Kim Davis - Unethical

From the start, this strange alliance didn't smell right. Catholics and Evangelicals rarely get along or agree on anything in the South.

 

That's what I thought, Shale.

 

I would say there is Very Much in her Christian book she does not follow.

In fact, it seems she truly needs to :book: the book she supposedly follows...supposedly being the operative word there.

_____________________________________________


Since the Pope does have an entire "mass" of people (pun intended) behind him, watching over what he does...I was finding it quite difficult to believe that he would be in support of the actions of a (nonrepentant) Protestant woman that had been married so many times (mucho adultery), children out of wedlock, etc etc...

Here in Podunk, SC there is a big story in the paper about Ms. Davis's "encounter" with the pope and how he first met with a gay couple but the main point was: where the Vatican spokesman states "the pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects." Lots of words to say ummm no, not standing behind that

 

There's some speculation that the Pope got punked. I have no idea.

I am pretty certain that Kim Davis got punked, though. :rofl:



Fr. Thomas Rosica C.S.B., CEO of Salt and Light media foundation and the English language assistant to Holy See Press Office, told journalists Oct. 2 that as far as the Pope’s meeting with Davis goes, “I don't think it’s a matter of being tricked as of being fully aware of the situation and its complexities.”

“I don't think anyone was willfully trying to trick the Pope,” he said, but clarified that the Pope had not been fully briefed on her situation, or the impact such a meeting would have.

Fr. Rosica said that since Pope Francis had not been fully aware of Davis’ situation, he was not referring to her when he made his comments about a government employee’s right to conscientious objection on board the plane from Philadelphia to Rome.

He also said he is unaware whether any U.S. bishop had known about the meeting in advance, and was not sure who orchestrated the meeting, if it had been the Vatican ambassador to the U.S., Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, or the Davis’ lawyer.

Although Fr. Rosica had been very involved in Pope Francis’ visit to the United States last week and was aware of the details, he said that no one really knew about the meeting with Davis and her husband until the Pope had returned to Rome. http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=174789

 

Could be Kim was confused by the white robes when she met the "Pope."

 

If she ever loses he undeserved job as Clerk of Court, wonder where she will work next.

 

Kim Davis is not following the law again.

She's been asked, under the Kentucky Open Records Act, to provide the emails of her office. The request came from Muck Rock, a government transparency and news website.

Kim Davis is being uncooperative and asking a big sum of money to forward these emails.

More about it here: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/10/07/government-transparency-website-catches-kim-davis-refusing-to-do-her-job-again-screenshots/

 

The biggest problem I see in this thread is the use of political spin and pejorative ad homs to argue law. None of which is allowed in real debates and certainly not in the worst conducted of courts.

If we look at scotus 'opinion':

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10-27.
(l)The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.


we can cut out all the legal rhetoric:

(l)The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.


The rest is just mumbo jumbo wasted font ink since the rest will get no one anywhere in a court battle and the court does not to be obvious as a sore thumb the underlying law is founded upon beliefs which when acted up to form a gay relationship proves their religion. Moral belief and it associated action is a required element to a claim of religion.

2 wrongs does not make a right.

Ms Davis has been damaged by (a violation of her rights that the state was obligated to uphold) in the judge dredd manner in which this decision was 'implemented' and forced upon her giving her just cause to seek remedy in suit.

The proper court decision would have included an order of execution to insure no ones rights were violated in the process of granting gays their rights.

 

Time will tell. So far she's not back in jail for her office issuing the altered licenses.

 

What is it with her...what is her hold here? Seriously.

I don't understand why she isn't legally physically required to do the requirements of her job or be forced to leave that job. Damn period.

 

They needed her to make the Pope and Huckabee look bad.

 

Exactly, There Has Been Something Lurking In The Background Throughout This Entire Circus.



Cheers Glen.

 

Kim Davis is just a poor man's Sarah Palin. Period.

 

Despite that I answered your question in a mere one post above this one here is an article that also asnwers your question.


Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious freedom

By Michael O'Loughlin
National reporter June 26, 2015


With same-sex marriage declared constitutional in all 50 states, some Supreme Court justices worry that religious freedom will face unprecedented challenges in coming years.

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is — unlike the right imagined by the majority — actually spelled out in the Constitution.”
In his decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that those who object to same-sex marriage because of religious beliefs still enjoy constitutional rights to “advocate” against it.

snip

“The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion.

Ominously, that is NOT a word the majority uses,” he wrote.





He went on to highlight “hard questions” about religious freedom, including housing and adoption policies at religious institutions. “There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today,” he wrote.


The court in their dissent recognizes its own willful negligence to Due Process.


Both Roberts and Thomas lamented that the Supreme Court intervened instead of letting states vote on marriage laws.

The “People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate,” Thomas wrote. “Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process — as the Constitution requires — the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process.” http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/06/26/supreme-court-justices-predict-next-battle-religious-freedom/




As usual everyone glosses over the fact that the supreme court acknowledged one set of religious beliefs the majority paying no head to opposing parties parties religious beliefs.

kim davis has not only the right to exercise her religion (as did the gays) but a sworn duty to the constitution of the United States to uphold the first amendment regardless of political pressure to burn it through their lack of understanding of it.

What people in this thread fail to grasp is the only 'legitimate' way the court can rule in favor of gay marriage is under the right to exercise religion which understandably is a can of worms they do not want to crack open as we can see the political, religious, and legal outrage.

I am rather surprised at the blatant disregard for the first amendment right to exercise religion that those who won their right to marry have for the underlying reason they won their right to marry in the first place. In other words get rid of the right to exercise religion and everyones right to marry goes out the window.

