September 5, 201511 yr This on the other hand...it made me laugh. The pics are funny, most of the post are sad and pathetic.
September 5, 201511 yr The snippets that I've seen with Kim's husband, and her attorney's interpretation of the law displays painfully, and plainly just how distorted their understanding of it is. The way her husband speaks, it's obvious that he's never had a firm grasp of it, and although he's ignorant of the law, and obviously just plain ignorant, I suppose one can consider his misunderstanding excusable, however it's completely inexcusable to hear her attorneys speak like they do, because no way am I buying that they don't truly understand the law, but for the sake of their case, they're just making crap up and expecting people to buy it. You'd think that they might be able to pull the wool over some not so privy citizens, but in court, I can't imagine there being a judge alive that would accept their nonsense. What they're claiming by law to be her rights in this matter is just downright inaccurate, while they shamelessly attempt to paint it as the truth. They're really just setting themselves up to be laughed out of court, and who knows, possibly disbarred. I wonder if bold faced lies by attorneys regarding the law make them subject to that? I don't know. Sure, she's has the right to her religious beliefs, but no way with her employed position does she have the legal right to pick and choose, and exercise those beliefs regarding anyone else who's entitled their legal rights by law. They claim that she's entitled for those concessions to be granted to her where her beliefs can overrule the law where she sees fit. There is no "IF" they are correct anywhere in this, but for the sake of conversation, "IF" they were, what a crazy chaotic precedent in our country that would set.
September 5, 201511 yr The snippets that I've seen with Kim's husband, and her attorney's interpretation of the law displays painfully, and plainly just how distorted their understanding of it is. The way her husband speaks, it's obvious that he's never had a firm grasp of it, and although he's ignorant of the law, and obviously just plain ignorant, I suppose one can consider his misunderstanding excusable, however it's completely inexcusable to hear her attorneys speak like they do, because no way am I buying that they don't truly understand the law, but for the sake of their case, they're just making crap up and expecting people to buy it. You'd think that they might be able to pull the wool over some not so privy citizens, but in court, I can't imagine there being a judge alive that would accept their nonsense. What they're claiming by law to be her rights in this matter is just downright inaccurate, while they shamelessly attempt to paint it as the truth. They're really just setting themselves up to be laughed out of court, and who knows, possibly disbarred. I wonder if bold faced lies by attorneys regarding the law make them subject to that? I don't know. Sure, she's has the right to her religious beliefs, but no way with her employed position does she have the legal right to pick and choose, and exercise those beliefs regarding anyone else who's entitled their legal rights by law. They claim that she's entitled for those concessions to be granted to her where her beliefs can overrule the law where she sees fit. There is no "IF" they are correct anywhere in this, but for the sake of conversation, "IF" they were, what a crazy chaotic precedent in our country that would set. Welcome to dealing with Liberty Counsel.
September 5, 201511 yr One particular from the judge's decision stood out as somewhat odd to me. When it came to the deputies, and 5 of the 6 said that they would issue the licenses...the judge said the 6th one (her son) would NOT go to jail since there were others in the office who were willing to do the job (and he didn't interfere with them doing it). But, he (the son) isn't doing his job, is he? So, if the judge is going with the "as long as somebody does it" theory, doesn't that play into the whole line of thinking that other clerks (in other counties) WERE issuing licenses, and that people could've gone there? I mean, you're getting a Kentucky marriage license (not a Rowan County, Bourbon County, Jefferson County, etc. marriage license), so why does it matter where you get it? Perhaps some of our legal eagles on here can explain it to me. Seems like the judge's own words could be used against him, couldn't it? Would that be something her lawyers would use during an appeal? I think this is similar to the rulings years ago concerning Plan B before it became available over the counter. Pharmacists were not legally obligated to sell the product but were to have someone working with them at the time that would make the sale. Now this is a mute point since the product is carried OTC.
September 5, 201511 yr I'm a huge proponent of having a good laugh and not really thinking anything can't be made fun of. However, a large majority of your comments just come off as misogynistic... I'm am the opposite of misogynistic. Same jokes would be made regardless of gender. I think the country would be much, MUCH better off if the House and Senate were ALL FEMALE. Much more would get done for this country.
September 5, 201511 yr Bottom line is that Ms Davis should have resigned when she felt she could no longer carry out the required duties of her job. Just say, this would require me to go against my deeply-held beliefs and go quietly into the night. I think that would deserve acceptance and respect. No ridicule, no circus, no martyrdom. But she wanted the circus and she wants the notoriety and possible financial windfall. Hence, the criticism...
September 5, 201511 yr And Rachel Held Evans drops the mic. :popcorn: My guess is there are a lot of Christians who mostly agree.
September 5, 201511 yr So does she stay in forever unless she either agrees to give out same sex marriage licenses or resign???
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.