• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Kim Davis is no longer a hero... :(

Norman

Defender of Truth
Sometimes I really wonder if people are talking about the same story. You seem to be missing the entire point of what happened.

She was preventing people from getting married. She was not just simply refusing to issue the marriage licenses herself, she was also preventing anybody else in her office from doing it. Before she was sent to jail she was offered just such a compromise where she would not be required to do anything herself that violated here beliefs, but she would have to allow her deputy clerks to issue the licenses. She refused that. It was not enough for her to be allowed to follow her own faith, she needed to impose it on others. She was unfairly and illegally stopping people from getting married.

After a week in jail this compromise seemed to look better to her. Although she never actually agreed to it, it is what she is doing.

Norman: Read my post's because I have followed this case since it began, I posted both sides of the issues and facts. No, the Judge had to let her out of jail because the other clerks were offering the same sex marriage licenses. I do not want to flood your screen with the same thing I posted already. Read them and I will be happy to respond to your response.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Why do people believe the law just magically changes when a court makes a ruling? Go read your Constitution that’s Civics 101.

The highest law did not change. That is the Constitution. SCOTUS ruled that some other laws were in conflict with it and struck them down.
Tom
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
"Kim Davis has made a good-faith effort to comply with the court's order," Staver said. "The ACLU's motion to again hold Kim Davis in contempt reveals that their interest is not the license but rather a marriage license bearing the name of Kim Davis. They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy."
I really doubt that. Davis took an oath to uphold the law, and she deliberately broke the oath that she took. The Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals have the right to marriage, and Davis took it upon herself to go against the ruling. The Supreme Court overturned all laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, making it legal in all 50 states. Even though it is legal, and homosexual couples are legally and fully entitled to marriage just as much as heterosexual couples, Davis used her own personal beliefs as a reason to deny couples the marriage certificates that the highest court ruled they are entitled to.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
What I am noticing is that you keep dodging the question I asked.
You did not even quote it this time.

Why would you support a government official forbidding the consumption of pork chops in Kentucky?
Tom

Norman: I answered all your questions, evidently you did not like them, that is your problem. See you in another thread.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Norman: Read my post's because I have followed this case since it began, I posted both sides of the issues and facts. No, the Judge had to let her out of jail because the other clerks were offering the same sex marriage licenses. I do not want to flood your screen with the same thing I posted already. Read them and I will be happy to respond to your response.
That is fine, if you understand all this, if you understand that she was preventing people from getting married then you should understand how she was imposing her views on others. You shouldn't have to ask in what way(s) she was imposing her views on others.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
That is fine, if you understand all this, if you understand that she was preventing people from getting married then you should understand how she was imposing her views on others. You shouldn't have to ask in what way(s) she was imposing her views on others.

Norman: Hi fantome, yes, I can see that side of the issue.
 
Top