Kentucky clerk appeals order putting her in jail

[sgtsabai]

And exactly what does this have to do with a wacko clerk? It is the typical right wing being wrong, can't win so change the subject and/or attack the person.

[thaibeachlovers]

"So now the right needs to say what a "do-gooder" on the left might be in their fringe views from way out there. The Davis case in Kentucky is straight-up Constitutionalism and the rule of law, entirely and completely. Nothing else, nothing more. So what and whom are the "do-gooders" of the "leftwingnut socialist" elements. Pray tell. "

Well I'll quote from Urban Dictionary: "[A do-gooder is] a person who wants to "do you" good, as in take your money, property, and personal freedom. Usually a liberal or a leftist in political orientation. Synonym: bleeding heart liberal."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooder

There are do-gooders on the right: the main issue they have been behind is drug outlawing, which has fueled billions or trillions of dollars into international crime syndicates, in accordance with the "law of unintended consequences."

The "law of unintended consequences" also applies to leftist do-gooder programs like welfare, which produces an addictive cycle of dependence in the people it is supposed to help.

Another way to see the difference between a do-gooder (imposter) and good-doer. The do-gooder wants to use other people's resources to carry out their plans. The good-doer uses their own resources to create value.

Does this make sense?

It is focused on politicos, politics and political acts/views, which certainly reflects the posting and the dialogue in our posts. It makes sense but only from the point of view of conservatives to include almost everyone on the political right.

On the other side of the ledger the tea party have their idea of good government and of citizens going good, which is to reduce taxes as if this were the time of Pres Coolege who famously said, "The business of America is business." The business of Pres Coolege was however to run head on into the Great Depression which was only aggravated by Pres Hoover, another do-gooder feed the world Republican who refused to feed his own countrymen.

The evangelical right wants to do good by making laws promoting religion and by joining church and state to the advantage of religion. The do-gooders on the right want to preserve traditional marriage, strike the voting rights act from the books, mass deport 11 million people to begin with, build a wall to create a fortress America -- they want to shut down those Muslim training camps as stated to Mr Trump during his political rally for wacko rightwing do-gooders the other day.

This clerk is a do-gooder too if there ever wuz one. So I'd guess one person's do-gooder is another person's right wing evangelical crackpot.

Here none the less is some perspective away from politics....

Winners of the 2015 DoGooder Awards

http://blog.see3.com/winners-of-the-2015-dogooder-awards/

Ask yourself what would happen to you if you became an "illegal" in LOS. Would you be welcomed with open arms and given lots and lots of welfare, or would you be incarcerated and left there till someone bought you a ticket home?

Hint, it's not the first option.

If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US.

Dont know what illegal aliens have to do with gay marriage licensing but...

Though I agree with your first statement, I disagree with your second and your premise

"If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US."

if you believed that "a proper illegal proof wall," was the best way to go about it, and you were against it, then clearly you would be for " bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US ''

but many of as dont.

I dont want to put words in Publicus mouth, but I dont believe he does also. We believe there are better ways to deal with the problem, if a problem exists.

PS

It was Publicus that brought the wall up. I was responding to his statement.

[lifeincnx]

Kim Davis, remember: No one was put in jail for practicing her religion. Someone was jailed for attempting to use the government to force others to practice her religion.

[sirineou]

It is focused on politicos, politics and political acts/views, which certainly reflects the posting and the dialogue in our posts. It makes sense but only from the point of view of conservatives to include almost everyone on the political right.

On the other side of the ledger the tea party have their idea of good government and of citizens going good, which is to reduce taxes as if this were the time of Pres Coolege who famously said, "The business of America is business." The business of Pres Coolege was however to run head on into the Great Depression which was only aggravated by Pres Hoover, another do-gooder feed the world Republican who refused to feed his own countrymen.

