So, what about Kim Davis?

Lets liven the site up a little.

What are some of your thoughts?

She needs to do her job, or quit. My contract in government stipulated the duties I had to do. This last line of my contract stated "or other duties as assigned.
I don't care if see has a religious objection to the gay marriage. It is not her decision to make.

I'm sick and tired of having to give up everything our country was founded on, as imperfect as it might be to some, to appease this little group or this group.  How bad has it gotten?  We're talking about rewriting history, removing artifacts of our history, statues of the founding fathers being taken down, ten commandants being removed.  Anything is game.  

No school prayer, no pledge of allegiance, no mentioning Christmas in schools, retail, in public.  Christians might offend someone.  

At some point people that share common ethic morals, beliefs, heritage, and traditions have to draw a line, else their chosen religion of faith will be totally cast away via public sentiment and government meddling.  The very thing the first amendment to the Bill of Rights states is a natural human right.  Everything that's Christian or reminder of our countries history is being dismantled. In God We Trust is being considered being removed from squad cars to Federal Reserve Notes.  Universities not flying the flag.  Displaying the flag is offensive.

Here's what happens when you don't have the balls to stand up for your heritage and your way of life, others will move in, and tear you apart where you have none.  Then they will fill your void.





Congratulations western societies, these are your new neighborhoods.  Hope you have many memorable weekends of back yard barbecues with the new arrivals.  Notice while your conceding yours, they are not.  Grow a pair, have a voice.

That being said government has no reason to be involved in marriage.  

Question for the audience and country would be?  What is it your willing to stand up for?  Anything?

Pretty sure "thou shall not steal" is in one of the top ten commandments.
Collecting a paycheck while not performing the duties of your job title is essentially stealing wages from an employer.

Remember, she quit giving licenses to straight couples as well.

An employers job responsibilities, trumps a persons the 1st Amendment. No.

Stealing?  No.  Job performance, yes.  The county clerk is an "elected" position.  This is not a simple fire the employee situation. http://rowancountyclerk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-rowan-co-primary.pdf

The POTUS rewrites the laws constantly, Obama care, deportation.  Yet it's all good.  This lady stands up for her religious beliefs and is tossed in the slammer and ridiculed beyond believe.  

Grow a set stand up for something.

Not issuing marriage licenses lands her in jail.  Secretary of State breaks multiple federal laws and statues, yet is free as a bird and is running for the highest political office in our country.  That's the current state of the USA.

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/09/08/the-latest-kentucky-clerk-to-be-released-from-jail

Quote :

U.S. District Judge David Bunning lifted the contempt order Tuesday and ordered Rowan County clerk Kim Davis released. Bunning ordered her not to interfere with the issuing of gay marriage licenses.

Bunning sent Davis to jail on Thursday after she refused to comply with his order that Davis issue marriage licenses. She had refused to grant licenses to any couples, gay or straight, since shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage.

Outside the jail where Davis is held, word spread slowly through a crowd of supporters Tuesday afternoon. Some said they couldn't believe the news.

1 p.m.

A Republican congressman from Kentucky says a federal judge's decision to jail a Kentucky clerk was premature because the state legislature hasn't had time to update its marriage laws since the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage.

Republican U.S. Rep Thomas Massie said Tuesday outside the jail where Rowan County clerk Kim Davis is being held that state law is in flux.

He pointed out that Kentucky's law still requires the woman in a relationship to apply for a marriage license. It makes no mention of same-sex relationships. He says the legislature needs to update that and several other laws, including ones that require marriage licenses to be issued under the county clerk's authority.

Massie says: "I'm here because five Supreme Court justices stole my job. They legislated. They wrote law."

 

Kim Davis is just an incremental step.  The assault will continue, and so goes our country.

joemac wrote:

That being said government has no reason to be involved in marriage.  

Problem is corporations tie benefits to "married" couples.
If the government isn't to be involved in marriage then who shale determine who is/isn't married for benefits?
Some religions allow for multiple wives so company X now has to supply certain bennies for 4,5,6 wives?
What about religions that allow for middle aged men to marry younger teen girls?

