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

[smaneck]

I know there's a lot to be said about the hypocrisy of supporting divorce/remarriage and being against gay marriage. I get it.

She doesn't just support divorce and remarriage she has done it three times! She has also committed adultery and had children out of wedlock.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

Laws change. Thats the nature of the work.

 

[Hank77]

No, its a founding father's idea. This a religious freedom issue and not a disagreement on job description.

No. The Constitution says that the Government will not make any religion the State religion. The Founding Fathers came from England where the government (the King) had made the Church of England the designated religion of the country and other people of other denominations were persecuted even jailed.
Some of the colonies had done the same thing here and some carried it over into their state laws. The Constitution makes it illegal for the federal government to do so. They are not allowed to favor one religion over another. Remember many of the Founding Fathers were Deists.

The Bill of Rights says that every person is free to follow any religion they choose to, but they can't infringe on someone else' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a religious freedom issue. She is not being forced to do anything she doesn't want to do. She does have to do her job if she expects to keep it and be paid and she does have to obey a court order or be held in contempt, that is her choice.
It is stealing for her to expect to be paid for not performing her duties or allowing others to perform theirs.

ie. Someone works in a restaurant as a waiter. The restaurant decides to get a liquor license but that someone is against drinking alcohol. Their employer says they have to serve it. Can they keep waiting table without serving drinks and expect to keep their job because their job description changed? There isn't a court in this land that would agree to that. Why should it be any different for someone who works for the taxpayers, some of them having different religious beliefs than we do?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

What specific government violation of it's own laws and rules are you specifically talking about?

 

[golgotha61]

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.

She was not free to make her position clear. Obedience to God is not lip service, it requires action. Obedience is worship and worship is the free excising of one's religion which is guaranteed in the First Amendment. She is not forcing anything on anyone, she is refusing to carry out an act of violation against God. The government is the party that is forcing itself upon an innocent person. She has broken no law because there is no law concerning "gay marriage" to be broken. The judge is bullying and the government is in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[bhsmte]

She was not free to make her position clear. Obedience to God is not lip service, it requires action. Obedience is worship and worship is the free excising of one's religion which is guaranteed in the First Amendment. She is not forcing anything on anyone, she is refusing to carry out an act of violation against God. The government is the party that is forcing itself upon an innocent person. She has broken no law because there is no law concerning "gay marriage" to be broken. The judge is bullying and the government is in violation of the First Amendment.

How has she not made her position clear? I think it is crystal clear.

And, she can keep her position, but she can't in the job of county clerk.

 

[zephyrWiccan]

What if a wahabbi style Muslim became clerk?

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

Exactly. Using the logic of those who are supporting her refusal to do her job, a strict Muslim who made it to that position would be okay in refusing to issue liquor licenses, or refusing to issue licenses to any food establishment that serves non-halal food, or to any mony-lending business.

 

[loveofourlord]

Wrong. You don't get a master race and lower races without evolution.

funny then how the concept of one group superior then another is older then evolution, but don't let reality and truth get in the way of good propaganda lie.

 

[smaneck]

Armies who take it into their heads to judge the Government ultimately lead to Dictatorships. If they want unconstitutional then that is the way to go.

But if soldiers are ordered to commit a crime against humanity they are obligated to disobey that order. The Nuremberg Trials decided that.

 

[smaneck]

Wrong. You don't get a master race and lower races without evolution.

Funny, I seem to recall the story of Cain and Ham being used for precisely that purpose.

 

[seashale76]

Let's quit the martyr talk. This woman is no martyr and, frankly, I find it extremely disrespectful to actual Christian martyrs to compare this woman to them. They're not even in the same ball park.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

the court isn't, she was given two ways out, resign, or allow others to do the job she wouldn't, she refused to do both, so if she won't let someone else do the job and she won't herself, only recourse is to punish, since they can't fire her, jail was the only course. You religious freedom't don't give you the right to dictate to your employer how you will do your job.

 

[Cute Tink]

When your willing to pay the price of disobedience.

That is true.

 

[smaneck]

Every action taken by Congress and the President outside of the specific powers granted by the Constitution are illegal.

