U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning throws clerk in jail

[LogicIsForSquares]

 

 

A fair question, 30 or so years ago. What you dont' understand is that the rest of the country has now had experience with these people and they don't equate two gay people wanting to get married with someone wanting to impose their will on another being like an animal or a small child.

 

You really are an offensive individual Cal. Like some toothless old letch out of a medievel movie that the main character encounters under a bridge and it tries to leacherously dissuade our hero from his noble journey or some shit like that. I mean really.

I disagree with Cal completely on the subject but I don't think referring to him as a bridge troll really helps the discussion. I disagree with people all the time without bagging on them.

[calfoxwc]

baloney. The clerk isn't trying to push anything onto the gay perverted couple wanted a phoney marriage.

 

The gay people are trying to force her to be complicit in what she doesn't want to be complicit about.

 

Hell, you can go to any county and get a marriage license, can't you? You can get them ONLINE.

 

So, there is no attempt by the clerk to force them to NOT get one. You need to learn how to think things through,

jblu and butt of the board.

 

They singled her out to force her to be complicit, because she knew it was morally wrong.

And they wanted money, too, and didn't want her going to jail.

The same thing for the couple that went to the Christian baker. (but not a Muslim baker) and

wanted big money from the judge.

[calfoxwc]

http://marriage.laws.com/marriage-license

 

 

Online:

Many couples find they are able to apply for their marriage license online. This can be especially helpful for couples that wish to get married in a location that is not close to where they live. For example, many couples choose to marry in Hawaii, even when they are not state residents. In fact, Hawaii has no residency requirements to issue marriage licenses.

Any couple can marry there as long as they provide the necessary proof of facts contained within the couple's marriage license application. However, couples are not likely to be in Hawaii for a long period of time before getting married there. For that reason, Hawaii allows couples to apply for a marriage license online.

Couples will still need to provide proof of fact, and usually mail all original documents after they have filled out the application online. This process can take longer than applying in person and couples should be sure that they allow themselves ample time to apply and be granted a marriage license.

[calfoxwc]

interesting...... to watch how this case ends up...

serving alcohol was already a requirement in the job.

 

Unlike the gay perverted "marriage" thing, which came up LONG AFTER the clerk was hired.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/07/muslim-flight-attendant-says-airline-suspended-her-because-of-her-religious-objection-to-serve-alcohol/

[Clevfan4life]

Ok so when she heard that her staff were fullfilling their obligations as govt employees...she let out a statement that those liscenses are null and void. So cal you're wrong again...she doesn't want any gay marriage liscenses going through her office. I would have been ok with her if she recused herself from specifically handing out those liscenses and said someone else on my staff can do it, but she didn't. She's who we thought she was....and you're once again categorically ill informed Cal.

[Clevfan4life]

baloney. The clerk isn't trying to push anything onto the gay perverted couple wanted a phoney marriage.

 

 

oh she isn't?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2015/09/05/lawyer-for-davis-says-marriage-licenses-are-void-n2048407

 

 

full of shit as usual huh cal?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Ok so when she heard that her staff were fullfilling their obligations as govt employees...she let out a statement that those liscenses are null and void. So cal you're wrong again...she doesn't want any gay marriage liscenses going through her office. I would have been ok with her if she recused herself from specifically handing out those liscenses and said someone else on my staff can do it, but she didn't. She's who we thought she was....and you're once again categorically ill informed Cal.

Categorically. Wow.

[jbluhm86]

baloney. The clerk isn't trying to push anything onto the gay perverted couple wanted a phoney marriage I keep on noticing that you continuously use these phrases throughout your replies. So what legal or moral basis are you using as your justification to claim these marriages are "perversions"?

 

The gay people are trying to force her to be complicit in what she doesn't want to be complicit about. Rubbish. She is not being forced to do anything. She's been given every opportunity to perform duties as clerk, yet she has refused them at every turn. The judge even gave her the option of having the deputy clerks handle marriage licenses in her place, but she stated she would refuse that option as well, solely on the basis of her religion; her stance has no legal grounding whatsoever. Either do your job, or have the decency to resign.

