Kim Davis gets out of jail

[azstonie]

My prediction: She'll go on the talk show circuit and then get her own reality show, which is probably why she did what she did in the first place.

From the looks of things she sure is enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame. Maybe TLC will offer her a reality show now that they need a replacement for the Duggars. On a serious note I find this whole thing riduclious. If she doesn't want to perform her job responsibilities she needs to resign and give up her $84,000 a year position. Anyone else would be fired from a job if they weren't doing what was expected of them.

$84k per year in Kentucky, isn't that like $250k anywhere else????

 

[packrat]

JD and I together don't make near that per year! 20k less, give or take. Wow.

 

[MollyMalone]

Call me cynical but I think she's already getting funded by some conservative group to keep this charade up.

Shes apparently a democrat..

Irrelevant. Some conservative is funneling money to her to keep this up as long as possible

Yep, just as not all Republicans are anti-abortion or believe in other tenets of social conservatism, not every Democrats is a liberal/progressive who endorses same-sex marriage. SSM does not appear to have been a campaign issue for either Ms. Davis or her opponent.
The attorneys, who are representing Ms. Davis at no charge to her, are from Liberty Counsel; here's its home page:
http://www.lc.org

If I may clear up some misunderstanding: The application & nuances of the federal Civil Rights Act are irrelevant in Kim Davis's case because elected officials (and some of their appointees) anywhere in the US are not "employees" under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act; the statutory definition specifically excludes them.

But there is a twist in this case. 2 years ago the Kentucky Legislature overrode the Governor's veto of a bill that's a variant of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (The federal RFRA, which breezed through Congress in 1993, was at the heart of the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority decision in the Hobby Lobby case, holding that closely held, for-profit corporations are "persons" who can claim religious protection under RFRA from federal action.)
So it's quite possible that Davis's attorneys will initiate a state court proceeding, invoking Kentucky's RFRA. But it seems they have relied to date only on the First Amendment in their arguments vs. the federal court's contempt adjudication-penalty.

 

[Imdanny]

As a former govt. employee, I originally applauded the judge's ordering her to jail. Government employees take an oath to uphold the constitution. They are not given license to re-interpret the law, or to uphold only those parts of the constitution that they agree with.

I'm no longer as sure the judge was right though. No, I don't agree with Kim Davis on the question of gay marriage. It's just that the law makes accommodations for peoples' religious and moral beliefs as long as they don't discriminate and other accommodations can reasonably be made. That's the whole basis for conscientious objector status in the military, particularly when there is a draft in place. (Or for a Muslim flight attendant to object to serving alcohol, for that matter... although it is difficult for me to see how that intricate dance that is food service in the cockpit could handle too many more steps.) Other jurisdictions have allowed people to opt out of issuing licenses they on the basis of their beliefs as long as there are other clerks who can and will issue those licenses. Kim Davis's issue is that her name is printed on the licenses. Apparently that's required under Kentucky law. So from her viewpoint, letting her deputies issue the licenses doesn't cut muster because her name is still on the licenses.

Some have argued that there is no good reason for the clerk's name to be on the licenses - the function is tied to the office, not the specific individual.

So what should the judge have done? Maybe... just thinking out loud here... and I don't claim to be a lawyer or constitutional scholar... he could invalidated that portion of Kentucky's law that requires the county clerk's name to appear on marriage licenses. Maybe he could have ordered her to jail but stayed the order for 5 days, during which time the Kentucky legislature could convene and pass emergency legislation to change the law specifying what must be on marriage licenses. That way the onus would be on legislature to conform the state's laws, rather than on one individual to conform her beliefs. And there would be one less martyr/holy war prisoner/poster child. Or, he could have taken a page from Kim Davis's playbook - declare all new marriage licenses in the State invalid until the State deals with its system which allows discrimination against gay couples. Surely the specter of hundreds of angry brides would compel the State to act!

