Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Not Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

pat34lee · Sep 5, 2015

GoldenBoy89 said:
BECAUSE SHE REFUSED TO DO HER JOB. YOU CAN'T JUST NOT DO YOUR JOB THAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO.

Really? It's worked for Obama for six years. No. Longer than that. He didn't do his job as a US Senator or before that as a state senator.

pat34lee · Sep 5, 2015

lasthero said:
The Constitution, however, does.

The Constitution does not. That is the whole problem. The Supreme Court majority were all smoking crack that day.

Archivist · Sep 5, 2015

pat34lee said:
I'm saying she wasn't discriminating. She didn't provide licenses for anyone.
Discrimination would mean she gave them to one group but not the other.

But providing and recording marriage licenses is part of her job. If you won't do your job then resign, but don't take the paycheck and not do the work.

Armoured · Sep 5, 2015

pat34lee said:
The Constitution does not. That is the whole problem. The Supreme Court majority were all smoking crack that day.

Ooh! Now do the "activist judiciary" one!

Glass*Soul · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
A very sanctimonious screed. If someone believes that taking an action will send them to Hell, it's a violation of their religious freedom for the government to coerce them to do it. That's not making people follow your religion. It is following your own religion, because to approve of sin is one of the worst sins a Christian can commit (Romans 1). The government makes accommodations for conscientious objectors in the military, so they can make accommodations for conscientious objectors in the county clerk's office. It's really not that hard to figure out. There are also other county clerks.

Have you noticed nobody seems to talk about tolerance anymore? I think it's because of situations like this. To force someone to violate their beliefs is religious intolerance, just like banning the hijab in France and banning circumcision in Germany.

She is maintaining that without her signature the marriage licenses that are currently being issued are null. She may be wrong; I don't know. But if she is right, how do you make an accommodation for that?

Armoured · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
A very sanctimonious screed. If someone believes that taking an action will send them to Hell, it's a violation of their religious freedom for the government to coerce them to do it. That's not making people follow your religion. It is following your own religion, because to approve of sin is one of the worst sins a Christian can commit (Romans 1). The government makes accommodations for conscientious objectors in the military, so they can make accommodations for conscientious objectors in the county clerk's office. It's really not that hard to figure out. There are also other county clerks.

Have you noticed nobody seems to talk about tolerance anymore? I think it's because of situations like this. To force someone to violate their beliefs is religious intolerance, just like banning the hijab in France and banning circumcision in Germany.

No one's compelling her to do anything. She's perfectly free to resign. I have no sympathy. Just as I'd have no sympathy when a Catholic abortionist, or a JW phlebotomist suddenly decide their jobs are contrary to their religion.

Also, and, not strictly on topic, but looking at the woman's personal life, she is a poster child for hypocrisy, which I seem to remember Jesus taking more issue with than he ever did of homosexuality (see also: pharisees).

Hetta · Sep 5, 2015

Break the law = go to jail. That's how it works.

Armoured · Sep 5, 2015

Hetta said:
Break the law = go to jail. That's how it works.

I wish I could say that I'm shocked that the exact same people who rush to make "don't want to get shot? Don't break the law" type comments after every police shooting are the exact same people suddenly shrieking about tolerance and bigotry... but I'm not.

AirPo · Sep 5, 2015

brewmama said:
Actually no, it doesn't. 5 justices made it up. And the person I was responding to mentioned Kentucky law.

Actually it does. And the supreme court did not make anything up, they struck it down.

Archaeopteryx · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
Nope. They can go to another county.

I do believe in religious freedom for Muslims, but if the Muslim clerk was making the voters unhappy, they would be impeached. It would not be an issue for long.

See, being tolerant means making accommodations for people's differences. What if the county clerk is in a wheelchair? We can't have all kinds of disabled people needing all kinds of weird ways to move around... Oh wait, we can accommodate that. What if the county clerk was a smoker? We can't have people taking off work for a break to... Oh, wait, we do that, too. What if the county clerk was a Jew? We can't have people taking off weird religious holidays and... Oh, we do that too, huh? But, what if the county clerk was transgendered? We can't have men dressing as women and women dressing as men, and problems with the bathrooms, and have to change all the name prefixes on our forms, and... What? We do that, too?

