Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Kim Davis Can Be Released From Jail Without Agreeing to Violate Her Conscience
The Daily Signal ^ | September 4, 2015 | Roger Severino

Posted on 09/05/2015 10:04:36 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What crime has she been charged with? I’d like to know the
statute number of the law she has allegedly broken.


21 posted on 09/05/2015 11:20:01 PM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason and rule of law. Prepare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I agree. States need to punt back to Justice Kennedy.

This is not the only case. More are coming. Tennessee and Texas.

If there is no need for an abortion license, then get rid of the marriage license. Let it all be private.


22 posted on 09/05/2015 11:23:58 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Well, it’s contempt of court, so the question is what limits, if any, are there to the court’s power of decree.

“The Supreme Court says, put your hand on your head!”


23 posted on 09/05/2015 11:54:50 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

My opinion as well. Some sort of paper work that would satisfy hospitals nationwide but not be considered marriage. This should have been up to the states and the voters if they want to reconnect same sex marriage in their state


24 posted on 09/05/2015 11:56:17 PM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I’d pretty much agree....just get state governments out of the business. Other than a driver’s license, a fishing license and a hunting license...I don’t see any need beyond those for another license.


25 posted on 09/06/2015 12:02:58 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

How about we simply say we don’t throw Christians in jail for expressing their beliefs and let her out?

Too simple, I suppose.


26 posted on 09/06/2015 12:05:25 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg ("Donald Trump: Quality Conservatism Since 2015.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; RobbyS
Sixty million murdered babies, and now we must condone faggot marriage . . . or else.

Obergefell v. Hodges wouldn't have happened if there was a standing Article V state amendments convention that met every year. Knowing that one of the two powers higher than itself (God and the people acting in their sovereign capacity) would look over their shoulders once a year would cause the lefties on Scotus to think twice about taking measures to “create the new man.”

As it is, a further emboldened Scotus/Uniparty apparatus will continue to destroy society.

Our national sickness is far beyond the capacity of elections alone to cure.

27 posted on 09/06/2015 2:07:09 AM PDT by Jacquerie ( To shun Article V is to embrace tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Yep. That is how the fedgov deals with any resistance to their policies.


28 posted on 09/06/2015 3:18:14 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Change the form.....CHANGE THE LAW that the SUPREME COURT MADE UP!!


29 posted on 09/06/2015 3:35:13 AM PDT by Ann Archy (ABORTION....... The HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Contempt of court? How can you have anything but contempt for the courts.


30 posted on 09/06/2015 3:36:08 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

That argument is B.S. For one thing, there is nothing that prevents someone from fabricating a family relationship in order to get into a hospital to see a close friend. Secondly, I have never heard of a case where someone was refused entry to a hospital room because they didn’t “qualify” as a family member.


31 posted on 09/06/2015 3:37:02 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

You can legally give someone (non-relative, relative) your medical power of attorney. I served in this capacity for a non-relative person for years. You can make all medical decisions for them if they are incapacitated .... unconscious, elderly, etc. Frankly, no one even asked me for the paperwork. If you have aggressive relatives (parents or whatever that disagree with the sodomite life style & would try to interfere), you probably would have to carry the paperwork with you to prove to the doctor/hospital that YOU were the one with the right to be there and make decisions.


32 posted on 09/06/2015 4:25:28 AM PDT by Qiviut (Stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross; lift high his royal banner, it must not loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Qiviut

“you probably would have to carry the paperwork with you to prove to the doctor/hospital that YOU were the one with the right to be there and make decisions”

That’s why it’s a difficult case to make - it places burdens on some couples but not others.

The only solution would be to dissolve all marriages and force all couples to create new contractual agreements. Man, would the lawyers love that.


33 posted on 09/06/2015 4:57:27 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TChad
John Patrick Frey says, "I stand by my statement: “the way to respond to lawlessness is to end it, not to emulate it.”"

But Thomas Jefferson said, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."

Doug Wilson says,

The end game here is not armed revolution. The end game is simply a refusal to cooperate with their revolution. Make them fire or impeach faithful officials. Once removed, such faithful officials should run for office again with a promise to continue to defy all forms of unrighteous despotism. As one friend of mine put it, “Lather. Rinse. Repeat.”

Douglas Wilson - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3333363/posts

Cordially,

34 posted on 09/06/2015 5:02:07 AM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
She can resign her office.

That would be a victory for the gays also.
Drive persons of conscience, religious beliefs from government.

I really really want to see a similar confrontation with a Muslim.
We need to glean the Country and find a similar example involving Muslim.
Let's see what happens when a group that will fight back is forced to kowtow to the government.

35 posted on 09/06/2015 5:32:09 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Impy

no...... that would be impermanent

permanence is needed


36 posted on 09/06/2015 5:36:12 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12, 73, .. Iran deal & holocaust: Obama's batting clean up for Adolph Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Whatever the method, people of good will want a solution that leads to better outcomes than the impasse in Rowan County this week. Reaching such a solution in Kentucky is still feasible—and desirable, to respect the legally protected interests of the plaintiffs and the religious conscience of Kim Davis.

The problem is we are not dealing with "people of good will". They demand that specific individuals bake the damn cake. They demand that specific individuals sign the damn form. It's not about getting a cake or a license, it's about compelling obedience to their orthodoxy, and accepting that political correctness takes precedence over God's word. It's about totalitarian evil and has nothing to do with good will.

37 posted on 09/06/2015 5:45:48 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

“She must be crushed.”

You are correct, from the perspective of the lesbians and queers. They can accept no compromise, take no prisoners, there is only full and immediate capitulation or there is full and complete ruination.

Kim Davis dared defy them, so she must be crushed, as you say.

Lesbians and queers aren’t normal people. They are psychologically compromised adult babies, and until the country stands up to their infantile tantrums, we are like parents of spoiled children - constantly catering to their escalating demands. There is no end to the lives that will be destroyed in furtherance to their demands. The courts, the legislatures, and the culture has bent to their demands.

They belong in the closet - not because they have to hide who they are, but because they are disgusting vile human beings and people should never have to see them or interact with them until they decide to behave civilly and accept that indeed, there was a whole successful civilization that existed for millenia before gay marriage was enshrined by spineless courts and legislators and the culture was polluted with their fetid stench entirely based on what they do with their anuses.


38 posted on 09/06/2015 5:48:25 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

In essence, what this lady received is a life sentence in prison, if she holds her ground, because she committed the grave offense of not issuing a marriage license to a “gay” couple.

Amendment VIII...”Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted...”

Amendment V...No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law...

IMHO


39 posted on 09/06/2015 5:49:34 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Like most liberals, Alter twists Scalia's words in that piece. Scalia has never commented on Davis. Alter takes his writings on the duties of a judge and extrapolates them to this clerk's position, totally ignoring that the final line of Scalia's quote states that judges cannot write new laws, which is exactly what Oberfeld and this federal judge are doing. So this is hardly a smackdown of Davis...
40 posted on 09/06/2015 5:58:50 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwaet! Lar bith maest hord, sothlice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson