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

[smaneck]

What if a wahabbi style Muslim became clerk?

Could he just run the office per his religious conscience, until his term was up???

Exactly. I'm a Baha'i and in my religion no marriage is valid without parental consent. Would I as a County Clerk have the right to deprive non-Baha'i of the right to get married without their parent's permission? I don't think so.

A pastor, a church and any other religious religious organization has to right to deny marriage rites to whomsoever they wish. An elected official does not.

 

[pat34lee]

You can say that all you like, but you need to have a legal argument to support it. Claiming it, does not make it true.

Every action taken by Congress and the President outside of the specific powers granted by the Constitution are illegal. Every time Obama refuses to have the laws on immigration enforced, or any other law for that matter, he breaks his oath.

 

[golgotha61]

Really?
That sounds like an extreme leftist liberal idea.

Since when if my employer changes my job description can I just refuse to do it and think I should be paid? Especially by the taxpayers.
That goes against every conservative, libertarian idea that I hold dear.

No, its a founding father's idea. This a religious freedom issue and not a disagreement on job description. If my employer mandates my job description that attempts to force me to disobey God's law and Character, I will refuse to do it. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

 

[bhsmte]

Every action taken by Congress and the President outside of the specific powers granted by the Constitution are illegal. Every time Obama refuses to have the laws on immigration enforced, or any other law for that matter, he breaks his oath.

If that is the case, the people that oppose Obama are free to walk in a federal court and state their case.

 

[bhsmte]

No, its a founding father's idea. This a religious freedom issue and not a disagreement on job description. If my employer mandates my job description that attempts to force me to disobey God's law and Character, I will refuse to do it. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Is it your opinion then, that employers should alter how they serve customers, based on certain individuals religious views?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

No, its a founding father's idea. This a religious freedom issue and not a disagreement on job description. If my employer mandates my job description that attempts to force me to disobey God's law and Character, I will refuse to do it. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

You have the right to refuse. Your employer has the right to fire you. What you do not have the right to do is to disobey a court order.

 

[pat34lee]

It seems to me that if a Christian is asked to do something at their job which they deem unconscionable, the correct response would be to resign.
In her case, she is free to quit. A more difficult situation might be that of a Christian in the military who regards an command as immoral. A soldier is not free to quit. I would say that in this case, suffering the consequence of disobedience made be preferable.

In this case, she has not changed anything. The Supreme Court changed what her job requires her to do. Where do you draw the line when the courts take it on themselves to redefine right and wrong?

 

[golgotha61]

Is it your opinion then, that the judge should have done nothing and this women should have been allowed to not do her job she took an oath for and be able to remain in her position?

The court was asked to remove her name from the licenses in an attempt to accommodate her conscience but the court refused. That did not have to happen. This is nothing more than heavy handed bullying by the court and if the government thinks that this will silence the Church by intimidation and fear, it is wrong.

 

[golgotha61]

You have the right to refuse. Your employer has the right to fire you. What you do not have the right to do is to disobey a court order.

Because the court is wrong and is attempting to force me to violate my conscience as in relation to God's revealed character and view of marriage.

 

[pat34lee]

If that is the case, the people that oppose Obama are free to walk in a federal court and state their case.

That's funny. Only Congress can impeach the President. Individuals have already sued him. Several times at least, and it hasn't affected anything.

And notice how you made it people opposed to Obama instead of people for the Constitution.

 

[smaneck]

People in elected offices can be impeached.

They can also be jailed for contempt.

 

[bhsmte]

The court was asked to remove her name from the licenses in an attempt to accommodate her conscience but the court refused. That did not have to happen. This is nothing more than heavy handed bullying by the court and if the government thinks that this will silence the Church by intimidation and fear, it is wrong.

How is anyone being silenced? She has made her position quite clear and she is free to do so.

The court is also well within their rights, to hold her accountable for not doing the duties of her job and to uphold the oath of office she took. She is getting paid by the taxpayers to do a job and she isn't doing it.

She can keep her religious position, but she can't force it others, in the duties of her job. The judge gave her several options to avoid jail and she made her own choice.

 

[bhsmte]

That's funny. Only Congress can impeach the President. Individuals have already sued him. Several times at least, and it hasn't affected anything.

And notice how you made it people opposed to Obama instead of people for the Constitution.

If it can be shown Obama is indeed not following his oath by breaking the law, impeachment is something congress can do. Yes, Obama has been sued and they can keep doing so until their hearts are content.

 

[katherine2001]

There in lies part of the rub. She was already employed and the government intruded on her religious conscience. Do you honestly think that the SCOTUS was not aware that their ruling would impose on those who were already government workers who would be made to deny their religious doctrines? No Christian should have to resign from their job in order to obey a ruling that is in direct contradiction of their religious beliefs and is imposed on them during their already secure employment. She did not seek employment with this ruling in effect already, it was imposed on her.

It's not as though the legalization of gay marriage came out of nowhere. It has been clear for quite awhile that it would probably be legalized at some point. Anyone running for the County Clerk office should have been aware that it could happen during their term in office and whether or not she could uphold that law and issue a marriage license to all couples that meet the legal requirements. If you can't do that, then don't run for the office.

 

[smaneck]

So, if someone stands up for what they believe in, even when the government tells them to do something they believe is very wrong, you see that as a *lack* of integrity?

Not resigning when the government told her to do her job showed a lack of integrity.

 

[Cute Tink]

Where do you draw the line when the courts take it on themselves to redefine right and wrong?

Where do you draw the line when individuals can decide redefine right and wrong and openly defy the rule of law in doing so?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Because the court is wrong and is attempting to force me to violate my conscience as in relation to God's revealed character and view of marriage.

Your opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the court's decision isn't important. Neither is your conscience or your beliefs about God.

What is important is that the court ordered that a certain action be taken, and that is the law. If you're having a crisis of conscience, there are legal ways to challenge or alter that law, but refusing to comply isn't one of them.

What if some percentage of Christians decided that paying taxes or stopping at red lights violated their personal beliefs?

No. You obey the law, even as you work to change the ones you disagree with.

 

[smaneck]

Where were the cries about "the rule of law" when Travis County started issuing gay marriage licenses before it was legal?

It wasn't illegal, in fact it was done under orders of the Texas District Court and when the State Supreme Court overturned that decision the Travis County Clerk stopped performing them as he was obligated to do.

What about immigration?

I must say, I do admire Rev. John Fife on that issue, but he doesn't work for the government.

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

 

[smaneck]

Where do you draw the line when individuals can decide redefine right and wrong and openly defy the rule of law in doing so?

When your willing to pay the price of disobedience.

 

[golgotha61]

Is it your opinion then, that employers should alter how they serve customers, based on certain individuals religious views?

If I was employed in advance of a job description change that would violate as grievously as this one does, in the case of Kim Davis, and force me to sin against God as seriously as this example does, then I don't see any customer service issue that could possibly rise to this level of religious intolerance. This is not a view, this is sin against a holy God and it rises far above personal views.

The OP was not addressing any employer, it is addressing the government's violation of its own laws and rules. But even in the private sector, are you seriously suggesting that ethics can not be a part of the employee employer relationship and that an employer has full authority to force any level of ethics bending on its employees? Listen to what you are saying. In your thinking, I would guess that whistle blowers would be the bad guys.