Kim Davis Jailed

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Even Jezus talked about the separation of state and church: give to God what belongs to God and to ceasar what belongs to ceasar.

Well, she has already been ignoring this piece of scripture--

Mark 10:11-12 states:

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Not only by being divorced herself several times, but routinely handing out marriage licenses to divorcees as well.

In addition, she must be attending the Apostolic Church of Cognitive Dissonance. Claiming that marriage certificates issued from her office without her consent are not legal, while simultaneously saying the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling on her issue is to be disregarded.

[swamprat69er]

Is the penalty for contempt of the Supreme Court more or less than the contempt of say a state court?

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, I think this is someone who is looking for attention, and she's getting it.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Well, she has already been ignoring this piece of scripture--

Mark 10:11-12 states:

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

And....

Romans 13: 1,2.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by swamprat69er

Is the penalty for contempt of the Supreme Court more or less than the contempt of say a state court?

Well, she is being sued by the ACLU on behalf of four couples, two gay and two straight, who were denied marriage licenses by her office. The U.S. District Judge says Davis must issue those marriage licenses. He has been backed up by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court has refused to issue her a stay. So, she is mostly in federal trouble for refusing to obey federal law. However she holds the key to her cell. If she agrees to issue marriage licenses again, she can get out.

But, no. It's about martyrdom now.

[swamprat69er]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Well, she is being sued by the ACLU on behalf of four couples, two gay and two straight, who were denied marriage licenses by her office. The U.S. District Judge says Davis must issue those marriage licenses. He has been backed up by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court has refused to issue her a stay. So, she is mostly in federal trouble for refusing to obey federal law. However she holds the key to her cell. If she agrees to issue marriage licenses again, she can get out.

But, no. It's about martyrdom now.

That being said, would you or I get the same treatment for contempt of the Federal Court? Some how I don't think so.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by swamprat69er

That being said, would you or I get the same treatment for contempt of the Federal Court? Some how I don't think so.

Civil contempt is a murky area that is largely dependent on the discretion of the judge whose will has been defied. The judge in this case had two options to prod compliance. Fines or jail. Since this woman is being backed by all sorts of money from supporters, he felt only jail would suffice.

[August]

She's in prison already so toss her to the Lesbians. They'll change her tune.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

She took an oath then broke it...stand down.

PRECISELY!Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys: Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of CLERK according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
So help me God" clearly refers to this whole second part, also an entity unto itself, and the comma-- not a period, mind you-- clinches it. In any case, apparently in Kentucky, in 2015, they want to be really, really, really sure that no office holder has taken part in a duel within this State nor out of it. So help me God" clearly refers to this whole second part, also an entity unto itself, and the comma-- not a period, mind you-- clinches it. In any case, grammatically "so help me god' only pertains to the second part of the oath of office: that she has not participated in any duel...and is not useable as a defense to her action with regard to other issues. Too bad Kentucky clerks ain't gotta better handle on English ...her theological participle is a danglin'. She inherited the position from her mom and her son is an assistant clerk...currently 'holdingout' according to news articles; so I 'spect nepotism and multigenerational white-trash abuse (myself included) is the main issue here. "Ms. Davis elected with 53% of the vote, grew up in Rowan County and has never lived anywhere else. It is hilly Appalachian country, with a nearly all-white population, home to sawmills, lumber companies and mobile homes. Morehead, the county seat, is full of churches and fast-food restaurants. The poverty rate is just below 29 percent. And a steady government salary is a prized thing." Ms. Davis wrote. “I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God. So hand out the license already and let god forgive 'em; not your gig babe!

[Torplexed]

Ironies of ironies. Even the Westboro Baptist Church has turned on Kim Davis for her previous divorces and failing to stop gay marriage.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/godh...g-fg-marriage/

When it comes to religious crazy, you don't dare top Westboro.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Yes, she has, but because she got saved {again} her sin doesn't count. However, it's not sin being the issue, it's becoming a debate do a person's religious rights trump another person's civil rights. Should we allow people such as her religious accomodations.

Not in this instance. If its against her religion then she needs to find another job or go to jail. I find it odd too for a religion so anti-law (pro grace) they sure make things hard on others for not following the very thing they have forsaken.

[Aktungbby]

In any case they have to impeach her now for really dueling in violation of her oath of office vs

[Platapus]

Being a professional is not just being paid for something. It is agreeing to abide by a common set of ethics associated with the other professionals in the same field... even if they conflict with a person's personal ethics.

Members of the military have dealt with this for centuries. When I was in the military, I certainly provided support and in some cases actively participated in operations that were in direct conflict with my personal ethics. As a professional, I understood the importance of putting my personal ethics aside in favour of my professional ethics.

If a profession's ethics conflict sufficiently with a person's personal ethics, that person should not voluntarily participate in that profession.

But once you accept "the queens shilling", you are agreeing to abide by that profession's ethics. This is especially true in public service.

The public MUST have confidence that the people in the profession of public service carry out their duties according to law/regulations. We can not have people accepting public money and then deciding whether their personal or public service ethics take precedence.

People need to understand that performing a duty does not imply a personal acceptance or non acceptance of that duty or its effects.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Being a professional is not just being paid for something. It is agreeing to abide by a common set of ethics associated with the other professionals in the same field... even if they conflict with a person's personal ethics.

Members of the military have dealt with this for centuries. When I was in the military, I certainly provided support and in some cases actively participated in operations that were in direct conflict with my personal ethics. As a professional, I understood the importance of putting my personal ethics aside in favour of my professional ethics.

If a profession's ethics conflict sufficiently with a person's personal ethics, that person should not voluntarily participate in that profession.

But once you accept "the queens shilling", you are agreeing to abide by that profession's ethics. This is especially true in public service.

The public MUST have confidence that the people in the profession of public service carry out their duties according to law/regulations. We can not have people accepting public money and then deciding whether their personal or public service ethics take precedence.

People need to understand that performing a duty does not imply a personal acceptance or non acceptance of that duty or its effects.

While she there she had an out. It might be reasonable for Davis to decline issuing the licenses, if other deputy clerks in the office were available to do so. That's how pharmacists that don't want to dispense Plan B birth control are accommodated.

But, Davis is being unreasonable insisting that because she oversees the entire office no one in the office should be able to issue the license because that makes her the de facto license issuer. So, apparently even a deputy working under her is an extension of her religious beliefs.

That office must have been a fun, theocratic fief to work in.

[Armistead]

The judge did try to help her out, just to let someone else in her office do it and stay out of it, she would not, she willingly interfered.

I'm amazed at the amount of ignorance displayed by many that support her, their claims of our great nation going to hell, having no understanding of our secular constitution.