 

Hell, you can go to any county and get a marriage license, can't you? No, apparently not in Rowan County, KY if Kim Davis was given her way. She's even prevented heterosexual couples from obtaining licenses in order to also deny gay couples, so what about those hetero couples' rights? You can get them ONLINE. They shouldn't have to go online or to another county or state to obtain something for which they are already legally eligible to have in their own county, just because some crackpot wants to use her office to proselytize her beliefs on marriage

 

So, there is no attempt by the clerk to force them to NOT get one. She's absolutely forcing them from getting one from her office. That is what this whole argument is about You need to learn how to think things through,

jblu and butt of the board. I do think things through. That's why, when I make a claim or a hypothesis, I use these little things called facts to support my claim. Like those specific KRS' that I mentioned in my previous posts. Not pages and pages of tea party-influenced mantras, or FauxNews opinions or Wikipedia pages that you seem to liberally copy and paste on this board constantly.

 

They singled her out to force her to be complicit, because she knew it was morally wrong. They did not single her out. Kim Davis singled herself out by refusing to do her lawful duty, and continuing to be belligerent in obstructing others in doing her duty for her. And they wanted money, too, and didn't want her going to jail. The same thing for the couple that went to the Christian baker. (but not a Muslim baker) and wanted big money from the judge.

[gftChris]

Just a hunch - what's going to upset cal most from that post is where you describe him doing something 'liberally'

[LogicIsForSquares]

baloney. The clerk isn't trying to push anything onto the gay perverted couple wanted a phoney marriage.

 

The gay people are trying to force her to be complicit in what she doesn't want to be complicit about.

 

Hell, you can go to any county and get a marriage license, can't you? You can get them ONLINE.

 

So, there is no attempt by the clerk to force them to NOT get one. You need to learn how to think things through,

jblu and butt of the board.

 

They singled her out to force her to be complicit, because she knew it was morally wrong.

And they wanted money, too, and didn't want her going to jail.

The same thing for the couple that went to the Christian baker. (but not a Muslim baker) and

wanted big money from the judge.

In Kentucky and WV, you have to get the license in your county of residence.

[OldBrownsFan]

I remember our former AG Eric Holder telling state AG's they didn't have to enforce laws they didn't agree with. He should have been impeached for that statement alone but he gets away with it. City leaders pay no penalty for setting up illegal sanctuary cities. So I really don't want to hear how this clerk must do her job when others flaunt the law with no punishment:

 

"Attorney General Eric Holder is taking the lawless attitude of the Obama administration and passing it down to state attorneys general. Yesterday during an interview with The New York Times, Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with...."

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/25/eric-holder-to-state-attorneys-general-you-dont-have-to-enforce-laws-you-disagree-with-n1800255

[The Cysko Kid]

But...he was talking about liberal stuff. It doesn't apply to 'laws' liberals like

[gftChris]

But...he was talking about discriminatory laws? Allowing people to do things isn't discriminatory?

 

"... state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory."

 

Sure, it's not great to have your attorney general allowing people to pick and choose, but it's clear what the intent is, and I don't think that's the same thing as denying people something based on a personal belief system.

[OldBrownsFan]

But...he was talking about discriminatory laws? Allowing people to do things isn't discriminatory?

 

"... state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory."

 

Sure, it's not great to have your attorney general allowing people to pick and choose, but it's clear what the intent is, and I don't think that's the same thing as denying people something based on a personal belief system.

 

Who makes the determination of what is discriminatory or not? If you allow those at the top to pick and choose laws to enforce you open the door to anyone else to follow suit.

[gftChris]

 

Who makes the determination of what is discriminatory or not? If you allow those at the top to pick and choose laws to enforce you open the door to anyone else to follow suit.

Which is what I said, no? Still, whether something is discriminatory or not is relatively easy to define. If group A can do something, but group B is not allowed to, based on nothing people from group B have done, that's probably a decent start.

 

What this woman was doing was denying people from group B the same rights as people from group A based on nothing those people had done, but her own personal beliefs.

