Kim Davis Jailed - Page 3

Wolferz · 09-06-15, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Radical religion.

Reminds me of another uber religious group of goat fornicating knuckleheads who think they have the right to judge how folks live their lives.

/ignore Kim Davis.

em2nought · 09-06-15, 04:31 PM

Y'all are missing the point. Four different men have married this woman! Must be the gubernment job makes her a prime sugar momma catch or something?

razark · 09-06-15, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by em2nought

Y'all are missing the point. Four different men have married this woman! Must be the gubernment job makes her a prime sugar momma catch or something?

No, only three.

She married #1, got pregnant with twins by #2, divorced #1, married #3, divorced #3, married #2, divorced #2, and is currently married to #3.
But it's the gays that are destroying the sanctity of marriage.

Buddahaid · 09-06-15, 07:14 PM

They must all be blind. Or Kentucky beer goggles are really good.

Wolferz · 09-07-15, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

They must all be blind. Or Kentucky beer goggles are really good.

It's Appalachia...
Having more than one tooth makes her a prize catch.

The exorbitant salary is just icing on the wedding cake to a poor Appalachian turd miner.

vienna · 09-08-15, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

...However, one reason she's not resigning of course is that her position as county clerk has become something of a hereditary office. Her predecessor was her mother and she's got her son waiting in the wings. Louis XVI was similarly situated. It did not work out entirely well for him.

So, are you suggesting the issue may come to a head?...

<O>

Bubblehead1980 · 09-08-15, 03:19 PM

Free at last, Free at Last!

I find her religious views silly and devoid of facts.However, the big picture issue is the Supreme Court made an illegitimate political populist decision instead of following the constitution.Then a tyrannical federal judge jailed a woman for following her religious convictions., her christian convictions in particular.

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

vienna · 09-08-15, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Free at last, Free at Last!

I find her religious views silly and devoid of facts.However, the big picture issue is the Supreme Court made an illegitimate political populist decision instead of following the constitution.Then a tyrannical federal judge jailed a woman for following her religious convictions., her christian convictions in particular.

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

Specifically, what parts of the Constitution was violated by SCOTUS? What is the "chapter and verse" you can cite to validate the claim of illegitimacy? Please enlighten us with your knowledge of the root Constitutional issues with specific details...

It still boils down to a case of a grandstanding person seeking and finding their 15 minutes of infamy. This person has violated their oath of office and thereby violated the law of their state and is subject to removal. She has also violated a direct court order and is subject to whatever consequences may befall. She is an employee, the "hereditary" nature of her position notwithstanding, and has willfully failed to perform her ascribed duties as set by law, is insubordinate, and continues to be so; any other employer would have fired her out of hand. If she or any of her cohorts wish to really change matters, they should, as somebody once said, win an election and pass a law, within the legal confines of the Constitution and the rendered SCOTUS decisions. All else, is smoke in the wind...

<O>

u crank · 09-08-15, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.

Wrong thread.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=184647

Platapus · 09-08-15, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

Specifically, what parts of the Constitution was violated by SCOTUS? What is the "chapter and verse" you can cite to validate the claim of illegitimacy? Please enlighten us with your knowledge of the root Constitutional issues with specific details...

Arrg. Why did you respond to him? You are just encouraging him.

razark · 09-08-15, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

So, if a person breaks the law for religious reasons, then it's ok?

The good news is that everything that Obama has done has been in the name of his Islamic faith, so you'll stop complaining about it, right?

Eichhörnchen · 09-09-15, 01:18 AM

They just said on the news that she's out again (well... not "out" out... they let her out... you know... she's been released)

Skybird · 09-09-15, 04:03 AM

Both sides did wrong here.

The proper thing would have been to suspend and dismiss her for not fulfilling her mandatory duties as ordered be her employer, the state. The state has a duty to not foster or hinder religious views or practices, the secular status and nature of the state has to be maintained. Defending the freedom for religion does not mean to defend the religion and its claims and demands itself.

The judge however abused his position by trying to force her to change her religious beliefs according to his own views (may they be secular or else), which also is not acceptable, no matter what he thinks how silly they are. So, sending her to jail to make her change her stand on her religious views, is not acceptable either.

The woman should quit her job in state service if state service and religious coinviction collide in her cinscience. If relgious views make her think she can take it upon herserlf to challen ge the duty of the state to stay and protect secularism, she has to be fired. An official and civil servant can be fired if neglecting his duties or refusing to work.

The big news is small news only. Fire the woman from civil service over her rejection to do her work - and done you are.

antikristuseke · 09-09-15, 04:19 AM

She was jailed for failure to do here job, not to force her religious conversion. She was given options, she chose her fate.

Skybird · 09-09-15, 04:28 AM

You do not jail an employee that refuses to do his job. You fire him.

She was sent to jail so that she may rethink - due to her captivity - her religious position that she claimed prevented her from fulfilling her duties and orders as civil servant. But as a civil servant in a secular state, your top boss is not your religious belief, but the state. Don't like that? Get another job then.

09-06-15, 04:31 PM	#32
em2nought Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,485 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Y'all are missing the point. Four different men have married this woman! Must be the gubernment job makes her a prime sugar momma catch or something? __________________ em2nought is ecstatic garbage!

09-06-15, 07:14 PM	#34
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,332 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	They must all be blind. Or Kentucky beer goggles are really good. __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

09-09-15, 01:18 AM	#42
Eichhörnchen Starte das Auto Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: The Fens Posts: 17,455 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	They just said on the news that she's out again (well... not "out" out... they let her out... you know... she's been released) __________________

09-09-15, 04:03 AM	#43
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,698 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Both sides did wrong here. The proper thing would have been to suspend and dismiss her for not fulfilling her mandatory duties as ordered be her employer, the state. The state has a duty to not foster or hinder religious views or practices, the secular status and nature of the state has to be maintained. Defending the freedom for religion does not mean to defend the religion and its claims and demands itself. The judge however abused his position by trying to force her to change her religious beliefs according to his own views (may they be secular or else), which also is not acceptable, no matter what he thinks how silly they are. So, sending her to jail to make her change her stand on her religious views, is not acceptable either. The woman should quit her job in state service if state service and religious coinviction collide in her cinscience. If relgious views make her think she can take it upon herserlf to challen ge the duty of the state to stay and protect secularism, she has to be fired. An official and civil servant can be fired if neglecting his duties or refusing to work. The big news is small news only. Fire the woman from civil service over her rejection to do her work - and done you are. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-09-15, 04:28 AM	#45
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,698 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	You do not jail an employee that refuses to do his job. You fire him. She was sent to jail so that she may rethink - due to her captivity - her religious position that she claimed prevented her from fulfilling her duties and orders as civil servant. But as a civil servant in a secular state, your top boss is not your religious belief, but the state. Don't like that? Get another job then. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-08-15, 03:19 PM	#37
Bubblehead1980 Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida USA Posts: 7,133 Downloads: 606 Uploads: 44	Free at last, Free at Last! I find her religious views silly and devoid of facts.However, the big picture issue is the Supreme Court made an illegitimate political populist decision instead of following the constitution.Then a tyrannical federal judge jailed a woman for following her religious convictions., her christian convictions in particular. I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600. Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

09-09-15, 04:19 AM	#44
antikristuseke Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Estland Posts: 4,330 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	She was jailed for failure to do here job, not to force her religious conversion. She was given options, she chose her fate.