government officials may enjoy a certain degree of discretion. But that latitude disappears the moment that an Article III court becomes involved. Davis has now been instructed to follow the rules by no fewer than three such institutions — first by a district court, then by the Sixth Circuit, and finally by the Supreme Court of the United States. The only argument she had left to make entering today was that one of those entities lacks jurisdiction — a self-evidently absurd proposition. In consequence, Davis had two real choices: She could either resign from her position, or she could wait to be held in contempt. She chose the latter, and she’s now been bundled off to jail.

Conservatives are right to be appalled when they see the will-to-power elements within the progressive movement moralizing about the “rule of law,” and they are understandably galled by the expectation that they should sit and listen quietly as the people who cheer on widespread judicial abdication and routine law-breaking deliver lecture after lecture on the responsibilities of the state. But while a more generalized outrage is indeed warranted, they should be careful when arguing specifics that they are comparing like with like. Kim Davis’s case is straightforward not because it is in practice unique, but because Davis’s explanation is so blunt and so wrong. Most of America’s recalcitrant government officials have the good sense to pretend in public that their objections are rooted in the law — or at least that they are derived from some crucial constitutional principle that is wholly external to them. Davis, by contrast, has given the game away.

Yes, we all know that when President Obama pretends that he has found legal justifications for his immigration-enforcement abdications, he is merely attempting to advance his legislative agenda by other means. Yes, it is rather obvious that when Justices Ginsburg and Breyer propose bizarrely that the death penalty may be unconstitutional per se, they are covering up their heartfelt moral preferences with flimsy jurisprudence. Yes, Washington, D.C.’s pretense that it is complying with the Second Amendment is so much Potemkin theater. But — and this matters — unlike Mrs. Davis, these players are far too smart to let on what they are doing. Should a Quaker bureaucrat in Los Angeles County reveal that he was denying all concealed-carry applications on religious grounds, he would be liable for instant dismissal. If, by contrast, he were to claim that the law is unclear or that he was technically operating inside of it or that “right” doesn’t actually mean “right” on a Tuesday, he might have a fighting chance — until the courts stepped in and instructed him to do his job, at least. She is unabashedly setting herself outside the law, and justifying it on entirely self-interested grounds.

Which is to say that Davis and her sponsors are ultimately fighting the wrong fight. A quick look over her own words reveals that she is not in fact presenting a withering argument against Obergefell; that she is not in fact attacking the concept of judicial supremacy; and that she is not in fact attempting to find a means by which Christians can co-exist with the recent changes in the law. Rather, she is unabashedly setting herself outside the law, and justifying it on entirely self-interested grounds. I comprehend my colleague’s frustration here — this is indeed the direct product of an insidious judicial usurpation — but I cannot help but feel that he is endorsing the wrong course. For my money, Davis’s protest would be far more effective were she to resign gracefully, and, having made clear her reasons for doing so, take up a new role as a champion for limited reform.

Certainly, that would be tough. By the reasoning laid out in Employment Division v. Smith, those in Davis’s position are unable to appeal to the First Amendment for protection at work. Nor, currently, does supplementary federal law permit objectors such as herself to hand over controversial parts of their jobs to someone else. But there is nothing to stop those who would enact a legislative fix for these blind spots in the future — either at the federal or state level. Providing that Davis were happy to allow others within her department to issue the licenses to which she objects — and she does not seem to be, which is a problem — a legal compromise could feasibly be reached. What, one has to wonder, is her ultimate end here: Is it to protect her conscience, or to nullify the law? You can’t win a revolution by fighting on a single block.

based on her religious beliefs..

If a judge ordered me to make child support payments, and I said "Your honor, my religion forbids me from making child support payments, so no", would my contempt of court charge be due to my religious beliefs, or due to the fact that I defied the direct order of a judge?

If a judge ordered me to shoot my child in the face with a gun , and I said "Your honor, my religion forbids me from killing, so no", would my contempt of court charge be due to my religious beliefs, or due to the fact that I defied the direct order of a judge?

see how stupid your comment is?

the difference is killing is in the Bible..Child support hypothetical is just your lame example to try and make a point..

It would be due to defying the direct order of a judge, not your religious beliefs. But your contempt of court charge wouldn't last more than a few hours, at most. Your lawyer would appeal for an emergency stay to a higher court and they would instantly vacate the ruling, as an order to commit murder is illegal.



Not particularly, no. Could you answer the question? Would my contempt charge be for defying a judge's order, or my religious beliefs?

as i said refusing Child support payments would not be in violation of a religion.. it's a lame example to try and make a point.. this woman didn't pull her belief out of a hat.. Many people agree with her and show where their belief is coming from .. just because the law saws something it doesn't make it right..

Religion doesn't mean Christian religion. While it might not be against the Christian religion, it could be an order against another religion.