The evangelical right wants to do good by making laws promoting religion and by joining church and state to the advantage of religion. The do-gooders on the right want to preserve traditional marriage, strike the voting rights act from the books, mass deport 11 million people to begin with, build a wall to create a fortress America -- they want to shut down those Muslim training camps as stated to Mr Trump during his political rally for wacko rightwing do-gooders the other day.

This clerk is a do-gooder too if there ever wuz one. So I'd guess one person's do-gooder is another person's right wing evangelical crackpot.

Here none the less is some perspective away from politics....

Winners of the 2015 DoGooder Awards

http://blog.see3.com/winners-of-the-2015-dogooder-awards/

Ask yourself what would happen to you if you became an "illegal" in LOS. Would you be welcomed with open arms and given lots and lots of welfare, or would you be incarcerated and left there till someone bought you a ticket home?

Hint, it's not the first option.

If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US.

Dont know what illegal aliens have to do with gay marriage licensing but...

Though I agree with your first statement, I disagree with your second and your premise

"If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US."

if you believed that "a proper illegal proof wall," was the best way to go about it, and you were against it, then clearly you would be for " bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US ''

but many of as dont.

I dont want to put words in Publicus mouth, but I dont believe he does also. We believe there are better ways to deal with the problem, if a problem exists.

PS

It was Publicus that brought the wall up. I was responding to his statement.

I read Publicus reply carefully because I was confused by your reply to it and I dont see where he says anything about illegal aliens.

Perhaps he did in an other reply, and if he did you should be replying to that one so that your reply can be measured against the context of his use of the illegal alien issue.

PS: good to see that God has not smitten you yet.hope he gives you enough time to reply to this

[thaibeachlovers]

Ask yourself what would happen to you if you became an "illegal" in LOS. Would you be welcomed with open arms and given lots and lots of welfare, or would you be incarcerated and left there till someone bought you a ticket home?

Hint, it's not the first option.

If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US.

Dont know what illegal aliens have to do with gay marriage licensing but...

Though I agree with your first statement, I disagree with your second and your premise

"If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US."

if you believed that "a proper illegal proof wall," was the best way to go about it, and you were against it, then clearly you would be for " bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US ''

but many of as dont.

I dont want to put words in Publicus mouth, but I dont believe he does also. We believe there are better ways to deal with the problem, if a problem exists.

PS

It was Publicus that brought the wall up. I was responding to his statement.

I read Publicus reply carefully because I was confused by your reply to it and I dont see where he says anything about illegal aliens.

Perhaps he did in an other reply, and if he did you should be replying to that one so that your reply can be measured against the context of his use of the illegal alien issue.

PS: good to see that God has not smitten you yet.hope he gives you enough time to reply to this

Read harder. It's there- the wall, which is intended to stop illegal aliens entering the US.

This is my last on this topic.

Unfortunately, to be able to post I had to delete the quote in question, so read back a few replies ago.

[Michael8511]

It's amazing to read about this case hope people realize that she's not the only elected person with this believe, there are a lot of elected officials that think that their religious believes are above the law. Regardless what the issue may be. Gay rights, women's choice of abortion etc. The list is long.

Every day in the supermarket I see the Muslim cashier that are packing my pork chops using a extra bag, she realize that regardless of her religious believe she have to sell that pork. You would think that elected officials with high salary and good benefits would also live up to their expectations but a high price goes if them still believe God is above everything. The only way she would understand she have a job to do is to take away her check, if it be with impeachment or heavy fine does not matter as long as she and her follower get the message that everyone in this country have to follow the law.

[squarethecircle]

Kim Davis, remember: No one was put in jail for practicing her religion. Someone was jailed for attempting to use the government to force others to practice her religion.

Well she wasn't forcing anyone to do anything - they could just simply drive to another clerk. Between this, the Christian baker lawsuit, and similar behaviors, the whole looney left is coming across as childish and spiteful. Why not just drive to another baker for your wedding cake, visit another clerk, instead of trying to ruin someone's life?

[thaibeachlovers]

It's amazing to read about this case hope people realize that she's not the only elected person with this believe, there are a lot of elected officials that think that their religious believes are above the law. Regardless what the issue may be. Gay rights, women's choice of abortion etc. The list is long.