I respectfully disagree. Marriage equality is now the law of the land according to the Supreme Court. I don't think that it's reasonable to permit people to bring their individual religious beliefs into the function of the state regarding marriage licenses. I believe that the Governor of Kentucky has issued a statement saying that the marriage licenses issued by the deputy clerks in Kim Davis' absence are, in fact, legal, and that he is not going to call a special session of the legislature to address Kim Davis. I think that the federal judge is doing his job regarding Kim Davis' contempt of court. I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state. I think that Kim Davis should do her job or resign. Our society would not permit a county clerk to refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples. I think that marriage equality is no different.Kim Davis is a county clerk. Her personal thoughts and feelings about same sex marriage are of no interest to me.

 

[Imdanny]

Call me cynical but I think she's already getting funded by some conservative group to keep this charade up.

Shes apparently a democrat..

Irrelevant. Some conservative is funneling money to her to keep this up as long as possible

Yep, just as not all Republicans are anti-abortion or believe in other tenets of social conservatism, not every Democrats is a liberal/progressive who endorses same-sex marriage. SSM does not appear to have been a campaign issue for either Ms. Davis or her opponent.
The attorneys, who are representing Ms. Davis at no charge to her, are from Liberty Counsel; here's its home page:
http://www.lc.org

If I may clear up some misunderstanding: The application & nuances of the federal Civil Rights Act are irrelevant in Kim Davis's case because elected officials (and some of their appointees) anywhere in the US are not "employees" under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act; the statutory definition specifically excludes them.

But there is a twist in this case. 2 years ago the Kentucky Legislature overrode the Governor's veto of a bill that's a variant of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (The federal RFRA, which breezed through Congress in 1993, was at the heart of the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority decision in the Hobby Lobby case, holding that closely held, for-profit corporations are "persons" who can claim religious protection under RFRA from federal action.)
So it's quite possible that Davis's attorneys will initiate a state court proceeding, invoking Kentucky's RFRA. But it seems they have relied to date only on the First Amendment in their arguments vs. the federal court's contempt adjudication-penalty.

Apparently, her lawyers did invoke it with the federal judge and he disagreed. This is explained at the end of this article in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/

Excerpt:

"She would object to having the documents note that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,” and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority. It’s possible that these demands go a bit too far for the Kentucky RFRA...."

 

[the_mother_thing]

In the article I read, it said that M. Huckabee (and I think Ted Cruz) was heading to Kentucky to meet with her and to hold a rally for her. I think it's possible the judge released her in an effort to prevent the circus that will turn into. Can public officials be fired for non performance of duties? If so, she should have been fired when she lost her legal appeals and certainly when she was jailed.

So apparently Ted Cruse and Mike Huckabee, two people who aspire to be President of the United States of America, are basically saying "If you don't believe a law is right, you can ignore it"

Excuse me?!!!

WTHeck!!!

Well, my religion/belief structure says I don't have to drive 35, or pay for items from a store, or inhibit myself from shooting my annoying neighbor.

Can these presidential candidates BE any more ridiculous?

If they can't see the slippery slope they are standing on, they are absolutely not fit to be President.

The precedent to selectively follow laws was most recently set by refusing to enforce immigration laws, and this administration allows it to continue.THAT was the start of the slippery slope. I would love to see San Francisco's elected officials receive the same treatment and be tossed in jail, along with every other sanctuary city's elected body, for failing to uphold the law.

 

[missy]

No mixed feelings for me about this. She belonged in jail because she acted against the law. Her personal beliefs are just that. Personal. If she cannot do her job because of them she does not deserve to have that job and needs to be relieved of her duties ASAP. Keep your personal beliefs out of doing your job please and serve the public as you were hired to do. The law is the law and jail is where she belongs. She is now released from jail though and if she cannot follow the law still back to jail she belongs and this time I sure hope she is fired from her job. Ridiculous.

I, also, have no mixed feelings about her having been held in contempt of court. When one chooses the path of civil disobedience in order to make a point, one must be ready to take the consequences. The non-violent civil rights demonstrators led by Dr. Martin Luther King knew that and were willing to do so. Peter, Paul, and Mary have an old song that says, "if you've gone to jail for justice, then you're a friend of mine".