So, to be tolerant, what we need to do is to understand that people are different and be loving and accepting and work through their differences with them, right? If we can accommodate conscientious objectors in the military, and everything I just mentioned, and a lot more I didn't mention, then we should be able to accommodate people's religious and ethical compunctions against lying and approving of sin, both against the Christian religion and worthy of damnation, according to our beliefs, which are thousands of years older than any Supreme Court of the United States ruling. She is not "forcing" anyone to do anything, because they can go to a different county. On the contrary, she is the one being coerced, because she is the one in jail.

Oh, poor Davis.

She is being "coerced" into doing her job and she isn't allowed to abuse the authority of her office. The poor dear.

Archaeopteryx · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
And I suppose Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus, right? She broke the rules and caused a problem.

Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks.

Armoured · Sep 5, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks broke rules to highlight an unconstitutional law, to start a process that would lead to legal changes and decisions that would enhance the liberty and rights of more people.. So Kim Davis is basically the opposite of that.

Hetta · Sep 5, 2015

How ignorant to compare Rosa Parks to Kim Davis. Davis has not spent her life being sent to the back of the bus because of her skin color. On the contrary she has lived a life of privilege. She makes, what, $70k a year? Enough to support 4 husbands and various children to men who weren't her husband at the time. Invoking Rosa Parks is disgraceful and such an illustration of white privilege.

Hetta · Sep 5, 2015

Invoking the disabled is similarly ignorant.

Davis has a choice - do her job or go find another one. Black people can't become white (and don't want to) and disabled people can't become able. She can stop being a bigot and do her job. SMDH.

Archaeopteryx · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
Romans 1 says that approving of sin is actually worse than committing that sin. So, by forcing her to call a perverted, pagan relationship "a marriage," they are causing her to sin, which could send her to Hell.

How many licences did Davis grant to divorcees' who were remarrying?

pdudgeon · Sep 5, 2015

Sketcher said:
Didn't the law change after she had been elected to office? That put her in an awkward position. Maybe she should have resigned, and other believers who are in such positions should resign en masse. (I wouldn't want that position since I wouldn't want to issue marriage licenses to divorced and remarried couples, but whatever.)

What I don't like seeing though, is a shrinking field of career options for people of faith.

and there in a nutshell is their goal--to marginalize and eradicate all signs of Christianity in the US.

Armoured · Sep 5, 2015

A friend posted a Meme yesterday essentially asking the question "if you support Kim Davis refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays because it goes against her religious beliefs, would you support a government official who refuses to issue you a fire arm license or a conceal and carry permit because they believe in religious pacifism?"

Archaeopteryx · Sep 5, 2015

Think of the entitlement mentality on display here. Davis and her supporters have confused religious privilege for religious liberty and, in so doing, have come to believe that their personal religious beliefs supersede the legal rights of others.

Armoured · Sep 5, 2015

pdudgeon said:
and there in a nutshell is their goal--to marginalize and eradicate all signs of Christianity in the US.

Yes. Wanting a civil servant to carry out her duty as written in the secular law is clearly about eradicating all signs of Christianity in the US.

AirPo · Sep 5, 2015

Pammalamma said:
And I suppose Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus, right? She broke the rules and caused a problem.

And if it was 1967, I bet davis would have been on the wrong side of that issue.

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Not Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

Messianic

Messianic

Senior Veteran

So is America great again yet?

Senior Veteran

So is America great again yet?

I'll find my way home

So is America great again yet?

with a Touch of Grey

Wanderer

Wanderer

So is America great again yet?

I'll find my way home

I'll find my way home

Wanderer

Traditional Catholic

So is America great again yet?

Wanderer

So is America great again yet?

with a Touch of Grey

Similar threads