Is there an easy answer, no.

Let the free market figure it out.  If there is a void or demand for a product or service, an innovative person with ideas, ingenuity and capital that sees the opportunity will jump in and fill and service the void.

If a company offers healthcare, and the husband elects to cover 1, 2, 5 or 10 wives should be no different.  The premium will be higher, that's if we can still capable of arithmetic.  Much like adding the number of dependents.  There's no stipulation on 1, 2, 5 or 10 kids.  But if you want insurance for all 10, your premiums are going to be higher.  Not unexpected for rational minded folk.

If one doesn't like a companies benefits, there's a competing company that offers benefits more someone's preference, go work for them.  Even  today not all companies offer the same benefits.

We've been so accustomed to structured everything being told this is how it has to be.

What does it matter if your married?  If you want to buy a health insurance for yourself a "peer", one, two or eight.  Step up and pay.

We had a judge her ask if he could stop doing marriages all together because he didn't want to do same sex marriages. He was told no because part of his job is to perform weddings. So he quit. I applaud him for standing up for his rights by not playing by the rules he disagrees with.

I think she should quit or do the licenses. She is in a govt position and she is being paid to do a govt job and according to the govt, same sex marriage is marriage by the licenses they issue. With that being said, I don't think the govt should be involved in "marriage" licenses. They should issue a license that gives the same legal status as a marriage so that gay couples are not discriminated against but a "marriage" license to me is a religious issue.

Just so my views are stated openingly and not misinterpreted, I do believe gay, adultery, drunkenness all to be a sin but I also believe they should not be discriminated against. I guess now, we need to evaluate the definition of "discrimination".

The Kentucky county clerk is an elected position.  She has been elected by "the people" to represent the government they want as county clerk.  Least she steadfast in her morals and character.  More than can be said for many people in this country.

America is worn out being force feed every agenda any group wants to force people into public acceptance.  Animals have it figured out, too bad Americans can't seem too.

Is it that hard?  Find another county, state, city that will give you a marriage certificate. That's if marriage is the key.  But again in this case it isn't.  You will be entire character as a human will be demeaned today if you have thoughts that don't align with their beliefs.   If we give all the LBGT a certificate, will they leave the heterosexuals, you know the ones that brought them into the world alone at last?  No.  Turn on the TV it's being continually force feed at ever given opportunity.  It's called social engineering.

It's not wrong to have a conscious that believes marriage is between a man and a woman.   People are free to think and believe whatever they want.  Forcing others to accept the beliefs of others is wrong.

Business used to have right of refusal. Not so now. Businesses are forced by government to participate in commercial transactions that they morally, consciously or religiously may be at odds, that is utterly wrong in the land of the "free".

Believe in what you want....but don't force them on me. Thats the problem I have with her.

joemac wrote:

The Kentucky county clerk is an elected position.  She has been elected by "the people" to represent the government they want as county clerk.  

So Dearborn Michigan get to look forward to Sharia law since the "majority" wants that by their elected officials? Got it.

Quote :

Least she steadfast in her morals and character.  

Forcing others to accept the beliefs of others is wrong.

Business used to have right of refusal.  Not so now.  Businesses are forced by government to participate in commercial transactions that they morally, consciously or religiously may be at odds, that is utterly wrong in the land of the "free".

My religion allows for the consumption of alcohol and gambling.
Why are "dry" counties allowed to restrict selling me wine?

Where does it stop?  It doesn't.  Case in point.  Barber shop fined $750 by the government for not cutting a woman's hair.  http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/09/08/barbershop-fined-for-refusing-to-cut-womans-hair/

No other places would work right to get a hair cut, just this one would work.  No "beauty" salons, or the chain stores that do both men and women.  This sounds like the new wave of feminism that's gone wild.  Here's another "group" that's making demands of others to give up something.  Lets target the men's shop and make a spectacle out of it.  Government loves this.  Allows government another chance to intervene into the public.  Hair cuts, yes hair cuts.  The result more control more and more of society.  Government likes obedient workers and citizens.  Might as well be 1984 or the former Communist Russia.  Not people who are independent and able to sustain themselves without government assistance or input, free to think, do, as they wish.  How someone can demand the labor services of other, being forced by the governments hand is headed to a place that's not healthy for our country long term.