However, my understanding is that Ms. Davis can only be removed from office, since she was elected by the people of her district, by impeachment. She cannot be fired.

She can, however, be prevented from flouting the law by being kept in jail until she submits to the law.

AGBF

Thanks Deb. Then I think she should be impeached.

Danny, I am too a strong believer in the separation of church and state.
If someone cannot do their job due to religious beliefs than that person needs to either resign or be removed from office. Period. Carte blanche should not be an option.

And for that Muslim woman example who does not want to serve alcohol? Then she should not take a job where that is a requirement of the job. There are many jobs out there where serving alcohol is not a requirement. Not every job is right for every person.

 

[MollyMalone]

Apparently, her lawyers did invoke [Kentucky's RFRA] with the federal judge and he disagreed. This is explained at the end of this article in the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/
Excerpt:
"She would object to having the documents note that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,” and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority. It’s possible that these demands go a bit too far for the Kentucky RFRA...."

Ah, the judge's decision that I read made no mention of KY's RFRA. But to just to clarify: that's a not a quote, or paraphrase, attributed to any of the federal judge's decisions-orders; that's Professor Volokh's assessment. As he recognized in the 2nd update to that Sept 4 blog piece, and again in yesterday's [Sept 8] Volokh Conspiracy blog post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ail-plus-more-on-her-requested-accommodation/
there's a Supreme Court case, Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman (1984), which holds that the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from ordering an injunction based on a violation of a state statute.

As for the general assertion that you should quit your job -- or not take the position in the first instance -- if its duties-responsibilities conflict with your religious beliefs, Prof. Volokh pointed out in his Sept 4 post that while that's "a perfectly sensible policy argument against having a Title VII duty of religious accommodation," that's not the policy choice reflected by the 1972 amendments to Title VII [or, I would add, the federal and state RFRAs].

 

[MollyMalone]

The precedent to selectively follow laws was most recently set by refusing to enforce immigration laws, and this administration allows it to continue.THAT was the start of the slippery slope. I would love to see San Francisco's elected officials receive the same treatment and be tossed in jail, along with every other sanctuary city's elected body, for failing to uphold the law.

Here's a response to that argument written by Prof. Jonathan Adler, a longtime regular contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy, a collective blog of primarily law school professors who are libertarian or conservative in their socio-political views, that maintained its own web site until about a year-and-a-half ago when it moved to the Washington Post's platform:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-to-cooperate-with-federal-immigration-law/

 

[kenny]

Another conflict is federal vs. state laws about medical and recreational use of marijuana.

I know of cities in California that struggle with authorizing medical marijuana dispensaries.
They open, then get closed, then open, then get closed.
The lawyers on both sides of this are making big bucks.

Democracy is a bitch when people/voters vary.
Then you have that annoying little Constitution thingie, which is supposed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[telephone89]

Just to address the muslim/alcohol topic that keeps coming up:

She is not suing simply because she doesn't want to serve alcohol based on her religion - the airline gave her religious accomodation, and she has been doing her job w/o serving alcohol just fine for the past 3 months. Then another co-worker complained, the airline took away the reglious accomodation and suspended her. THAT is what she's suing about. I have a feeling if after she converted (she was not a muslim when she was hired), she was told 'If you are not able to complete your job duties we will have to let you go' there would not be *as much* of an issue. I 100% agree, not every job is right for every person. If a 17 year old (or 20 year old for you americans) wanted the job, they would have been denied, because they are not of legal age to serve alcohol. It is part of the job, and is not discriminatory.

However, the actual info on alcohol is much stricter, which I HIGHLY doubt any (or few) muslims actually follow - they cannot drink it, sell it, buy it for someone else, make it, deliver/transport it, can't use the proceeds from it. You really gonna turn down a paying customer at your restaurant because he owns a liquor store? Doubt it. But anyways. All faiths can pick and choose. Just wanted to clarify the situation a bit.

 

[aljdewey]

She is not suing simply because she doesn't want to serve alcohol based on her religion - the airline gave her religious accomodation, and she has been doing her job w/o serving alcohol just fine for the past 3 months. Then another co-worker complained, the airline took away the reglious accomodation and suspended her. THAT is what she's suing about.