Which makes a standing army illegal in the US.

 

[golgotha61]

No. The Constitution says that the Government will not make any religion the State religion. The Founding Fathers came from England where the government (the King) had made the Church of England the designated religion of the country and other people of other denominations were persecuted even jailed.
Some of the colonies had done the same thing here and some carried it over into their state laws. The Constitution makes it illegal for the federal government to do so. They are not allowed to favor one religion over another. Remember many of the Founding Fathers were Deists.

The Bill of Rights says that every person is free to follow any religion they choose to, but they can't infringe on someone else' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a religious freedom issue. She is not being forced to do anything she doesn't want to do. She does have to do her job if she expects to keep it and be paid and she does have to obey a court order or be held in contempt, that is her choice.
It is stealing for her to expect to be paid for not performing her duties or allowing others to perform theirs.

ie. Someone works in a restaurant as a waiter. The restaurant decides to get a liquor license but that someone is against drinking alcohol. Their employer says they have to serve it. Can they keep waiting table without serving drinks and expect to keep their job because their job description changed? There isn't a court in this land that would agree to that. Why should it be any different for someone who works for the taxpayers, some of them having different religious beliefs than we do?

The alcohol example is a straw man argument. This issue of redefining marriage as the court has attempted to do rises far above the use and serving of alcohol. Perhaps the restaurant,which has happened, could accommodate the Christian in this alcohol issue, which is what the court could have done but did not. This is a religious freedom issue and it will be born out as such in the courts. The First Amendment guarantees me that the government cannot keep me from exercising my religion. Exercising Christianity involves obedience to God.

 

[bhsmte]

The alcohol example is a straw man argument. This issue of redefining marriage as the court has attempted to do rises far above the use and serving of alcohol. Perhaps the restaurant,which has happened, could accommodate the Christian in this alcohol issue, which is what the court could have done but did not. This is a religious freedom issue and it will be born out as such in the courts. The First Amendment guarantees me that the government cannot keep me from exercising my religion. Exercising Christianity involves obedience to God.

I hate to break it to you, but religious freedoms are not limitless and never have been.

 

[smaneck]

ie. Someone works in a restaurant as a waiter. The restaurant decides to get a liquor license but that someone is against drinking alcohol. Their employer says they have to serve it. Can they keep waiting table without serving drinks and expect to keep their job because their job description changed? There isn't a court in this land that would agree to that. Why should it be any different for someone who works for the taxpayers, some of them having different religious beliefs than we do?

I once worked in a pizza parlor where that issue came up. Alcohol is against my religion so I told my boss I would prefer not to do bar, but I would do it when no other adult was available. (A lot of the employees were under 21.) He respected my wishes and only asked me to handle the bar in emergencies. But here is the difference between this and what this county clerk is doing. She not only refuses to issue licenses to gays, she refuses to allow her deputies to do so. She has even said that those licenses that were issued while she is in jail are not valid.

 

[golgotha61]

What specific government violation of it's own laws and rules are you specifically talking about?

Part of the freedom to exercise religion is for the Christian to be able to obey God. But the government is attempting to force Kim to sin against Him. This freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment and this is where the government has violated its own law.

 

[golgotha61]

What specific government violation of it's own laws and rules are you specifically talking about?

Part of the freedom to exercise religion is for the Christian to be able to obey God. But the government is attempting to force Kim to sin against Him. This freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment and this is where the government has violated its own law.

 

[zephyrWiccan]

I know there's a lot to be said about the hypocrisy of supporting divorce/remarriage and being against gay marriage. I get it. I figured something would happen to her for refusing, but I was shocked that they'd resort to jail time. I could understand if they fired her, but the fact that they resorted to prison is downright freaky. It just goes to show how far people are willing to go these days to push an agenda.

There's nothing freaky about it. They can't fire her. SHe's an elected official. The only recourse at the moment is to jail or fine her, and the judge from the testimony he heard, decided that jail was the only way to resolve the situation and get the office back to doing its job, and that the fines would not have impacted her (she had plenty of right wingers sending her money to help her out).