Featured

Judge throws anti-gay Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis in jail for contempt

Kim Davis, the defiant Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples due to her religious beliefs, was found in contempt of court this Thursday and taken into federal custody.

Kim Davis, the defiant Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples due to her religious beliefs, was found in contempt of court this Thursday and taken into federal custody.

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to be jailed on the contempt charges until she agrees to perform her duties as required by law.

Saying that Davis could not be trusted to follow the law, the judge ordered her to be held indefinitely.

From the New Civil Rights Movement:

Attorneys for Davis argued she is protected by the First Amendment from issuing licenses to same-sex couples, because doing so would “irreparably” harm her conscience. They also claimed Davis should not be held in contempt because

Davis has turned away countless same-sex and different-sex couples, including the four couples who brought a lawsuit against her back in July. Last month, Judge Bunning ruled on that case, ordering Davis to begin issuing marriage licenses. Her attorneys from the anti-gay hate group Liberty Counsel have filed several appeals and emergency motions, but have been denied at every turn. Even the 6th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court have handed down decisions indicating a lack of support for Davis’ claim that the First Amendment protects her.

According to reports, there was a heavy police presence inside and outside the courthouse – including officers from the Department of Homeland Security.

Hundreds of supporters chanted “God is great!” nonstop in the 90-degree heat. According to NCRM, many people hoisted anti-gay signs labeling LGBT rights supporters as “homo terrorists” and “rapists.” Some were heard using bullhorns to yell “homo love is hate” amongst other religiously themed chants.

Featured image via Twitter

Facebook Comment
13 Comments

13 Comments

  1. Martin Pollard

    September 3, 2015 at 5:47 pm

    On the one hand, I love that the judge laid the smack down on her. You don’t get to swear an oath to do a job, then post-facto insist that you only need to do some of it; just try that at your workplace and see how far it gets you. The assistants at her office are now out from under her terroristic (by their accounts) thumb and free to uphold the law as they were originally instructed.

    On the other hand, I’m not sure that it’s going to make a difference, at least not with this whackjob. She seemed ready, willing, and possibly eager to go to jail to stand up for her so-called “religious beliefs,” and doing so is bound to make a martyr of her to her rabid, like-minded fellows and admirers.

  2. Annette Hall

    September 3, 2015 at 7:32 pm

    I am sorry but I don’t agree with the judge because her right to her freedom of religion rights should have been acknowledged. The court houses should hire people so nobody is offended and nobody has to go against their beliefs. Ones religious rights and beliefs is just as important as ones right to marry. They need to come up with a solution.

  3. Kristine

    September 3, 2015 at 9:42 pm

    Annette… It is her choice to have the job she was elected to do and needs to fulfill the duties of that job. If she doesn’t like it, or it goes against her beliefs, then leave. It’s a government position. Not one with the private company (not like that should make a difference).

  4. John Tucker

    September 3, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    No, sorry, that’s not how it works. Her freedom of religion was not being violated. She sought public office and had a duty to uphold the law. They didn’t hire her, she won an election.

    But on the hiring note, should a store have to provide a cash register to a jewish clerk and have a no-pork line, to ensure he doesn’t handle pork? Are you going to add a checkout line for every sect of every religion, so that no one person’s rights are “violated”?

    Signing marriage certificates did not violate her religion…

    Not to mention her hypocrisy, seeing as how her religion openly condemns divorce and having children out of wedlock and she is on her fourth marriage and her third husband was the father of the child she was pregnant with during her second marriage.

    People claimed interracial marriages were against their religion, too. Do you think someone should have the right to block you from getting a marriage license because you aren’t a virgin? Because you eat shellfish? Because you wear polycotton blends? Do you think school principals should be allowed to refuse hiring women, because the bible explicitly states that no woman is to teach a man?

    Our nation is founded on the rule of law and your rights only go so far as they don’t violate someone else’s rights. it is that simple.

  5. John Tucker

    September 3, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    She is still free to pursue her religion, to worship as she see fits. She is not being persecuted for he religion. She is being held in contempt of court for refusing to follow a court order.

    God is NOT the highest authority in this land of religious freedom. We are a secular nation built on law.

  6. Michael Lucado

    September 3, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    They have a solution. There are people working under her who can issue the licenses, but she won’t allow them to do it. If her religious beliefs won’t allow her to do her job, she should find a job in line with her beliefs.

  7. rosemary boudreau

    September 3, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    beautifully put John

  8. jerry drucker

    September 3, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    The freedom of religion clause does not allow anyone to inflict their religion upon others, because that would not be freedom of religion! All of you who can’t rap their heads around that should go back to elementary school.

  9. Meret

    September 3, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    My issue is indefinite detention. That is a bit excessive.

  10. Courteney

    September 4, 2015 at 12:04 am

    Romans 13:1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

    By the way I’m an atheist and John put the argument splendidly 🙂

  11. TalibandrewBreitbarf (@talibandybrtbrt)

    September 4, 2015 at 12:46 am

    No, Annette.

    When you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, you must also abide by court decisions. “[H]er freedom of religion rights” do not extend to disobeying a court ruling and denying others their Constitutional rights.

    Annette Hall, it’s clear you have no idea how the Constitution and government are supposed to work.

    Kim Davis swore an oath to GOD to uphold the Constitution, then VIOLATED that oath, breaking her promise to GOD Himself.

    Kim Davis must love making the Baby Jesus cry, what with breaking her promise to Jesus and his Dad.

  12. Chris Nash

    September 4, 2015 at 2:42 am

    Oh, just STFU. You either have no idea how government works or you only insist that the Constitution only applies when it benefits you. Like typical hypocritical and bigoted Christians. You’re no different from ISIS or the Westboro Baptist Church. Blindly believing in an idiotic and outdated belief system like Christianity. Even applying biblical law to the case at hand shows how ignorant and bigoted you and your ilk are. The woman was divorced 3 times and married 4 times. How Christian is that?

    I’m not gay or a minority in any sense of the word but I do believe that EVERYONE has a right to equal protection of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Not only when it benefits me, but when it benefits everyone by being applied equally.

    So again, just STFU, if you don’t like the law or this country, then GET THE EFF OUT you hypocritical bigot.

  13. Paijon

    September 4, 2015 at 4:40 am

    Thank you Martin Kristine John and Michael.. anyone who cant get it the way you’ve logically stated this has some gears crossed. No one need live by her religeous beliefs.. thats all they are beliefs. There is a seperation between church and state.. we live by laws and facts not beliefs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top