The airline has to make a reasonable accommodation. The question here becomes 'what's reasonable?'.

Perhaps it was reasonable until the coworker complained. After all, it's her coworkers who have to pick up extra work to serve the passengers she won't serve. I can see where this might become a struggle on a regional air carrier; flights are short in duration, and there are normally 2 attendants managing between 40-80 passengers. Add to that the extremely tight aisle quarters, and I can see why a coworker might feel put out at having to pick up added duties his/her coworker refuses.

None of her coworkers should be obligated to take on added workload; they might agree to, but I don't think they can be mandated to.

I have read that the complaint filed by the coworker also took issue with foreign writings and her head scarf, which absolutely make his/her particular motives questionable in filing the complaint. Nonetheless, it doesn't really change the fact that any coworker on a flight with her will have to pick up her slack. Is that reasonable? If it creates problems for the airline with other employees, I'm not sure it is.

 

[telephone89]

I would have totally not faulted the airline for just saying no in general - either that the other FAs would be overwhelmed/busy/need to hire another/etc. But the fact that only 1 complaint (no others had been made) prompted this, and the language of the complaint (pretty innappropriate IMO) makes me think this lady just had a chip on her shoulder, or is intolerant of other religions. In the grand scheme of things, do I think it's really that much extra work? No, probably not. Most of the time when I fly, half the flight attendants have one type of food, and the other half have the other. So if I order a sandwich that my FA doesnt have, she gets the other FA to bring it when he/she has time. Unless people are that unruly that they NEED ALCOHOL NOW, I didn't think it was that big of a deal haha. But - I totally respect the airlines right to say no, it's part of the job. But to take away the concession they'd made after one racist complaint? Not cool.

eta - I actually just thought of another instance where this might have come about (I dont think it is in this situation though) - for example if one of the other FAs taking over the duties was pregnant/injured, and was unable to complete the extra work. Then it creates a problem that, yes, she is able to work her regular duties, just not these extra ones. I'm not sure how many FAs these airlines have at any one time, but if it were just the 2 on a regular shift then the other one might be SOL. Im not sure how they judge exceptions, but I think pregnancy or bodily exception should come before religious exception.

 

[packrat]

I'd be fine picking up the slack of something someone else couldn't/wouldn't/whatever..provided while I'm doing their stuff, that person is doing something of *mine* that I'm unable to do b/c I'm doing their work. A tit for tat tradesie deal. However, if I have to do my full job plus part of yours, I'm not getting extra pay or time or anything for it, no. It's one thing oh hey, I have to run to the bathroom quick, can you bring table 5 their menus? Can you watch the front desk? etc. It's another thing to sit down and take a load off while everyone else does your work and you get paid for work you're not doing.

JD dealt with that *many* ohhhh my goodness the many times he dealt w/that, when he worked at the packing house. Those who spent a lot of their night not including regularly scheduled breaks, in prayer, and were paid for it-10-20 hours a week, or more, to pray, while others busted but to cover their work, and were berated for not being able to do it. When you do line work, and you need 10 people and you have 7, yeah, doesn't fly. And people who work in a packing house but can't be around the meat..um...der??

We have conditioned people that they don't need to consider any angles of their employment, and to take no responsibility for anything in their own lives, and certainly not to accept any limitations incurred by their life choices or decisions. If tattoos are against your religion, the LAST place you should be putting in an application is a tattoo shop, yeah? And you can't *ask*, "is there anything that might prohibit you from doing all aspects of this job?" b/c that would be considered discrimination I'm sure, if you were then passed over for the job at the tattoo shop. If you have a peanut allergy, you are a complete and utter *moron* if you apply to work at Planter's. If alcohol is against your religion, you should have enough brain cells (ha yeah see what I did there?) to know that working in a bar is not your best choice. At some point we need to buck up and quit expecting everyone on the planet to acquiesce to our every little thought/whim/choice/decision.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I respectfully disagree. Marriage equality is now the law of the land according to the Supreme Court. I don't think that it's reasonable to permit people to bring their individual religious beliefs into the function of the state regarding marriage licenses. I believe that the Governor of Kentucky has issued a statement saying that the marriage licenses issued by the deputy clerks in Kim Davis' absence are, in fact, legal, and that he is not going to call a special session of the legislature to address Kim Davis. I think that the federal judge is doing his job regarding Kim Davis' contempt of court. I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state. I think that Kim Davis should do her job or resign. Our society would not permit a county clerk to refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples. I think that marriage equality is no different.Kim Davis is a county clerk. Her personal thoughts and feelings about same sex marriage are of no interest to me.

