I love Ted, have contributed $ to his PAC, and will vote for him. Etc. BUT this is ridiculous. She’s only been in office since January. She should have been able to look down the road and see this was going to happen, and make her plans accordingly.
Alternatively, she should point out that Kentucky really doesn’t have law on the books right now regarding gay marriage (or at least a “valid” law, following the SCOTUS decision), and they need to actually write that law so she can follow it (or not).
But this is not the same as a baker who’s been in business for many years, etc. She’s in a public office, and has NOT been there for decades. She knew pretty much which way the wind was blowing and what the job would entail.
Ted Cruz: This is not the hill to make your stand on. Pick a different one.
You should do more research. She has been a deputy clerk in this office for more than 25 years before being elected as clerk.
If religious liberty is not a hill to die on, then this country is truly on its way to the dustbin of history. If we fail to defend this hill, then no other hill is worth defending. We might as well let it burn down and start from scratch.
I disagree. Judicial tyranny is a hill that must be taken. Homo-marriage has never been approved by voters when there has been a referendum. Judges have been overruling the republic for far too long. California has seen judges reject their votes many times. This homo-issue of protected class was taken up by the state of Colorado in 1992 and the court over ruled a state constitutional amendment passed by the people of Colorado. In 2003 the USSC gave us the federal overreach of Lawrence v Texas but assured us that it would not lead to Homo-marriage. Not even a decade and half later the USSC slid down that slippery slope with Justice Kagan voting in a way she assured the senate she would not. The states and the people have consistently voted that marriage is one man and one woman, only the tyrants in black-robes have foisted this plague on the country.
Ted Cruz is correct this is not a enumerated power given to the federal government and is itself a violation of the first amendment. What is more is that the court has selectively enforced its rulings and "laws" when it comes to their pet issues like immigration.
Ted is taking on a corrupt congress and an out of control judiciary. That is two of three branches of the federal government. If he is elected and wields the authority of the executive branch, he will need to battle congressional turn coats and cowards, the corrupted courts and the shadow government of the bureaucracy. Each of these hills must be won if our children and grandchildren are to know liberty!
Really? So, just feed Christians to the shredder, eh?
You're on the wrong website.
The real problem is JAILING her for non-compliance. Impeachment is the proper process for removing an elected official for refusal to perform legal (if immoral) procedures, not imprisonment.
“Ted Cruz: This is not the hill to make your stand on. Pick a different one.”
Now see this pick a different one attitude is exactly why Obama and these unjust judges have gotten away with everything they have . Nobody stands for anything so we have the tyranny we deserve .
Free Republic will continue the fight for Liberty and against godless socialism and fascist judges!
September 3, 2015 | Jim Robinson
Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 5:39:43 PM by Jim Robinson
I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!
more...
>>She’s in a public office, and has NOT been there for decades. She knew pretty much which way the wind was blowing and what the job would entail.
Lots of people get elected to public office to stand for issues and to effect change. It is the reason why most people run for office—even for a long-time deputy clerk who wants the boss’ job. It’s the American way.
Why not this one? How about the next, or the next, or the next?
Her time in office is not relevant in any legal sense, nor is the conjecture that she should have know which way the winds were blowing.
Is your contention summed up to read that if one is faced with a decision to participate in what is a abhorrent act made legal by a totally bogus scotus decision, to wear a wind breaker and just shut up?
Apparently you and many other self proclaimed conservatives have knee jerked on the law and order issue and blew off the constitution in the same way the Judge Kennedy did!
1 hour in the corner with a stupid hat on your heads....all of you...........
I do like the idea of shoving their premise back in their face by granting for the sake of argument that the marriage statute has been legitimately invalidated and is void, therefore she has no authority to issue any marriage licenses at all. But does the Supreme Soviet also have the authority to also invalidate or nullify State Constitutions?
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1
Cruz is not out of line at all on this.
Cordially,
Agreed
She should have checked with Miss Cleo before taking her position. If we don’t have religious freedom and freedom of conscience, then we have no freedom at all.
“But this is not the same as a baker who’s been in business for many years, etc. She’s in a public office, and has NOT been there for decades. She knew pretty much which way the wind was blowing and what the job would entail.”
And so should all Christians know which way the wind is blowing. This is no longer a free nation, especially for people of faith. There is going to be no place for us to live according to our faith. Our souls are in the balance.
The gays were never prevented from getting a marriage license. There were many places to get one without resistance. They were prevented from getting one from someone who didn’t want to participate. Likewise, the gays were never prevented from getting a cake; they were prevented from getting one from someone who didn’t want to participate. It was the Christians that were prevented from refusing to do something contrary to their beliefs. I don’t go to Muslim bakeries, why should I unless I simple wanted to provoke them? Religious accommodations are being made all over this nation, at great expense and inconvenience for Muslims; foot washing stations, etc. Davis did not want to prevent gays from marrying, only that her name not be on the certificate condoning something her faith and conscience could not. I’m sure something could have been worked out but she was meant to be an example.
Talk is easy. When this LGBT abomination comes to us personally, and it will, we will better understand I guess. As of this moment, the public school system is preparing to teach your child that this perversion of nature is good and acceptable. Who better to teach it than the perverts themselves? Are we ready for that. As of now, any pervert of any gender can enter any public restroom or gym facility he or she chooses, even if it’s only to oogle others(your daughter? your son? your wife? you?. We may not be ready but it’s here unless we stand and do something. But I think we would have done so already if we were going to. Cheering for a politician isn’t going to do or change anything.