It will matter one day when they come after something you care about.  At this rate, its not if, its when.

Diesel Dan wrote:

So Dearborn Michigan get to look forward to Sharia law since the "majority" wants that by their elected officials? Got it.

Get ready for it. Once they have numbers in mass, enough to win elections and occupy elected positions. What's the play then to keep Sharia out? Slowly incrementally they'll get it, because true assimilated American's won't stand up for anything today. They are shamed a year of Sundays.

Sharia court narrowly avoided in Irving Texas. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/muslims-are-angry-at-texas-mayor-after-she-stops-sharia-court-here-is-her-epic-response/

The Deputy Clerk will issue marriage licenses to LGBT's.  National crisis averted.  Now onto the next tradition and heritage be assaulted and dismantled and forced unto every citizen, whether they like it or not they will be forced into acceptance of X.  Coming in three, two, one......  

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/09/kentucky-deputy-county-clerk-ill-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples/?intcmp=hpbt1

There was a story last week of a boy dressing as a girl, no sex organ change, using the girls locker/bathroom making the girls extremely uncomfortable, school is fine with it.  Most parents and students are not overly joyed with this.   Believe this was a middle school.  Why does the boy that dresses as a girl elect to go to the girls locker room? Why not put him in the boys locker room and make him/her fell uncomfortable? Why stop there, all boys and girls share the same locker rooms, bathrooms? Where does it end?

North Carolina has a solution that does not impede on Constitutional Rights.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/03/more-north-carolina-officials-refuse-to-perform-marriages/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork

Since government is now forcing people do perform acts that cross moral and religious beliefs, we can fine or force a barber shop to cut women's hair.  Forcing a bakery to make a gay wedding cake.  Can we force a doctor to perform an abortion?  Where does it stop?  

The issue with the gay marriage ruling is there isn't federal statue, some states have passed laws.  What's before us now is established court precedence on the SCOTUS ruling that effectively rewrote marriage law.  The judicial can't legislate, though that's exactly what has occurred.  It's not a cut and dry many seem to think it is.  The states are still allowed to legislate.  San Francisco officials are actively denying to participate in immigration law, not notifying ICE of illegals even when they're caught in the act of committing a crime simply releasing them back into the community.  None of the San Francisco government officials have been tossed in jail. People have actually died as a result.

joemac wrote:

It will matter one day when they come after something you care about.  At this rate, its not if, its when.

Slow down hoss, you're making an assumption that it hasn't happened.


How about this, if you don't want your religious beliefs offended don't work in a public position?
There are plenty of jobs within religious establishments.

If you want a job that pays you to work with the public you need to deal with ALL the public.

Diesel Dan wrote:

Slow down hoss, you're making an assumption that it hasn't happened.

Ease up there chief.

Using history as an indicator of the future.  Easy to see for most that haven't lived under a rock, or absorbed all the popular culture propaganda and social engineering.

Quote :

How about this, if you don't want your religious beliefs offended don't work in a public position?
There are plenty of jobs within religious establishments. If you want a job that pays you to work with the public you need to deal with the public.

Your suggestion is religious discrimination.  Your suggesting we not hire individuals that have religious beliefs!  There are federal statues, actual law, that qualify making employment decisions based on religious beliefs is illegal.  Holy cow people.  This is the USA or least it was.

We're a nation of laws, not emotions, not feelings, not for what might upset someone or inconvenience them.

The Constitution is the law of the land. Religious freedom a natural right provided by our creator, as defined in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  Laws and statues by government do not supersede humanities natural rights defined in the Constitution.  

If people don't like until the 1st Amendment, amend it.  Get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.  Call it done.  Do it the legal way, not what circumvents the very foundation of our Republic.  Else next time it will be the 4th, 5th, the 2nd, the 6th they'll come after.   Rights that least some people in the country cherish.  This is what makes us unique as a country unlike others.  Or at least it used to be.