If one's religious beliefs have no place in a government office setting, then other's religious beliefs shouldn't be there either, IMO (e.g. wearing head scarves, refusing to serve alcohol, whatever). To pick it apart and say "well this impacts someone else and that doesn't" doesn't cut it for me because the one who gets to wear their religion's prescribed attire is still demonstrating religious freedom in the workplace while others cannot.

FTR, I don't agree per se with what Ms. Davis did, and I don't disagree with same sex marriage.

 

[missy]

^ the main difference being IMO is if that religious belief affects others. Wearing a headscarf affects nobody else whereas the other example(s) certainly do.

 

[the_mother_thing]

^ the main difference being IMO is if that religious belief affects others. Wearing a headscarf affects nobody else whereas the other example(s) certainly do.

It impacts the person who cannot observe their religion in the workplace in the way their religion prescribes. That is a preferential treatment. Headscarves don't personally bother me in the least, however, if I were told I couldn't observe my religion in the workplace, but saw a colleague everyday who could, that would impact me.

And please know, I am not a super religious person. Honestly, 99% of what others do does not offend or bother me so long as it brings no harm to others. But "harm" is not just the obvious impact of someone else not getting a SSM license. There is internal personal "harm" as well which impacts moral, teamwork and overall workplace harmony in the same way racial discrimination can cause strife. So the only way I can see to fairly resolve the issue is ALL or NONE, if religion is to have no place in the workplace.

 

[missy]

^ the main difference being IMO is if that religious belief affects others. Wearing a headscarf affects nobody else whereas the other example(s) certainly do.

It impacts the person who cannot observe their religion in the workplace in the way their religion prescribes. That is a preferential treatment. Headscarves don't personally bother me in the least, however, if I were told I couldn't observe my religion in the workplace, but saw a colleague everyday who could, that would impact me.

And please know, I am not a super religious person. Honestly, 99% of what others so does not offend or bother me so long as it brings no harm to others. But "harm" is not just the obvious impact of someone else not getting a SSM license. There is internal personal "harm" as well which impacts moral, teamwork and overall workplace harmony in the same way racial discrimination can cause strife. So the only way I can see to resolve the issue is ALL or NONE.

Except that real life doesn't work that way JoCoJenn. Life is not black and white. Shades of gray rule the day and wearing a headscarf or yarmulke etc in the workplace harms NO ONE in any reasonable way. I think we all can agree upon that. However refusing to do one's duties certainly impacts others in an unfavorable way. No question.

 

[chemgirl]

^ the main difference being IMO is if that religious belief affects others. Wearing a headscarf affects nobody else whereas the other example(s) certainly do.

It impacts the person who cannot observe their religion in the workplace in the way their religion prescribes. That is a preferential treatment. Headscarves don't personally bother me in the least, however, if I were told I couldn't observe my religion in the workplace, but saw a colleague everyday who could, that would impact me.

And please know, I am not a super religious person. Honestly, 99% of what others so does not offend or bother me so long as it brings no harm to others. But "harm" is not just the obvious impact of someone else not getting a SSM license. There is internal personal "harm" as well which impacts moral, teamwork and overall workplace harmony in the same way racial discrimination can cause strife. So the only way I can see to resolve the issue is ALL or NONE.

Except that real life doesn't work that way JoCoJenn. Life is not black and white. Shades of gray rule the day and wearing a headscarf or yarmulke etc in the workplace harms NO ONE in any reasonable way. I think we all can agree upon that. However refusing to do one's duties certainly impacts others in an unfavorable way. No question.