Every day in the supermarket I see the Muslim cashier that are packing my pork chops using a extra bag, she realize that regardless of her religious believe she have to sell that pork. You would think that elected officials with high salary and good benefits would also live up to their expectations but a high price goes if them still believe God is above everything. The only way she would understand she have a job to do is to take away her check, if it be with impeachment or heavy fine does not matter as long as she and her follower get the message that everyone in this country have to follow the law.

Using an extra bag just shows that she doesn't know her own religion, like so many. In Islam there is an opt out clause that says you can do anything that is proscribed as long as it's NECESSARY to do so. So if she had to, she could even eat the stuff without going to hell.

It's like the ones that make their pre pubescent daughters cover up- stupid. Girls only have to cover when they have their first menstruation, and covering is a cultural requirement, not a religious one, so they don't have to cover because they are Islamic. Wish some of those western women that convert realised that. Also, western governments allowing women to cover have been fooled by the fundamentalist Muslims. The Koran says nothing about having to wear a veil, or wear a tent, which is why the Muslim woman I worked with in London never covered her hair.

[thaibeachlovers]

It's amazing to read about this case hope people realize that she's not the only elected person with this believe, there are a lot of elected officials that think that their religious believes are above the law. Regardless what the issue may be. Gay rights, women's choice of abortion etc. The list is long.

Every day in the supermarket I see the Muslim cashier that are packing my pork chops using a extra bag, she realize that regardless of her religious believe she have to sell that pork. You would think that elected officials with high salary and good benefits would also live up to their expectations but a high price goes if them still believe God is above everything. The only way she would understand she have a job to do is to take away her check, if it be with impeachment or heavy fine does not matter as long as she and her follower get the message that everyone in this country have to follow the law.

So go tell the legislature to impeach her- what, they don't want to? I guess they support her belief.

[sirineou]

It was Publicus that brought the wall up. I was responding to his statement.

I read Publicus reply carefully because I was confused by your reply to it and I dont see where he says anything about illegal aliens.

Perhaps he did in an other reply, and if he did you should be replying to that one so that your reply can be measured against the context of his use of the illegal alien issue.

PS: good to see that God has not smitten you yet.hope he gives you enough time to reply to this

Read harder. It's there- the wall, which is intended to stop illegal aliens entering the US.

This is my last on this topic.

Unfortunately, to be able to post I had to delete the quote in question, so read back a few replies ago.

You are right, I should had read a little more carefully , but i will ad that the context was not about illegal aliens but do gooders .

and I agree, removing posts to reply can some tine create context problems . I also had to remove a post to reply, and people reading this might think . What the heck are they talking about

Mods feel to remove this whole exchange , except for the smiting part or risk being included in my smiting list

a good way to include a post you are referring to if not allowed by the forum post limit, is the copy and paste process

I highlighted in red the sentence in question.

PS: you can relax, I will ask God not to smite you any more, .But be advise that this could change with out notice, so be careful how you reply.

Publicus, on 19 Sept 2015 - 16:57, said:

It is focused on politicos, politics and political acts/views, which certainly reflects the posting and the dialogue in our posts. It makes sense but only from the point of view of conservatives to include almost everyone on the political right.

On the other side of the ledger the tea party have their idea of good government and of citizens going good, which is to reduce taxes as if this were the time of Pres Coolege who famously said, "The business of America is business." The business of Pres Coolege was however to run head on into the Great Depression which was only aggravated by Pres Hoover, another do-gooder feed the world Republican who refused to feed his own countrymen.

The evangelical right wants to do good by making laws promoting religion and by joining church and state to the advantage of religion. The do-gooders on the right want to preserve traditional marriage, strike the voting rights act from the books, mass deport 11 million people to begin with, build a wall to create a fortress America -- they want to shut down those Muslim training camps as stated to Mr Trump during his political rally for wacko rightwing do-gooders the other day.