[OldBrownsFan]

Which is what I said, no? Still, whether something is discriminatory or not is relatively easy to define. If group A can do something, but group B is not allowed to, based on nothing people from group B have done, that's probably a decent start.

 

What this woman was doing was denying people from group B the same rights as people from group A based on nothing those people had done, but her own personal beliefs.

 

Just saying she is no different than mayors and leaders of cities who flaunt immigration laws and set up illegal sanctuary cities and they receive no discipline or punishment let alone going to jail for following their beliefs over the law. The gay couple is not being stopped from getting married as they could easily go to another county for a license but they want to force this clerk to give them a marriage license and then they will probably seek out a Christian bakery to sue next.

[gftChris]

I thought that was covered above? Per logic: "In Kentucky and WV, you have to get the license in your county of residence."

 

Either way, why should they have to move? Go live in a 'gay county'? Separate but equal counties?

[Clevfan4life]

Stlll waiting for Cal to acknowledge she absolutely is trying to block all gay marriages in her county and doesn't want other people doing it in her place either. So "SHE" is the one doing the discrimination.

[calfoxwc]

No. The POINT is, they are free to move just like she is free to resign.

 

But she doesn't want to. Do the perverts want to move, ...no?

 

Then find a state where they can get a license, and take a damn vacation.

 

find another bakery.

 

She is not stopping them from moving, she is not stopping them from going to another state/county

where they CAN get a license. Why should 3 % of the population get to demand that the

97% go along with their agenda, or have their liberal judges slam them with gigantic fines (gifts to the liberal judges' gay

friends) and jail time?

 

And know this - she isn't stopping other people in her office from issuing them - they did NOT WANT TO, either.

She just doesn't want to SIGN them.

 

You can dance around the truth all you want to, but another judge says he AGREES with her completely.

 

And, the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. exactly support her right to stand up against injustice. And forcing her

to violate her beliefs is injustice.

 

Even in the military, you are allowed to refuse to follow an ILLEGAL ORDER. And as OBF correctly pointed out,

your own liberal gov says THEY can REFUSE to enforce ANY ORDER they don't like.

 

So, why can't she?

[gftChris]

It still blows my mind how people can paint her as the victim here.

[Clevfan4life]

Yup, just up and move..no big deal. Work? pffftttt. Unreal. And yes, she is claiming that other people in her office that followed the law, basically signed fake liscenses because she didn't approve of them. So again you're wrong.

No. The POINT is, they are free to move just like she is free to resign.

 

But she doesn't want to. Do the perverts want to move, ...no?

 

Then find a state where they can get a license, and take a damn vacation.

 

find another bakery.

 

She is not stopping them from moving, she is not stopping them from going to another state/county

where they CAN get a license. Why should 3 % of the population get to demand that the

97% go along with their agenda, or have their liberal judges slam them with gigantic fines (gifts to the liberal judges' gay

friends) and jail time?

 

And know this - she isn't stopping other people in her office from issuing them - they did NOT WANT TO, either.

She just doesn't want to SIGN them.

 

You can dance around the truth all you want to, but another judge says he AGREES with her completely.

 

And, the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. exactly support her right to stand up against injustice. And forcing her

to violate her beliefs is injustice.

 

Even in the military, you are allowed to refuse to follow an ILLEGAL ORDER. And as OBF correctly pointed out,

your own liberal gov says THEY can REFUSE to enforce ANY ORDER they don't like.

 

So, why can't she?

 

[jbluhm86]

I remember our former AG Eric Holder telling state AG's they didn't have to enforce laws they didn't agree with. He should have been impeached for that statement alone but he gets away with it. City leaders pay no penalty for setting up illegal sanctuary cities. So I really don't want to hear how this clerk must do her job when others flaunt the law with no punishment:

 

"Attorney General Eric Holder is taking the lawless attitude of the Obama administration and passing it down to state attorneys general. Yesterday during an interview with The New York Times, Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with...."