I don't understand how religious clothing even came into this conversation. If they were telling Kim Davis that she couldn't wear a crucifix to work then fine, that would be a valid comparison. Wearing a hijab doesn't impact one's ability to do their job. Kim Davis is refusing to do her job. She's denying people a fundamental right. This isn't about practicing religion. She's causing undue hardship.

We've had same sex marriage here for over a decade. Religious institutions don't have to perform or sanction same sex weddings. The government grants legal marriages, not spiritual ones.

 

[telephone89]

^ the main difference being IMO is if that religious belief affects others. Wearing a headscarf affects nobody else whereas the other example(s) certainly do.

It impacts the person who cannot observe their religion in the workplace in the way their religion prescribes. That is a preferential treatment. Headscarves don't personally bother me in the least, however, if I were told I couldn't observe my religion in the workplace, but saw a colleague everyday who could, that would impact me.

And please know, I am not a super religious person. Honestly, 99% of what others so does not offend or bother me so long as it brings no harm to others. But "harm" is not just the obvious impact of someone else not getting a SSM license. There is internal personal "harm" as well which impacts moral, teamwork and overall workplace harmony in the same way racial discrimination can cause strife. So the only way I can see to resolve the issue is ALL or NONE.

Except that real life doesn't work that way JoCoJenn. Life is not black and white. Shades of gray rule the day and wearing a headscarf or yarmulke etc in the workplace harms NO ONE in any reasonable way. I think we all can agree upon that. However refusing to do one's duties certainly impacts others in an unfavorable way. No question.

You might be interested in some of the legistlation in quebec - they are trying (or have?) to make any govt offices religion free - no head scarves, no cross necklaces (in view), etc. They think they are being progressive - the same way they make it incredibly difficult (near impossible w/o tens of thousands $) for women to change their last name after marriage. Anyways, sorry for getting off topic lol.

 

[chemgirl]

^ the main difference being IMO is if that religious belief affects others. Wearing a headscarf affects nobody else whereas the other example(s) certainly do.

It impacts the person who cannot observe their religion in the workplace in the way their religion prescribes. That is a preferential treatment. Headscarves don't personally bother me in the least, however, if I were told I couldn't observe my religion in the workplace, but saw a colleague everyday who could, that would impact me.

And please know, I am not a super religious person. Honestly, 99% of what others so does not offend or bother me so long as it brings no harm to others. But "harm" is not just the obvious impact of someone else not getting a SSM license. There is internal personal "harm" as well which impacts moral, teamwork and overall workplace harmony in the same way racial discrimination can cause strife. So the only way I can see to resolve the issue is ALL or NONE.

Except that real life doesn't work that way JoCoJenn. Life is not black and white. Shades of gray rule the day and wearing a headscarf or yarmulke etc in the workplace harms NO ONE in any reasonable way. I think we all can agree upon that. However refusing to do one's duties certainly impacts others in an unfavorable way. No question.

You might be interested in some of the legistlation in quebec - they are trying (or have?) to make any govt offices religion free - no head scarves, no cross necklaces (in view), etc. They think they are being progressive - the same way they make it incredibly difficult (near impossible w/o tens of thousands $) for women to change their last name after marriage. Anyways, sorry for getting off topic lol.

This is exactly what I was thinking of while reading the posts about headscarves (also love how small crosses are acceptable in the proposed legislation, not cool Quebec). DH used to live in Quebec and has tried to convince me to move there. Not gonna happen.

Their attempt to be modern and secular etc will result in more women being oppressed. I have so much rage related to this. Daycare workers are considered government employees. A significant number of people could lose their jobs because of clothing. It's insane.

Religious freedom is important. The Kim Davis situation doesn't fall under freedom of religion in my opinion. Marriage in this sense is a legal contract. She's not a pastor being force to perform same sex marriages, she is a government official refusing to issue a contractual document as outlined by her job. Simple.

 

[JaneSmith]

I don't feel that jailing was an overreaction.

The judge's goal was to take action that would compel her to comply with the law. His options were really fine her or jail her.