This clerk is a do-gooder too if there ever wuz one. So I'd guess one person's do-gooder is another person's right wing evangelical crackpot.

Here none the less is some perspective away from politics....

Winners of the 2015 DoGooder Awards

http://blog.see3.com...ogooder-awards/

[sirineou]

Kim Davis, remember: No one was put in jail for practicing her religion. Someone was jailed for attempting to use the government to force others to practice her religion.

Well she wasn't forcing anyone to do anything - they could just simply drive to another clerk. Between this, the Christian baker lawsuit, and similar behaviors, the whole looney left is coming across as childish and spiteful. Why not just drive to another baker for your wedding cake, visit another clerk, instead of trying to ruin someone's life?

I cant believe anyone would say the above and further more that the above reply would get two likes.

it is like saying. I dont know why a colored person might have a problem with a , colored people not served in this restaurant, they could simply go to a different restaurant

REALLY?

How about the clerk going to a different job !!!!!.

[sgtsabai]

How hard is it to understand, she was using the government to enforce her faux "christian" sharia on others. No, no one should have to go to another office that is crazy. She is the one that brought the law down on herself, not the couples that wanted to get married, as is their right. No the whole batshit crazy right wing faux "christian" is proving just how insane and dangerous they are.

[Publicus]

"So now the right needs to say what a "do-gooder" on the left might be in their fringe views from way out there. The Davis case in Kentucky is straight-up Constitutionalism and the rule of law, entirely and completely. Nothing else, nothing more. So what and whom are the "do-gooders" of the "leftwingnut socialist" elements. Pray tell. "

Well I'll quote from Urban Dictionary: "[A do-gooder is] a person who wants to "do you" good, as in take your money, property, and personal freedom. Usually a liberal or a leftist in political orientation. Synonym: bleeding heart liberal."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooder

There are do-gooders on the right: the main issue they have been behind is drug outlawing, which has fueled billions or trillions of dollars into international crime syndicates, in accordance with the "law of unintended consequences."

The "law of unintended consequences" also applies to leftist do-gooder programs like welfare, which produces an addictive cycle of dependence in the people it is supposed to help.

Another way to see the difference between a do-gooder (imposter) and good-doer. The do-gooder wants to use other people's resources to carry out their plans. The good-doer uses their own resources to create value.

Does this make sense?

It is focused on politicos, politics and political acts/views, which certainly reflects the posting and the dialogue in our posts. It makes sense but only from the point of view of conservatives to include almost everyone on the political right.

On the other side of the ledger the tea party have their idea of good government and of citizens going good, which is to reduce taxes as if this were the time of Pres Coolege who famously said, "The business of America is business." The business of Pres Coolege was however to run head on into the Great Depression which was only aggravated by Pres Hoover, another do-gooder feed the world Republican who refused to feed his own countrymen.

The evangelical right wants to do good by making laws promoting religion and by joining church and state to the advantage of religion. The do-gooders on the right want to preserve traditional marriage, strike the voting rights act from the books, mass deport 11 million people to begin with, build a wall to create a fortress America -- they want to shut down those Muslim training camps as stated to Mr Trump during his political rally for wacko rightwing do-gooders the other day.

This clerk is a do-gooder too if there ever wuz one. So I'd guess one person's do-gooder is another person's right wing evangelical crackpot.

Here none the less is some perspective away from politics....

Winners of the 2015 DoGooder Awards

http://blog.see3.com/winners-of-the-2015-dogooder-awards/

Ask yourself what would happen to you if you became an "illegal" in LOS. Would you be welcomed with open arms and given lots and lots of welfare, or would you be incarcerated and left there till someone bought you a ticket home?

Hint, it's not the first option.

If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US.

The poster and I were discussing "do-gooders" from the political and cultural perspective of he and I. The poster and I made passing reference to immigration, not a post focused on immigration. Neither did he nor I refer to the former LOS.

So the post reply above is off the wall.

Do get a grip over there.

