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

[durangodawood]

You would not force Muslims to sell alcohol or Jews pork so why force this?

I would not force her to enable gay marriages. No one should.

 

[Pammalamma]

I'm ok with the law not tracking entirely with my own beliefs.
Not getting your way in every respect: its called being an adult.
No one gets their own way entirely.

Right, but you said ostracism was the only option, so how do you reason thusly?

 

[bhsmte]

The basic problem here is should a Christian government official uphold an immoral law or not. This lady has shown courage standing up for her conviction that an immoral law does not hold the power of law and claims the authority of God to oppose the Supreme Court. So the authorities in your country(since they do not recognise Gods authority over civic laws) have dismissed her from her post and imprisoned her. They have claimed that she was simply refusing to do her job but since she has been doing this job for a while now the real reason she is in jail is the opposition to gay marriage. What they could have done is delegate the power to marry gays to a willing member of the office. Afterall the legal document is endorsed by the office not the individual. But there seems to be no provision for religious objection in the current rules beyond dismissal. Personally i think a change in the rules to accomodate religious objection is a better alternative to denuding government of all Christian officials.

Her imprisonment undermines the rule of law per see because she has not done anything wrong. Let the state give out its pieces of paper to gay couples if it wants but do not force Christians or Muslims who object to this to do the handing out. Gay "marriages" are afterall a small % of business in this area.

You would not force Muslims to sell alcohol or Jews pork so why force this?

Follow along closely and I will explain in simple terms.

If a Muslim decides to work in an environment that sells alcohol, the employer may accommodate them to not have to sell it, but when a customer walks in the store to buy alcohol, someone else in that store will sell it to them.

If the Jew decides to work in an environment that sells pork, the employer may accommodate them so they don't have to directly sell the pork, but when a customer walks in the store that sells pork to buy some, someone else will indeed sell it to them.

In essence, the business and or government agency, can not be held hostage because of the personal faith beliefs of one person, because the business needs to serve their customers.

Kim Davis, was given the opportunity to not have to issue the licenses herself and to have other people do so, but she said she would not let that happen and she would interfere with others in the office issuing the licenses. So, what Kim Davis was doing, was holding the entire clerks office hostage, from being able to issue legal marriage licenses and even with the fact, she took an oath to uphold the law.

This would be the equivalent, of the jew telling his employer, they can not sell pork to anyone and the Muslim telling their employer, they can not sell alcohol to anyone and if they even try, they will do everything in their power, to stop it.

Hope this bit of reality, clears things up a bit.

 

[Pammalamma]

Do you believe, every law in this country, should match your personal beliefs?

I'm not the one who suggested banishment.

 

[Maren]

The basic problem here is should a Christian government official uphold an immoral law or not. This lady has shown courage standing up for her conviction that an immoral law does not hold the power of law and claims the authority of God to oppose the Supreme Court.

No, she isn't doing that, at all. She is merely saying it violates her conscience to issue the licenses. Let's not attribute attitudes to her that she hasn't espoused.

So the authorities in your country(since they do not recognise Gods authority over civic laws) have dismissed her from her post and imprisoned her.

Again, false. She still holds her job and she was imprisoned for not following a court order, after exhausting all appears trying to overturn that court order.

They have claimed that she was simply refusing to do her job but since she has been doing this job for a while now the real reason she is in jail is the opposition to gay marriage. What they could have done is delegate the power to marry gays to a willing member of the office. Afterall the legal document is endorsed by the office not the individual. But there seems to be no provision for religious objection in the current rules beyond dismissal. Personally i think a change in the rules to accomodate religious objection is a better alternative to denuding government of all Christian officials.

No, she is refusing to "do her job", in that she is refusing to issue marriage licenses. Delegating the responsibility to issue marriages licenses was one of the options given to her -- but she also has refused to allow her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses, and basically has stated that she will continue to refuse.

Her imprisonment undermines the rule of law per see because she has not done anything wrong. Let the state give out its pieces of paper to gay couples if it wants but do not force Christians or Muslims who object to this to do the handing out. Gay "marriages" are afterall a small % of business in this area.

You are talking about changing the law and the Kentucky government is not in session. There is talk of doing it but, short of calling a special session of the legislature, you are talking about several months before anything can be changed.

You would not force Muslims to sell alcohol or Jews pork so why force this?

This isn't the same. If a Muslim was working in a liquor store, or a Jew was working in a BBQ joint (specifically one that sells pork), they would definitely be fired for not selling alcohol or serving pork. Instead, like Kim Davis, if they have an issue with performing their jobs, they should quit.

 

[durangodawood]

Right, but you said ostracism was the only option, so how do you reason thusly?

I said IF she insists on being an officer of the law, and can only do that if the law conforms entirely to her beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not the one who suggested banishment.

What someone else suggested, is not relevant to my question. Can you answer it?

 

[Pammalamma]

If a Muslim decides to work in an environment that sells alcohol

Stop right there. Kim Davis did not "decide" to give out gay marriage licenses. It was made illegal by the voters in her state. The case law changed while she was in office. There is such a thing as a "grandfather clause" that would be used here, if we were a tolerant nation. Clearly, we do not care about tolerance, unless "tolerance" means to ostracize anyone who disagrees with our political beliefs, then fine or jail them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

 

[bhsmte]

I said IF she insists on being an officer of the law, and can only do that if the law conforms entirely to her beliefs.

In other words, she wants to be able to define the law, In her own terms and ignore laws she does not like?

 

[durangodawood]

Stop right there. Kim Davis did not "decide" to give out gay marriage licenses. It was made illegal by the voters in her state. The case law changed while she was in office. There is such a thing as a "grandfather clause" that would be used here, if we were a tolerant nation. Clearly, we do not care about tolerance, unless "tolerance" means to ostracize anyone who disagrees with our political beliefs, then fine or jail them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

Thats completely ridiculous. The application of the law doesnt depend on all the variables of exactly who was in office and when. When the law changes, it changes for all, or else its arbitrary.