With so many folks committing to help defray any fines she faced, fining would not have compelled her to comply; jail was far more likely to. I honestly think they should have secured her verbal agreement not to interfere when she returns before turning her loose, because you know the moment she gets back, she's going to impede and then they'll have to take her back in. Waste of everyone's time and money.

I have no issue with her personally objecting to gay marriage if it conflicts with her religious beliefs, but I do object to her refusing to do her job based on those beliefs. If she really feels that strongly about the matter, she should resign the position and find another that doesn't conflict with her religious beliefs. Go issue dog licenses or something, yanno?

Freedom of religion means you are free to worship in the faith of your choosing without persecution; it doesn't not mean you have to right to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them, and it doesn't mean you are entitled to a job that you are unwilling to perform.

I agree.

I am also appalled but unsurprised that Huckabee stood firm with her. This person wants to be POTUS, but just gave a big middle finger to homosexuals and the SCOTUS. Nice.

Church and state are separate in this country, last lime I checked.

And she needs a makeover. 'Nuff said.

This is completely unessesary, her appearance and how it conforms to societal standards of feminine beauty are irrelevant. You bringing this up puts you in the same league as Donald Trump.


Lastly, whilst the hypocrisy of her condemning others according to her religion's dogma on homosexuality whilst also herself violating her religion's dogma on adultery is obvious and rank, it does not alter the fact that she broke the law by refusing to perform her duties.

 

[AGBF]

Church and state are separate in this country, last lime I checked.

And she needs a makeover. 'Nuff said.

This is completely unessesary, her appearance and how it conforms to societal standards of feminine beauty are irrelevant. You bringing this up puts you in the same league as Donald Trump.

Lastly, whilst the hypocrisy of her condemning others according to her religion's dogma on homosexuality whilst also herself violating her religion's dogma on adultery is obvious and rank, it does not alter the fact that she broke the law by refusing to perform her duties.

I am really glad you caught the comment on Ms. Davis' appearance, JaneSmith. I didn't see it. I did see, and comment on, the irrelevance of posters' attempts to put her down due to her being, supposedly, morally deficient because she had out of wedlock children and/or had been divorced.

The world will be a better place when people stop judging women for their appearance and how they choose to use their vaginas. I just wish we could get all the legislators who are trying to control us to get their hands off us first.

Power To The People! Women and Gays!

Deb/AGBF

 

[Ellen]

She should have quit. She espouses to be a follower of Jesus Christ, yet she doesn't apparently understand His laws.

Romans 13:1-2New King James Version (NKJV)

Submit to Government
13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.


And those "Christians" who are running to her aid, embracing the idea of getting her job back, don't understand either.

I only posted the verse to prove/back up my point, I do not wish to intentionally break the rules here or start trouble. I will not be posting in here again, but I thought you all might be interested in another Christian point of view. And there was no way to do that without posting this verse. If the verse must be removed, please remove my entire post, because it won't make sense without it.

 

[aljdewey]

I did see, and comment on, the irrelevance of posters' attempts to put her down due to her being, supposedly, morally deficient because she had out of wedlock children and/or had been divorced.

Deb, speaking just for myself, I don't think that her being divorced is morally deficient at all.

She is arguing that she cannot fulfill her civil duties without breaching her religious beliefs. Those beliefs don't condone same-sex marriage *or* divorce. How can she stand behind her religious beliefs when it comes to doing her job while she's clearly not abiding by her religion's tenets regarding divorce/remarriage? That's why it's notable, I think.

 

[AGBF]

I did see, and comment on, the irrelevance of posters' attempts to put her down due to her being, supposedly, morally deficient because she had out of wedlock children and/or had been divorced.

Deb, speaking just for myself, I don't think that her being divorced is morally deficient at all.

She is arguing that she cannot fulfill her civil duties without breaching her religious beliefs. Those beliefs don't condone same-sex marriage *or* divorce. How can she stand behind her religious beliefs when it comes to doing her job while she's clearly not abiding by her religion's tenets regarding divorce/remarriage? That's why it's notable, I think.