[lifeincnx]

Kim Davis, remember: No one was put in jail for practicing her religion. Someone was jailed for attempting to use the government to force others to practice her religion.

Well she wasn't forcing anyone to do anything - they could just simply drive to another clerk. Between this, the Christian baker lawsuit, and similar behaviors, the whole looney left is coming across as childish and spiteful. Why not just drive to another baker for your wedding cake, visit another clerk, instead of trying to ruin someone's life?

She absolutely was forcing people to do things, including her staff whom she ordered not to process licenses.

"they could just simply drive to another clerk". She is a CIVIL CLERK in a GOVERNMENT OFFICE. No one should have to as IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

And you call us the looney left.

[thaibeachlovers]

Kim Davis, remember: No one was put in jail for practicing her religion. Someone was jailed for attempting to use the government to force others to practice her religion.

Well she wasn't forcing anyone to do anything - they could just simply drive to another clerk. Between this, the Christian baker lawsuit, and similar behaviors, the whole looney left is coming across as childish and spiteful. Why not just drive to another baker for your wedding cake, visit another clerk, instead of trying to ruin someone's life?

I cant believe anyone would say the above and further more that the above reply would get two likes.

it is like saying. I dont know why a colored person might have a problem with a , colored people not served in this restaurant, they could simply go to a different restaurant

REALLY?

How about the clerk going to a different job !!!!!.

What I "liked" was the statement the whole looney left is coming across as childish and spiteful. Can't differentiate with a like button exactly what one likes.

[thaibeachlovers]

Kim Davis, remember: No one was put in jail for practicing her religion. Someone was jailed for attempting to use the government to force others to practice her religion.

Well she wasn't forcing anyone to do anything - they could just simply drive to another clerk. Between this, the Christian baker lawsuit, and similar behaviors, the whole looney left is coming across as childish and spiteful. Why not just drive to another baker for your wedding cake, visit another clerk, instead of trying to ruin someone's life?

She absolutely was forcing people to do things, including her staff whom she ordered not to process licenses.

"they could just simply drive to another clerk". She is a CIVIL CLERK in a GOVERNMENT OFFICE. No one should have to as IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

And you call us the looney left.

She is a CIVIL CLERK in a STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICE

The STATE government don't think she is wrong. If they did so they'd impeach her, but they won't.

BTW, SCOTUS does NOT make laws- they only interpret them, according to their prejudices.

[thaibeachlovers]

"So now the right needs to say what a "do-gooder" on the left might be in their fringe views from way out there. The Davis case in Kentucky is straight-up Constitutionalism and the rule of law, entirely and completely. Nothing else, nothing more. So what and whom are the "do-gooders" of the "leftwingnut socialist" elements. Pray tell. "

Well I'll quote from Urban Dictionary: "[A do-gooder is] a person who wants to "do you" good, as in take your money, property, and personal freedom. Usually a liberal or a leftist in political orientation. Synonym: bleeding heart liberal."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooder

There are do-gooders on the right: the main issue they have been behind is drug outlawing, which has fueled billions or trillions of dollars into international crime syndicates, in accordance with the "law of unintended consequences."

The "law of unintended consequences" also applies to leftist do-gooder programs like welfare, which produces an addictive cycle of dependence in the people it is supposed to help.

Another way to see the difference between a do-gooder (imposter) and good-doer. The do-gooder wants to use other people's resources to carry out their plans. The good-doer uses their own resources to create value.

Does this make sense?

It is focused on politicos, politics and political acts/views, which certainly reflects the posting and the dialogue in our posts. It makes sense but only from the point of view of conservatives to include almost everyone on the political right.

On the other side of the ledger the tea party have their idea of good government and of citizens going good, which is to reduce taxes as if this were the time of Pres Coolege who famously said, "The business of America is business." The business of Pres Coolege was however to run head on into the Great Depression which was only aggravated by Pres Hoover, another do-gooder feed the world Republican who refused to feed his own countrymen.