I'll be happy to explain it further if anyone needs to go over the legal, philosophical, metaphysical, religious ramifications in more detail.

 

Clarence (Uncle ) Thomas is a glaring example of obtuse hypocrisy. He is married to a white woman - something he would not have been permitted to do in 15 backwater states if not for the Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court decision - which said it was unconstitutional (14th Amendment) to prevent interracial mairriage. So, he is proposing that this decision, which referenced the Loving decision should not have overridden the states right to discriminate. Had this been the attitude in 1967, then those of us in interracial relationships in the South would have been breaking the law.

BTW, in the Loving case there was a religious reason the Virginia judge cited for why ppl of different races could not get married.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

That was a specious argument, just as the religious opposition to same-gender marriage is. And, all those Southern states were forced to abide by this law - which I personally see as a good thing.

Now, as for that equally specious "Religious Freedom" argument - there is nothing saying one is not free to follow their religion IN FUCKING PRIVATE. However, you cannot work as an agent of the SECULAR government and force your religious beliefs on others. That is it - bottom line.

If you follow a religion that believes that your invisible sky daddy "did not intend for the races to mix," you still have to give interracial couples a marriage license.

If you follow a religion that believes that your invisible sky daddy is against same-sex partners getting married you still have to give same-sex couples a marriage license.

BTW Zzap, are you a citizen of the United States? You seem to have a problem sorting out our civil rights as guaranteed in our Constitution. Of course Kim Davis is a citizen who also has that problem but she is an ignorant backwater rube in Kentucky, like Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas.

 

"If you follow a religion that believes that your invisible sky daddy"

Thanks for proving my point that the only way people here can argue their position is with ad hom pejorative insults, outdated rulings based on the 1795 SaL.

the fact is that people have the right to the religion of THEIR choice and to exercise the religion of their choice.

Gay 'RELIGION' runs contrary to long held and established Judeo-Christain, Muslim and several other RELIGIONS.

the constitution reserves the right for gays to exercise and support THEIR choice of religion as much as anyone else to exercise and support THEIR choice.

gays should not be coerced into supporting the Judeao-Christain religion any more than Judeao-Christains should be forced into supporting gay religions.


"Had this been the attitude in 1967, then those of us in interracial relationships in the South would have been breaking the law."

How many times do I need to agree that gays rights were violated when states prevented them from getting married. Blacks and whites were very different due to the out dated dowery and english social status at that time that were still on the books that those ruling abolished.

That and the marriage we are talking about here is marriage under the state with full 'state recognition' for the purpose of state benefits.

You are very quick to defend tooth and nail the gays right to marry (which is and always has been constitutional, despite our corrupt courts), which brings up the question, why are you NOT equally defending EVERYONE'S right to exercise their religion?

"Now, as for that equally specious "Religious Freedom" argument - there is nothing saying one is not free to follow their religion IN FUCKING PRIVATE."

So then it is your contention the 1st amendment is specious? Seriously?

The answer is as quick and simple as a click on Wiki:

the constitution reserves the right for gays to exercise and support THEIR choice of religion IN PUBLIC, but people here seem to feel that Christians only have the right in private. Seriously?

The problem you are faced with in that position is that the constitution is with regard to 'LIBERTY' and liberty applies to the 'PUBLIC' franchise rights.

I frankly do not see how you can square the several levels of dichotomy.



.

 

VERBATIM #1:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

That is all it says and it may be seem oxymoronic but is normally interpreted that you have the freedome to exercise your religion in the church, temple or mosque of your choice or dancing naked around a candle.

It is also normally interpreted to mean that there is no religious test and that the U.S. does not respect any religious beliefs over any other. This part applies to ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY. Meaning that if Kim Davis cannot do her job under her perceptions of religion she may only quit the job, not inflict her simple beliefs onto others.


VERBATIM #14:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shal any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or prosperity, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Seems pretty self-explanatory to most ppl - and at the moment supported by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court so any extraneous arguments and extrapolations beyond the facts are moot.

-----------------

BTW, are you aware that any font color with this purple background of the "quote" feature is difficult to read and hurts the eyes? I love blue font, but have refrained since discovering that. Perhaps you are not so observant or just do not care.

 

"That is all it says and it may be seem oxymoronic but is normally interpreted that you have the freedome to exercise your religion in the church, temple or mosque of your choice or dancing naked around a candle."


You are inserting your 'opinion' as a general interpretation. There is nothing what so ever to support your opinion and it never has been 'interpreted' in that manner by by anyone in the philosophical, theological, metaphysical, law, or any other academic discipline that deals with these issues.

Your privileges and immunities are SUBJECT to the ORGANIC law and the organic law reserves the right to exercise religion. All the 14th did was give the average joe access to the organic law.

The courts have first chosen to support the judeao-christain religion OVER the gays religion and now have chosen to support the gays religion over the judeao-christain religion.

Therefore a religion has been established since the beginning and this is a religion change.

Your argument claims 2 wrongs make a right and somehow you have the force of law reversed. Privileges and immunities are SUBJECT the organic law not the other way around as you purport.

 

This story is not about anyone's right to marry.

That's been taken care of.



This story is about how Kim Davis will be allowed to do her job.

 

Logically , the Christians of Tradition and Wisdom will now abandon the institutional govt marraige and its govt
endowed entitlements . By this power (through sacrifice) they may succeed in petitioning some states to get out
of the marraige business . It is to be divorced from govt nonsense .

Yep , thatsa Naturalism . Wish'm luck . It'd be goodness all around .