Posted on 09/03/2015 12:01:24 PM PDT by xzins
W was for gay “marriage” the whole time.
BEFORE she goes to prison, force her to BAKE THAT CAKE.
Further, the Academy of German Law and Nazi legal theorists, such as Carl Schmitt, advocated the nazification of German law, cleansing it of "Jewish influence." Judges were enjoined to let "healthy folk sentiment" (gesundes Volksempfinden) guide them in their decisions.http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005467
Exactly. The libs keep repeating that the public overwhelmingly support same sex marriage yet numerous ballot issues reaffirmed by a wide margin that only marriage between a man and a woman is acceptable.
Each time a judge overruled.
I guess if you “repeat a lie often enough it becomes true.”
Agreed. She is held in jail for having unapproved beliefs.
Why doesn't a judge just throw Obama in jail for contempt for not enforcing immigration law?
I am so going to throw that phrase in a few liberal faces.
I wish I were as brave as she is. Kentucky is too far for me to go in support of her but I will contribute money against this injustice.
I wonder if she would be going to jail if she had performed a gay wedding in a state where it was not legal.
Homosexual marriage furthers the NWO agenda of population reduction.
No, it is not.
In Kentucky, marriage is legally defined as being between a man and woman.
Kentucky law does not provide for Homosexual Marriage between same sex partners.
Kim Davis is following existing Kentucky laws as they are written.
The Judge who sent her to jail is a Federal Judge who had her arrested by Federal Marshals and she will presumably be held in a Federal Prison.
The Obama Administration position is that the Supreme Court has legalized Homosexual Marriage and the Supreme Court decision over rides Kentucky state law on the issue.
The Supreme Court decision is so radical that it extends full Civil Rights laws originally intended to combat racial discrimination and discrimination against women to homosexuals and gives homosexuals the ability to use civil rights laws to bring the full force of the Federal Government's civil and criminal penalties in Federal Civil Rights Acts against anyone who opposes the Homosexual Agenda.
Civil disobedience - but that was then and this is now....
We know that she wouldn’t be. She would be celebrated with a ticker tape parade.
re: “Rather than allow this get so far out of hand, perhaps she should’ve alerted the media to what was going on and then quit her job, using the exposure she would get from the situation to show her dedication to Christ and the gospel, which would be a super powerful testimony to believers and unbelievers alike.”
This is a quandary for me. I understand the issue that elected officials took an “oath”, but an “oath” to what? If the oath is that they must abide by and carry out the laws of that state, then if one cannot do that, that one should resign - right?
But then, on the other side of the coin. If you are the county clerk in the state of Kentucky, and a Supreme Court decision comes down that circumvents your state’s own laws, and, your name is now supposed to go on a civil document that is sanctioning something that you believe is a sin, immoral, and violates the law of God, to then obey the law violates your conscience and your first amendment right to free exercise of your faith - right?
So, the question is, do you resign or refuse to obey and take the consequences?
The other side says if you can’t obey the law, then you should just resign, but then we get into the realm of future court decisions that may sanction polygamy, or incest, or adults marrying children - you can’t just say, “Hey, it’s the law, I have to obey it”. Just because it’s the law doesn’t make it right or moral.
This reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Law that was part of the Missouri Comprise of 1850. That law stated that all state governing agencies and personnel (i.e. sheriff, judge, deputies, etc.), and, the civilian population of the free states MUST cooperate with the authorities attempting to capture and return fugitive slaves from the slave holding states, hiding out in a free state and/or attempting to escape to Canada.
People who believed slavery was a sin and immoral and refused to cooperate could be charged with a federal offense punishable for a fine of $1000 and even imprisonment.
In effect, the law made criminals of government officials or civilians in the free states who did not wish to cooperate or condone slavery in any fashion. This was especially egregious because slavery was outlawed in your own state, yet you could be imprisoned for refusing to cooperate with slaveholders interests. There were some civilians who were prosecuted for hiding slaves and were put in prison.
This feels like the same thing with the “same-sex” ruling by the court, which made law and “found” another “right” in our constitution. This in turn now makes criminals of any who oppose such a “union” as a “marriage”.
Government: Sanctuary cities violating these other multiple Federal laws? Pffft... whatever.
Maybe Christians need to pass ‘sanctuary state’ laws for those who have conscientious objection to homosexual marriage.
Exactly, when the courts approve the man/boy love freedom, do we say, “Hey, the Supreme Court ruled.”?
WHEN do we fight?
Now.
There should be no religious test to hold office. Anyone with a religious objection to homosexuality is not permitted, apparently, to hold her office unless they are willing to recant their religion.
Since there’s no Kentucky or county law on this, exactly what federal service did she refuse to preform? I’d to know.
You and I and It looks like Jim Robinson are all on the same page on this. This is Nazism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.