The evangelical right wants to do good by making laws promoting religion and by joining church and state to the advantage of religion. The do-gooders on the right want to preserve traditional marriage, strike the voting rights act from the books, mass deport 11 million people to begin with, build a wall to create a fortress America -- they want to shut down those Muslim training camps as stated to Mr Trump during his political rally for wacko rightwing do-gooders the other day.

This clerk is a do-gooder too if there ever wuz one. So I'd guess one person's do-gooder is another person's right wing evangelical crackpot.

Here none the less is some perspective away from politics....

Winners of the 2015 DoGooder Awards

http://blog.see3.com/winners-of-the-2015-dogooder-awards/

Ask yourself what would happen to you if you became an "illegal" in LOS. Would you be welcomed with open arms and given lots and lots of welfare, or would you be incarcerated and left there till someone bought you a ticket home?

Hint, it's not the first option.

If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US.

The poster and I were discussing "do-gooders" from the political and cultural perspective of he and I. The poster and I made passing reference to immigration, not a post focused on immigration. Neither did he nor I refer to the former LOS.

So the post reply above is off the wall.

Do get a grip over there.

Publicus introduced illegal immigration into the discussion, I was responding to that. Given that this is a THAI forum ( albeit a world news subforum ), LOS is entirely valid, and since when was LOS 'former"? Did they change something when I wasn't looking?

[Jingthing]

It doesn't matter what any state official thinks. She is obligated to serve same sex couples based on the monumental SCOTUS ruling. Yes they interpreted indeed. They ruled same sex couples are equal under the law nationally.

[squarethecircle]

Kim Davis, remember: No one was put in jail for practicing her religion. Someone was jailed for attempting to use the government to force others to practice her religion.

Well she wasn't forcing anyone to do anything - they could just simply drive to another clerk. Between this, the Christian baker lawsuit, and similar behaviors, the whole looney left is coming across as childish and spiteful. Why not just drive to another baker for your wedding cake, visit another clerk, instead of trying to ruin someone's life?

I cant believe anyone would say the above and further more that the above reply would get two likes.

it is like saying. I dont know why a colored person might have a problem with a , colored people not served in this restaurant, they could simply go to a different restaurant

REALLY?

How about the clerk going to a different job !!!!!.

Well in private interactions in a free society, discrimination (choosing who you want to interact with or do business with, regardless of what criteria you use) is your right - so if someone does not want to do business with a born again right wing Christian, that's their choice.

Of course basing choices, ie: discriminating, on anything other than the other person's character or personal traits is irrational, but it should be your right. (and if someone wants to sue you to hell just for refusing to bake them a cake, that seems to me to be evidence of poor/spiteful character so I wouldn't want anything to do with them).

Back on topic: further explanation of why people like this lady, and Donald, are I think overall contributing to the overall preservation of civilization:

http://realtruth.org/articles/070831-002-ssoafn.html

This article explains 7 parallels between current US/British society and the breakdown of the ancient Roman civilization: breakdown of morality/family structure, inner and outer barbarians/parasites, and more.

Edited September 21, 2015 by squarethecircle

[sgtsabai]

Wow, Realtruth.org a nut case "church" run by a super nut case, David C. Pack, that thinks he is god's apostle. Hard to believe somebody would post a link to that crap. As far as personal life, I would do my utmost best to never do business with right wing religious wackos or right wingnuts period. If I owned a business, and I never have, I would have to think very carefully before turning them down. Doing so for faux religious reasons is a no-no, as is gender, race etc. As a government official I had to follow the law whether I liked it or not. That is difference, for the umpteenth time, the wacko clerk was NOT defending religious freedom, she was using her office as a government official to enforce her insane beliefs. Contrary to your mistaken belief, the wacko clerk and the entire clown bus lead by the Donald are a detriment to civilization, civil liberties, democracy, and represent some of the worst examples of so called human beings.

[notmyself]

A short song that tells the whole story.

[sgtsabai]

Well done sir, well done.