Please note the reference to North Carolina in how they lawfully removed any conflict of religious beliefs from public duties.  See lawful.  That's how the country works, or least it used to be.

Being offended is an actual profession now.

The media makes most of the money off of it telling you each day what you are supposed to be offended by, and they have hordes of volunteers waiting for their 15 minutes of fame so they can cash in too.

Marriage "licenses" are a creation of government. The US has had marriage "license" requirement (law) for less than a 100 years. Though marriage has existed for thousands of years before government instituted "licenses".

Government once again getting in middle and creating a problem that didn't exist.

Lastly Kentucky actually has a religious freedom exemption that was passed in 2013, it includes government employees. No person can be compelled to provide a service that violates their conscious or religious beliefs. People are able to recuse themselves. This is what Kim did. What she can't do is shutdown the function of the office, in which the deputies can if they elect issue licenses.

If the Government didn't create wedge issues, we wouldn't have them.

Politicians exist and depend on that concept.

joemac wrote:

We're a nation of laws, not emotions, not feelings, not for what might upset someone or inconvenience them.

And correct or incorrectly, right or wrong, it has been deemed that "marriage" by State definition is for both heterosexual and homosexual individuals and therefore by law, "marriage" licenses should be given to both couples.

To another point that was made about moving if you don't like the way something is. They only see their view in that they are righting an injustice. And I could make an argument favoring(as I do) state rights vs federal rights. Unfortunately states rights have been stomped on for decades and there are not many fighting back. But I think allowing or better yet, the states flexing their Constitutional right, to allow certain things and not allow certain things would help solve a lot of these issues.

The counter argument that could be made for right to refuse services or good based on religious belief is that you would have people discriminating on people because they are gay, straight, black, white, young, old, smart, dumb, male, female and they could claim a religious right to do so. Where does that stop and who decides that?

Come to think of it I should sue Victoria Secrets for not carrying mens clothing and all those mens big and tall store since I am not big nor tall.

SCOTUS didn't legislate, they only interpreted the US Constitution.

No state shall make or enforce a law that shall abridge the privileges of the citizens. Being married is a privilege regardless of whether a religion thinks someone else should be married or not. A religion doesn't give anyone the right to inhibit another persons rights. Marriage is not limited to those with a religion, atheists and agnostics have a right to marry as well.

Marriage licenses came about to protect the rights of those involved. The government has created a binding contract between two people and to also protect children. At some point in the future it likely will be applied to multiple spouses and the union of siblings and first cousins.

The group forcing this issue is just as intolerant of others as they could have just gone to another county instead of creating a confrontation.

theshyguy wrote:

And correct or incorrectly, right or wrong, it has been deemed that "marriage" by State definition is for both heterosexual and homosexual individuals and therefore by law, "marriage" licenses should be given to both couples.

No its correct.  Nation of laws.  There is no federal "statue" defining gay marriage.

Legislated law does not supersede a Constitutional Right.  More over Kentucky reaffirms this with the 2013 passing of the religious freedom exemption act of which includes state employees do not have to provide duties that would violate their conscious or religious beliefs. Moreover the SCOTUS ruling isn't law, its precedence.  The judicial doesn't legislate. There is no federal law on gay marriage.

Who will decide any discrepancies, the judicial.  Just as the US district judge ruled in this case.  The state can not force Kim to provide licenses that would violate her 1st Amendment religious beliefs.

The public doesn't know crap about what's going on, they only have an opinion of Kim based on emotion or feelings.  That's normal by design, character assassination.

At this very time five deputy clerks within the county are issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.  There must be hundreds of thousands lined up in the county.     Additionally two other county clerks in Kentucky are refusing to issue licenses as well.  They haven't been thrown in jail.  The MSM isn't even covering it, there's little sensationalizing life left in this story.

toyboxrv wrote:

No state shall make or enforce a law that shall abridge the privileges of the citizens. Being married is a privilege regardless of whether a religion thinks someone else should be married or not.

Privileges or Rights?

