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

[loveofourlord]

No, the court didn't accommodate her and that was specifically asked for. Her attorneys asked for the accommodation in the form of letting her keep her signature off the license but the court refused. This is not a business, it is the government and it is imposing its secularism upon her. She didn't hire on as the clerk when this redefinition of marriage was already in place, she was already an employee. The imposition is that of the government upon her. She is not trying to dictate anything, she is trying to remain faithful to God. Why should anyone in this circumstance resign to placate an egregious interpretation of the constitution that clearly violates God's design for His creation? These folks can get married, just not with her as the arbiter who sanctions such an act. This is not an action against a person, it is an action against a religion and that religion is Christianity.

Also is it that simple to have her signature not required? If it's part of the rules and regulations set by some group they may not have a simple option to just up and change.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't think the judge in this case had a legal leg to stand on. She could not have been discriminating because she did not give marriage licenses to anyone, straight or homosexual.

She didn't go to jail for discrimination against gays. She was in contempt of court for ignoring a lawful order from a judge. Of course the judge had a leg to stand on, that's why she's sitting in a cell right now.

 

[golgotha61]

I agree. And no one is FORCING her to do anything. She is FREE to seek other employment.

That is bullying and far short of choice that is based on freedom.

It does not matter in the least if her job description changed.
An employer is free to change a job description, they are not beholding to the employee. They are the ones who pay the employee.

This is not any employer,it is the government itself who is supposed to protect her religious freedom, not violate them.

Again, where does the Bible say you or I can dictate to other people how they will live their lives?

No one is telling anyone how to live their life. Kim is being told what she cannot do in respect to worshiping God through obedience to His character. These folks can and will get married, that is not the issue. Kim is the one who is being violated.

Too bad, the job description changed, so what? Does her contract stipulate that her job description will never change? Does her contract stipulate that her job will always agree with her religious beliefs? If it doesn't she hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Perhaps she will not win in the temporal court but be assured her faithfulness to God will not be unrewarded. The contract, as you call it, is embedded in the constitution that guarantees her the ability to express her religion and that expression, in this case, is to obey the character of God. This is a much deeper issue theologically than has been expressed. I suggest that you do some research of the doctrine of the marriage between Christ and the Church as outlined in Revelation.

 

[golgotha61]

Also is it that simple to have her signature not required? If it's part of the rules and regulations set by some group they may not have a simple option to just up and change.

Well I would think that in relation to religious rights, changing something as "simple" as a signature would rise to the occasion. Again, this is not "some group" this is the government itself who is supposed to protect her constitutional rights and not violate them.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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.

You should write to your congress person and have them draft up an impeachment charge if you're so concerned about what Obama is doing.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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

I can see it now.. A Muslim liquor store attendant refusing to sell alcohol because his religion won't allow it and then having the audacity to not resign on his own.

What happened to all the talk about personal responsibility that you used to hear from conservatives?

 

[Hank77]

I suggest that you do some research of the doctrine of the marriage between Christ and the Church as outlined in Revelation.

I'm done discussing anything with you. You have just shown me your true colors. Why am I not surprised?

 

[smaneck]

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?

The Supreme Court doesn't deal in right and wrong. They deal in what is constitutional or unconstitutional. They ruled that the denying marriage to gays is unconstitutional. Therefore for Kim as a court official to refuse to provide licenses to gay couples is to violate the Constitution she swore to uphold.

If she thinks it is wrong, then the right thing for her to do is resign.

 

[smaneck]

She was not free to make her position clear

Resigning would make her position clear.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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?

They didn't redefine right and wrong. Courts don't determine what is right and wrong they decide what legal or illegal. What changed is the legality of SSM. You are still welcome to believe it is worse than murder to be gay if that's what you want to believe but nobody else has to accept your personal view of morality.

 

[smaneck]

Did Paul continue to murder people after he became a Christian? No?

She is continuing to live in an adulterous marriage.

That's true. She married divorced her second husband while she was pregnant with the child of the man who would become her third husband.

 

[smaneck]

It does matter; homosexuality is not a religion. I can and will refuse to sin against God as a directive given by any person.

Good for you. If your job requires you to sin against God you should definitely quit.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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 doesn't care about God's views on marriage because it is only dealing with the legal aspect of marriage, not the spiritual or religious side of it. The Court determines the law using the Constitution, not the bible. That's how the system has worked since 1776.

 

[TerranceL]

(Ahem)

(Insert long diatribe about how this situation is totally different and that verse doesn't apply, but give no actual evidence or reasoning, post different verse that's unrelated)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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.

And Christians are more than happy to defend this wretched sinner! That shows me they don't actually have the moral convictions they'd like us to believe they do.

 

[smaneck]

No, the court didn't accommodate her and that was specifically asked for. Her attorneys asked for the accommodation in the form of letting her keep her signature off the license but the court refused.

The court refused her argument. The judge is not empowered to let her keep her signature off the license, that is a matter for the state legislature not the court. It is not like she personally signs each license in the first place. Her name is simply stamped on it.

 

[smaneck]

I wonder if Davis ever refused marriage licenses to people if they had ever been divorced before, or were Christians getting married to non-Christians? I seriously doubt it. If not she was very selective.

How could she do that? She's on her fourth marriage!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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.

If anything, she is the one trying to bully the Supreme Court. She knows she can't be fired. She knows impeachment is a lengthy process. She knows there are a lot of Christians who don't know or care about the details of the case and will get behind her and defend her to no end, no matter what, because they think she's sticking up for herself and their Christian beliefs. With all this in mind, I'd say this woman definitely had an agenda and knew somewhat where this was going to go. She did it anyway because that's exactly what she wanted. She wants to be a martyr. She wants to diminish the sacrifice that real Christians really went through when they were being fed to lions and set on fire.

 

[TerranceL]

That is so wrong, it should be reportable as a lie. Hitler hated the church and any other possible opposition to his control. His view of favored and undesirable races came from Darwin and evolution.

That's why that Nazi's had belt buckles that read, "Darwin With Us" right?

Wait not, it was "God Wish Us".

Huh.

 

[smaneck]

Also is it that simple to have her signature not required? If it's part of the rules and regulations set by some group they may not have a simple option to just up and change.

It is the state legislature that requires the county clerk to have her name printed (not really signed) on the marriage license. That is her grounds for prohibiting her deputies from issuing licenses.