Kim Davis
 

Lawbreaker.
Offends anyone who believes in the constitution.
Religious terrorist.
Don't tell me this is ok and shout Save our guns based on the 2d amendment.
Imagine the value of our constitution if this ??!?. Don't get fired for failing to do her job. Uuigggghh

So, are you trying to say that you aren't a big fan? It's kinda hard to tell.

She is a dolt who does not understand when the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is immediately the law of the land.

This RIGHT has been long fought for the LGBT community and even when upheld by the highest court in the land, this disrespectful jerk says NO! She has no business working in a public office sworn to defend all the rights of all the people of this great nation. When you refuse to follow the laws of this country, you give up your right to represent any of the law abiding US citizens. PUT HER BEHIND BARS with the rest off he criminals.

Well, there should be plenty of room since your liberal president is going to let out 6,000 drug dealers.

She is far worse for the security of this country than any pot head. Try again!

Sorry, find this thread and this topic to be so misguided and uninformed.

Of course she needs to obey the law. She asked for an accomodation and yep, she must follow the law but this is all a trumped up media event. Couple comes back many times, is treated with courtesy and then shows up with cameras.

Is this really an important issue to waste your breath on.

How about the people dying in Syria or the middle east on fire or our economy and unemployment and on it could go, but this one lady in one place has your attention.

Please explain why?

Are speaking about Hillary Clinton or Kim Davis?

Has she been a devout follower of Christ her entire life?

Really, you don't understand this. Wow, you need more help than I can give you. If that was humor LOL.

The security of the country is at stake? Please. Now, that's funny!

I think you misunderstood what she meant. She did not say the security of the country was at stake or even compromised. We must read carefully in order to make coherent replies.

Seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. She should do her job without letting her personal religious beliefs interfere with the performance of her duties but she is hardly a "terrorist" of any kind.

Liberals want to throw a woman in jail because she didn't do her job. And by the way, there was no instruction or new forms to account for gay marriage yet, when she refused. She could be relieved of her job, but she didn't break a law. There is no law that says she must do her job or go to jail.

On the other hand, liberals want to protect Hilary, who is a felon and no doubt a felon that just hasn't been convicted yet. There are felony laws for what she did. She deserves to go to jail for a very long time, but liberals think national security is a lark and not to be taken seriously.

So, a Democrat didn't do her job and she should be jailed and a cabinet member committed multiple felony offenses dealing with national security and should be left alone because she said it is all just a Republican conspiracy.

This is a lame thread and anyone wishing to give it any more time obviously doesn't have enough to do.

She needs a haircut, a makeover and a trip to Barney's. Her husband should stop dressing like a scarecrow.

This thread is little more than chum on the water....and about as much sense.

She is a dolt, and a pathetic laughing stock. I agree, we have better things to spend our time on.

Sorry, but I feel that God has a lot more authority here than 5 non-elected judges. They just don't mean much to me. I will stand behind her as well as lots of other US Citizens.

Funny how the Dems threw her to the wolves, just because she mentioned "God." That should prove something to you. Typical of liberals to be against religion. Any other time (ie., Hilary) they would be making outrageous excuses for her.

:mademyday:nWhen the Supreme Court justices decide for the conservative viewpoints, you agree that they should be followed, I presume.

Hey, get back to the other 6 dwarfs, Dopey!

Hillary has not been arrained in court, not been tried, not been found guilty (except by Faux News stooges) so she cannot be a felon.

You, on the other hand, have been found not guilty by reason of insanity!:boom:

That hickamajig at the end always does it for me.

Just a sucker for intellectuals.

She is clearly a felon, just not a convicted felon as you imply.

Her emails being plastered all over the internet must be a Republican conspiracy and couldn't be her's. From what I have read of those emails, she is easily a felon, just not convicted yet. And knowing the CLintons, she won't be convicted of a felony. Just because a person is not convicted, does not make then innocent. And idiots that voted for Obama will probably be stupid enough to elect Hilary too. She has no regard for national security and most liberals I know could care less also. After all , they live in their little purple haze Obama Utopia and are oblivious to the real world.

Fags on the Supreme Court should not have been able to rule " conflict of personnel interest" just like the fag that over turned Cala voters in the I think 9th district court. Nobody should be able to over rule the citizens votes.

Dear Guest: What right are you addressing? It can't be marriage because the homosexual community has had that right for a very long time. It can't be survivorship issues because those legal issues have been available for a very long time.

The highest court in the land a) had no right to make a decision on this issue as it should have been left to each state to decide b) in making its decision it placed politic ahead of facts and voted based on judicial activism c) made law were none was ever intended based on the anticipated reaction by the the majority of people who did not want the definition of marriage

As to Kim Davis' reaction first let me state I am not interested in defending any person but rather the issue itself.