Driving with a state issued drivers license is a privilege. States can remove the driving privileged from a person for the result of a misdemeanor DUI. Religious freedom is a right, and doesn't need a license from the state. The state can not remove your thoughts, views, or practice of religion, thus a right in the truest sense.

SCOTUS has set precedence in over a dozen cases that defines marriage as a "fundamental right", this again is precedence and not law or a "Constitutional right". These cases did not involve same sex issues.

Quote :

A religion doesn't give anyone the right to inhibit another persons rights. Marriage is not limited to those with a religion, atheists and agnostics have a right to marry as well.

Marriage is not a right as defined in the US Constitution Bill of Rights.

Quote :

Marriage licenses came about to protect the rights of those involved. The government has created a binding contract between two people and to also protect children. At some point in the future it likely will be applied to multiple spouses and the union of siblings and first cousins.

This is incorrect. 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act. It was several years after before states had actually enacted their own marriage laws. The law intent was to prevent interracial marriage (black and white ethic groups). The licensing aspect was the states verification process that your proposed marriage was vetted and approved as non-interracial. This is the roots of the US marriage laws and license system sources.

She's a pig at the government trough. She thinks she can make up her own rules as she sees fit. It's more than fair for her to lose her job and move onto things that are more important to her like her religious beliefs. The problem is, religious beliefs don't pay the bills. They only stoke the fire of the conservative cause of division, hate, war, excess defense spending, debt, and increased taxes. The US continues to prove that path is a dead end.

Diesel Dan wrote:

joemac wrote:

It will matter one day when they come after something you care about.  At this rate, its not if, its when.

Slow down hoss, you're making an assumption that it hasn't happened.


How about this, if you don't want your religious beliefs offended don't work in a public position?
There are plenty of jobs within religious establishments.

If you want a job that pays you to work with the public you need to deal with ALL the public.

Yes, indeed!

Her path of religion belief is frightening similar to a Islamic terrorist that hurts others while seeking public martyrdom in the name of Allah and the right wing conservative nut jobs are coming out of the wood-work in support.

The truth is, the world went crazy when man evolved to the state of magical thinking and then created belief systems, religions, and in cult-like fashion expected to control everyone's life via fear of sin and loss of life ever after. Yea, that's the ticket - make up a religion, a magical life-thereafter, and the promise of a dreamland if only you give up the present for the benefit of your church, preacher, etc. Whew!

Diseasel wrote:

She's a pig at the government trough. She thinks she can make up her own rules as she sees fit. It's more than fair for her to lose her job and move onto things that are more important to her like her religious beliefs.

Forgoing to law to reach a conclusion that fits one's personal narrative is the very definition of authoritarian.  This was one of the foundation pillars for the colonies to break away from England. Kentucky added further clarity in 2013 passing the religious exemptions act that includes government employees from being compelled to violate ones faith.

How far we've come as American's were we have a point of contention, we're so vein to forego law and rights to simply annihilate someone's character while at the same time not knowing anything about the lawful means of which actions are carried out.

Who has Kim killed or threatened to kill?  Comparing her to ISIS?  Imagination runs wild, not grounded in fact or rule of law. Does the rule of law not matter in our country?

The US is a war for many reasons, it's profitable, spreading our empire, power, authority, greed, (problem, solution, reaction at every turn), bigger government, more government. We used to have a country with a government. Now there's a government that has a country.

Religion or a belief, is not the reason we're at war, we're at war because of peoples actions.  However that doesn't stop those that want to use religion as a pillar of the propaganda machine. layered on thick.  ISIS uses it as a recruitment machine.  In the US this religion narrative seems to permeate the mind of those that are good obedient citizens and absorb the entire media entree striking FEAR at every turn. this provides government the platform to jump in.  Believing exactly what the media and government authority tells them to perceive, it stirs an emotion that overcomes common sense and rational thinking.  This is how they're able to "sell" it to the ever increasing ignorant American people.

The great thing about our country is that the a belief of religion or atheist view is protected by the 1st Amendment.  Or least it used to be.

Now only the vocal minority are protected. Everyone has to assimilate to those few or be punished and shamed.