 

[bhsmte]

Stop right there. Kim Davis did not "decide" to give out gay marriage licenses. It was made illegal by the voters in her state. The case law changed while she was in office. There is such a thing as a "grandfather clause" that would be used here, if we were a tolerant nation. Clearly, we do not care about tolerance, unless "tolerance" means to ostracize anyone who disagrees with our political beliefs, then fine or jail them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

Grandfather clauses do not apply to interfering with the public obtaining something, they are legally entitled to obtain.

She was given the opportunity to not give out licenses herself, she refused.

But lets go further with this:

Lets say the Muslim works in a grocery store that didn't sell alcohol when he started his employment, but then the store decided to sell alcohol. Should this Muslim be able to interfere and try to stop the store from selling alcohol, even if the store allows him to not sell it himself?

 

[Pammalamma]

What someone else suggested, is not relevant to my question. Can you answer it?

No, I don't. That's why I know I would disobey the government if they told me to sin or help someone else to sin. Governments are not perfect and can have bad laws that it would be wrong to obey. That is what history teaches us.

Do you have to live in a country where everyone puts whatever the law happens to be today above their own conscience?

I mean, if there is such a thing as right and wrong, surely it's constant and does not change, right? But the law changes every day. Pretty much every single day, a judge makes a decision, which then sets a legal precedent. Do you really think that goodness and what is right or wrong can change like that, every single day? Or, is there some *unchanging*, higher authority or ethic to which we should appeal when making our decisions in life? The Alien and Sedition Acts and the Fugitive Slave Laws were legal. So, should people just have blindly followed them? Or was it right for the Quakers to hide fugitive slaves and help them to escape?

Sharia law is a law, too. Does that make it right for ISIS to push gays off buildings?

 

[Pammalamma]

Grandfather clauses do not apply to interfering with the public obtaining something, they are legally entitled to obtain.

Need some proof of that, because I do not believe it.

"Lets say the Muslim works in a grocery store that didn't sell alcohol when he started his employment, but then the store decided to sell alcohol. Should this Muslim be able to interfere and try to stop the store from selling alcohol, even if the store allows him to not sell it himself?"

Sure, and they would just fire him. Freedom of religion, freedom of employment.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I don't. That's why I know I would disobey the government if they told me to sin or help someone else to sin. Governments are not perfect and can have bad laws that it would be wrong to obey. That is what history teaches us.

Do you have to live in a country where everyone puts whatever the law happens to be today above their own conscience?

I mean, if there is such a thing as right and wrong, surely it's constant and does not change, right? But the law changes every day. Pretty much every single day, a judge makes a decision, which then sets a legal precedent. Do you really think that goodness and what is right or wrong can change like that, every single day? Or, is there some *unchanging*, higher authority or ethic to which we should appeal when making our decisions in life? The Alien and Sedition Acts and the Fugitive Slave Laws were legal. So, should people just have blindly followed them? Or was it right for the Quakers to hide fugitive slaves and help them to escape?

Sharia law is a law, too. Does that make it right for ISIS to push gays off buildings?

Why the hyperbole and requirement to mention sharia law?

Manufacture fear with someone else, it falls woefully short with me.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you have to live in a country where everyone puts whatever the law happens to be today above their own conscience?

People should resist injustice, even if it means breaking the law in extreme cases.
---
But that does NOT mean we should have a policy of law officers setting their own individual agendas.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Stop right there. Kim Davis did not "decide" to give out gay marriage licenses. It was made illegal by the voters in her state. The case law changed while she was in office. There is such a thing as a "grandfather clause" that would be used here, if we were a tolerant nation. Clearly, we do not care about tolerance, unless "tolerance" means to ostracize anyone who disagrees with our political beliefs, then fine or jail them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

A grandfather clause is an actual clause written into a law.

 

[Pammalamma]

I said IF she insists on being an officer of the law, and can only do that if the law conforms entirely to her beliefs.

1. "If someone insists on being an officer of the law, but the law conflicts with their beliefs, they should leave the country."
2. The officers who tried to kill Hitler were officers of the law, and the law conflicted with their beliefs.
Therefore, they should have left Germany.

That is what you have given me. So, you really disagree with Operation Valkyrie? Would you say it was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler? They should have left Germany instead of trying to fight the corruption that had taken over their government?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valkyrie

 

[Pammalamma]

A grandfather clause is an actual clause written into a law.

What's your point?

 

[bhsmte]

Need some proof of that, because I do not believe it.

"Lets say the Muslim works in a grocery store that didn't sell alcohol when he started his employment, but then the store decided to sell alcohol. Should this Muslim be able to interfere and try to stop the store from selling alcohol, even if the store allows him to not sell it himself?"

Sure, and they would just fire him. Freedom of religion, freedom of employment.

Well, Kim Davis was given leeway and allowed to not issue the licenses herself and she refused, because she wanted to hold all the other clerks hostage and prevent them from issuing them as well.

I don't see why she couldn't just say; I am resigning my position, because I believe issuing gay marriage licenses would be promoting sin and I can not do that, because I would be going against what perceive as God's law.

Instead, she not only passes up the opportunity to not have to issue the licenses herself, she promises to keep anyone else from issuing them as well. All the while, the tax payers of KY, are paying her to be the clerk of the county, which she took an oath to uphold the law and she promises to hold the office hostage and prevent citizens from obtaining something they have a legal right to have.

She either isn't the brightest bulb, or someone has made promises to her if she puts on the best show possible.

 

[bhsmte]

What's your point?

I think he just made it.