The law of the land based on Dredd Scott and other property laws for hundreds of years was that slavery was right and slaves were property and in fact so were women. So you agree that all those acts of disobedience marches riots etc were illegal and those laws should have continued on the books?

Were those people who disagree with the Supreme Courts decision also wrong in their protest?

Now whether you agree or disagree so far please explain why Muslim are allowed all their rights to exercise their beliefs and not Christian. Why is a person can make a religious claim of non-killing conscious objector and escape military service for so many years prior to the all volunteer military.

Explain why its a right to legalize drug use but not a right to legally own firearms?

Should we count the ways in which a conservative point of view is non-existent and in educational institutions and in fact if a conservative student attempt to exercise his/her beliefs they are intimated with the threats of failing grades.

Why on college campuses are males presumed guilty of rape and denied their due process?

Finally you claim a great believe in the laws of this nation and demand criminals be sent to jail so shouldn't those Planned Parenthood participants guilty of the unborn slaughter and selling of baby parts be given their just punishment ? If found guilty if breaches and accepting illegal contributions, etc shouldn't Hillary Clinton go to jail? Is it only Christians who practice their faith go to jail. Heck I bet you believe Kim Davis ought to be fed to the lions

Personal Best Regards:

IMO this should of been nation vote and not decided by any district or Supreme Court. If the majority wants it then that will be the law which can't be over turned. That way you keep special and personal interest out of it. This is what you get when few decide for the majority.

And you are definitely entitled to your opinion. However, according to the Constitution, that is not how it is done in the USA. The constiutionality of the law of the land is decided by the Supreme Court.

You can have your civil union. That's what a court house marriage is. But, real marriage is blessed by God and he ain't gonna bless gay marriage. God's word, the Bible will tell you that. Gays might even get a radical church preacher to marry them, but it won't mean anything. You can force law, but you can't force God's endorsement, no matter how you try to convince normal people that deviant actions are normal. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and minorities should be offended that they are grouped in with deviant abnormal behavior, when it comes to civil rights progress. The Supreme in Supreme Court does not make them supreme to the Lord, and America is going to find that out real fast.

Did all of you gay defenders know that gay men can never donate blood? I suppose the supreme court will decide that's wrong too.

The USA is not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocracy, it is not the USA.

The Supreme Court decides on whether or not a law is constitutional or not and does not - and should not - take religious beliefs into the equation.

Please go to fda.gov to read their new proposed guidelines on this topic. It is changing to allow it. It has not yet been implemented but guidelines have been published for comments in The Federal Register.

I read it at One Blood every 2 weeks

They don't take the majority's view either. As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?

Please tell us what Supreme Court decision that Pres. Obama has not listened to.

Be specific and cite the Supreme Court case.

No, the Supreme Court does not always use the popular view but relies on the interpretation of the Constitution. That is their Constitutional duty.

Thanks.

An easy one without having to look it up is the ban on drilling in the Gulf..

Yes, THEY interpret the law as it pertains to the constitution. Their opinion as so-called experts. A lot of other judges would interpret differently. The only difference between them and another judge is they are politically appointed by the president and politically confirmed by congress. It's all a matter of opinion, and you what they say about opinions, right?

I could not find the Supreme Court case regarding gulf drilling and how Pres. Obama disregarded the decision. Link it, please.

Yes, the Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President. Each president will try and appoint justices who agree with his/her views. The justices have a lifetime appointment.

The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land. This is NOT a theocracy! It is not anarchy! The laws set forth in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Book of Wicca, etc. do not count here.

Actually, you are partially wrong. The Supreme Court DOES take religion into consideration when making some decisions. Remember, we have the constitutional right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And there have been many court decisions based on one's religious freedom. But, I get what you mean.

The decisions "rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land" until another court decides differently. The court does change when judges die or retire.

We have three branches of government, and the president is NOT king, emperor, supreme ruler, etc.....regardless of what he thinks. Obama abuses his right to executive order, more than any other president. It does not matter the quantity of EO's signed, but the power and effect they have. This King of Czars has abused his power on several occasions and he will go down in history as the worst, most abusive and divisive presidential experiment ever.

As far as your first point saying you can't find anything related to my statement, that's your problem. You asked, I told you, and it is up to you to dispute my statement with countering research. I am not going to do it for you. I am tired of doing the work for liberals. And it was a Federal Court order that Obama violated, that may not have gone to the Supreme Court. But, it just shows one incident of many that Obama blatantly disregarded in contempt. He even said publicly that he felt that the Supreme Court is wrong on more than one case.

There is one branch of government that makes law, and that is congress. Not the Supreme COurt, and not the president.