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/25/eric-holder-to-state-attorneys-general-you-dont-have-to-enforce-laws-you-disagree-with-n1800255

I absolutely agree with you that we need to hold our elected officials responsible when they refuse to enforce the laws, but let's not try to play this off as being a solely liberal problem. Republican presidents are just as guilty of willfully ignoring laws they didn't agree with either:

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6164068

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-barack-obama-first-president-who-thi/

[FairHooker11]

Stlll waiting for Cal to acknowledge she absolutely is trying to block all gay marriages in her county and doesn't want other people doing it in her place either. So "SHE" is the one doing the discrimination.

 

 

I was about to say why wouldnt' they just fire her....but then I remembered she's elected. That's a non doable situation. They need to be able to fire people like that who don't feel the need to perform the duties pertaining to their job. While I don't feel she's done anything to warrant jailtime, I do feel that she has zero business being in the type of employment that she is. Don't know why we have elected officials the only ones to hand out marriage liscenses. Any asshole then can say "hey i'm an atheist now so that cross you're wearing to the ceremony...uh uh, take it off". How would that go over?

 

 

you answered your own troll question dude- otherwise if you dont like it,

 

go to that KY county and start a petition to have her removed or put up a ballot for which you can vote in your guy....

 

til then she can do whatever she wants and be disobedient to the law. sic

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis ordered released from jail

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis listens to a customer following her office's refusal to issue marriage licenses at the Rowan County Courthouse in Morehead, Kentucky, Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015.

AP PHOTO/TIMOTHY D. EASLEY

• Shares
• Tweets
• Stumble
• Email
• More +

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk who was jailed after she defied the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, has been ordered released.

A court order issued Tuesday says, "Defendant Davis shall be released from the custody of the U.S. Marshal forthwith. Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered."

Davis was ordered jailed by a federal judge last week on a contempt charge after defying several court orders. Her lawyers spent Labor day weekend filing appeals in an effort to force her release.

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in June, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her. U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to issue the licenses, and the Supreme Court upheld his ruling.

But Davis still refused to do it, saying she could not betray her conscience or God. Bunning ruled Thursday that Davis was in contempt of court and sent her to jail. Her deputy clerks - except for her son, Nathan Davis - then issued marriage licenses to gay couples Friday with Davis behind bars.

Davis, an apostolic Christian, says gay marriage is a sin. She also says it would be a sin for her to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple because the licenses are issued under her authority. She tried in vain to have state lawmakers change the law as a legal challenge to Kentucky's same-sex marriage ban wound its way through the federal appeals court.

[gftChris]

Expected.

[jbluhm86]

Well, there you go. Guess that ends that I suppose.

[Clevfan4life]

 

 

 

 

 

til then she can do whatever she wants

 

Oh she can? That's an interesting take on this situation. Not accurate in the slightest but that's a quaint technicality. Just think of the possibilities though. We could have a system of fairy tale governance where people did exactly fuck what they felt like at the moment. I wanna get her job now so I can masturbate infront of people as they ask for marriage paperwork.

[calfoxwc]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6164068

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

http://www.politifac...sident-who-thi/ Jbluh

*******************************************

Great. You and a few others bitch like crazy about the biased "faux news" hahaha.

And your first link is the Huff post? LOL and the second the NY Post?

The first link - admits back then, the two Rep presidents were acting during a CONSENSUS, not

defying Congress and the American People altogether.

 

The second link explains that while Bush had a dem Congress, he believed

he could PROTECT the CONSTITUTION.

 

Obamao has NO CONSENSUS in Congress, is defying the American People, and

he refuses to protect the CONSTITUTION.

 

Take your time, and think about that.

[Westside Steve]

Anybody here think that Vietnam war protesters who refused to go into the army or Rosa Parks who refused to sit in the back of the bus or any number of liberal protesters including the jerk offs from Occupy Wall Street whining about income inequality or any other purveyors of civil disobedience should be punished and thrown in jail? Didn't that used to be the hallmark of the liberal or progressive or whatever you want to call your movement? This is nothing but your own animosity towards people of a different faith than your own. It's hip to hate Christians.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Exactly what Steve just posted.

 

and, liberals are hypocrites -

 

they just take stances emotionally, and

if a stance works against others they disagree with, GREAT...

 

but if it works against them... they flip 180 degrees so it fits.