My position, Al, is that the State (and We The People) have no business looking at whether she is a hypocrite. (A hypocrite in our opinions, of course, since we are not really privy to her most private religious convictions.) We also have no business looking at her hair and make-up. The only topic with which we should be concerned is whether she is following the law and following the court order.

AGBF

 

[telephone89]

I did see, and comment on, the irrelevance of posters' attempts to put her down due to her being, supposedly, morally deficient because she had out of wedlock children and/or had been divorced.

Deb, speaking just for myself, I don't think that her being divorced is morally deficient at all.

She is arguing that she cannot fulfill her civil duties without breaching her religious beliefs. Those beliefs don't condone same-sex marriage *or* divorce. How can she stand behind her religious beliefs when it comes to doing her job while she's clearly not abiding by her religion's tenets regarding divorce/remarriage? That's why it's notable, I think.

+1. It is laughable to have someone stand on their high horse and shoot arrows at people who's actions she disagrees with, while she has 12 sticking out of her own back. Did she break the law? Yes. Its that more important? Yes. Is this still relevant? I think so. I believe someone once said (allegedly) he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone (at her). She has no business pretending to be an upstanding christian when she clearly doesn't follow ALL the doctrine.

 

[Matata]

My position, Al, is that the State (and We The People) have no business looking at whether she is a hypocrite. (A hypocrite in our opinions, of course, since we are not really privy to her most private religious convictions.) We also have no business looking at her hair and make-up. The only topic with which we should be concerned is whether she is following the law and following the court order.
AGBF

Well, yes and no. It's hard to separate people from their convictions/beliefs/behavior and their regard for the law because their convictions/beliefs/behaviors are the basis for how the person acts regarding the law. Our society sets great store in a person's perceived trustworthiness and truthfulness. It's difficult to muster impartiality toward a person whose mouth says one thing but whose actions are contrary to their words-- i.e. the hypocrite. We are conditioned by parents, educational and religious institutions to disregard and disrespect the hypocrite. K. Davis is not following the law because of her religious beliefs. We can't separate her beliefs from her actions -- one informs the other. Had she come forth and stated that she had a made mistakes in her past and, in her opinion atoned for them, perhaps she would have been seen as more trustworthy and honest in her actions. But she has not spoken to the fact that she violated her religious principles in her own life. She has chosen only to cherrypick her convictions for media attention and break the law to impose punishment on those she deems unworthy.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I did see, and comment on, the irrelevance of posters' attempts to put her down due to her being, supposedly, morally deficient because she had out of wedlock children and/or had been divorced.

Deb, speaking just for myself, I don't think that her being divorced is morally deficient at all.

She is arguing that she cannot fulfill her civil duties without breaching her religious beliefs. Those beliefs don't condone same-sex marriage *or* divorce. How can she stand behind her religious beliefs when it comes to doing her job while she's clearly not abiding by her religion's tenets regarding divorce/remarriage? That's why it's notable, I think.

Alj, just to clear that up, my understanding is that she converted to her faith about 4 years ago. The divorces and babies out of wedlock all happened prior to that time. So as far as I can tell from reading what is online, she has had no divorces since coming to faith and having these religious beliefs. I just think it is important to have our facts straight even if we are in disagreement with her.

******************************************

I also want to say I strongly agree with Deb that name calling or demeaning her appearance is not exactly taking higher ground. (this is a general response to the thread and has nothing to do with Alj)

As a person of faith myself, I agree with Ellen that if a person's conscience does not allow them to do the job, they need to resign unless reasonable accommodations can be made. I think her big mistake was not allowing her deputy clerks to issue licenses in the first place. She apparently didn't even personally have to even sign them. On the other hand, I also strongly stand for separation of church and state in that the state cannot interfere with religious institutions having the freedom to decide who can be their members and who can marry in their facility, etc. Government workers obviously have to obey the laws they work under. She had a way around this and did not take that road. It will be interesting to see if she allows the other clerks to issue the licenses or resigns once she returns to work.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Oh, and good to see you, Kenny! I sincerely appreciate the way you approached this topic in your opening posts.