All her supporters keep ignoring that she was actively performing religious persecution through enforcing her religion over law. She was denying people their lawful rights because of her religion. The entire point of having a government position is to execute that position legally. Not religiously. Either way... love thy neighbor, right?
Funny Moose. Call it a dead horse all you want but this is one of the hottest topics in the news. Huckabee, who will fail, running for president and supporting Kim by attending. And new possible lawsuits from survivor for them not asking permission for the usage of their song. And with the developments and lack of representation of conservatives with Muslim Charee Stanley who denied an action for religious reasons and felt backlash. This story will only grow. But go ahead. We all know where you stand so I guess you're not a unique addition to this story.
I don't care if gay people get married or not and I'm no where near ignorant like you think But why should I even answer a starless alt show a main and we will see if the clan I'm in sucks
I've already told you if she indeed violated her oath then they still had no right to put her in jail she was not in contempt of a court this goes back to the lady who lost her business because a reporter asked her if a gay person wanted her pizza catered at the wedding would she do it and she said no Keep believing that the left is worth fighting for and you will see more and more government hand outs to people who think they are entitled to other people's money
Government handouts??? Pizza shop?? What does any of that have to do with anything? Nevermind your unrelated ramblings. Yes, she was found in contempt of court. Please read the order. The Court had every right to jail her. She violated her oath to perform her duties as a government official. She used her position to deprive people of their Constitutional rights. Is the truth too difficult?
How are they mixed here? A marriage liscense is different from a religious marriage. She didn't do her job in accordance with law and she knew the consequences of her actions...
So in America you are proven guilty before your proven innocent the judge has to prove she violated her oath as a public servant which was never done Only people who can pass law is congress and congress never voted on the matter so no LAW was written Civil contempt of court ends up with a fine because it is not criminal You screaming she was pushing her religious beliefs on people while in public office how about the lgbt is pushing their beliefs on her by putting her in jail
You really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about do you? Save this conversation. In a couple of years, you will look back on this and laugh at your naïveté.
Ok don civil contempt of court is what she was jailed for, she was told to comply with a court order she refused so that's contempt. Contempt of court refers to actions which either defy a court's authority, cast disrespect on a court, or impede the ability of the court to perform its function. Contempt takes two forms: criminal contempt and civil contempt. Actions that one might normally associate with the phrase "contempt of court," such as a party causing a serious disruption in the courtroom, yelling at the judge, or refusing to testify before a grand jury, would often constitute criminal contempt of court. Civil contempt of court most often happens when someone fails to adhere to an order from the court, with resulting injury to a private party's rights. For example, failure to pay court ordered child support can lead to punishment for civil contempt. Typically, the aggrieved party, such as a parent who has not received court ordered child support payments, may file an action for civil contempt. Punishment for Civil Contempt of Court vs. Criminal Contempt of Court Unlike criminal contempt sentences, which aim to punish the act of contempt, civil contempt sanctions aim to either: (1) restore the rights of the party who was wronged by the failure to satisfy the court's order; or (2) simply move an underlying proceeding along. Civil contempt sanctions typically end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or when the underlying case is resolved. Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants. Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence (jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order. Direct and Indirect Contempt Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect." Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court - during a court proceeding, for example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court. Civil contempt often occurs indirectly - for example, when a party is ordered to turn over financial records within thirty days but refuses to do so. Indirect contempt is sometimes called constructive or consequential contempt. Conclusion Civil contempt of court refers to behavior which disobeys the authority of a court in a civil proceeding. Civil contempt is distinct from criminal contempt of court. Most often, civil contempt of court involves failure to satisfy a court order. Generally, sanction for civil contempt end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or the underlying case resolves. Civil contempt can result in punishment including jail time and/or a fine. - See more at: http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to- ... html#.dpuf
Buckeye it's always been part of her job, Kentucky has county clerks issue licenses, therefore she was elected and ran for election knowing she would have to issue marriage licenses. To prevent a charge of discrimination following the USCS ruling she refused to issue any license rather than just no LGBT licenses. She was offered a way out and she chose to refuse instead, so went to jail.
Complying with the law, and issuing licenses to those legally qualified to receive them, was part of the law when she was elected. If she didn't like the changes in the law, she should have resigned.
You don't realize it, but we are actually trying to help you here. Sept did a nice job explaining contempt of court. I'll deal with this little gem. First of all, stop whining. It appears you have a bit of an understanding of the general idea of innocense until proof of guilt. Notwithstanding any legal definitions of the terms, let's look at how that applies here. 1) The judge never has to prove anything. That is not his/her job. In this instance, the judge found her in contempt of court based on the evidence presented. 2) She was jailed for contempt of court; violating her oath as a public servant and government official is something she did, not something she was specifically punished for. 3) She was summoned to Court for a hearing on her refusal to comply with the Court's decision. Not only was she found "guilty" of contempt of court, she openly admitted it. She had a hearing and admitted she defied the court. Thus, she was never "guilty until proven innocent." So in America, she disobeyed an order of the court, had a hearing as part of due process, and was properly found "guilty."