Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Interesting that she is promoting Sharia law under a different banner. Not surprising that the usual hypocrites are rallying to her side, completely blind to that irony.

 

[TLSnell1981]

And that is a belief you are absolutely entitled to! No arguments on my end.

My concern is her being in contempt of the law; even if you don't agree with the law, it is the law.

Ah, this was inevitable. Some are interested in much more, than equal rights. They want to squash all beliefs, other than their own.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

I disagree. Sadly, that's all I can say, since we can't discuss this on the DIS..

Of course we can discuss it. We've been discussing it.

And you are well within your rights to disagree, but it's not really a matter of opinion. It's like disagreeing that the sky is blue.

 

[sam_gordon]

The job did not require her to go against her religious beliefs, until the recent SCOTUS ruling.

You are correct. And that's a shame. However, Gay Marriage is now the law of the land. If she can't uphold the laws she swore to uphold, she should resign.

What if she said "The bible says there should be no interracial marriages" (I'm sure people claimed that back in the 50's and 60's)? Should she be allowed to withhold licenses from a mixed race couple?

 

[Gracie09]

The job did not require her to go against her religious beliefs, until the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Well she took the job in January. It's not like she had no idea that this was a possibility. I've held jobs where my job description has changed, sometimes significantly. Also she prevented other deputy clerks in her office from performing their duties.
I absolutely believe is accommodating religious beliefs. If her belief is that she can't wear pants, and must wear skirts. Go for it. She can't work sundays (if the office was open) because it's her holy day, no problem. But she must perform the job she was elected to do. Period.

 

[sam_gordon]

They want to squash all beliefs, other than their own.

I agree there are people who want to do that. There have been people wanting to squash other's beliefs almost since the beginning of time. However this case is not an example.

 

[MrsDuck]

Ah, this was inevitable. Some are interested in much more, than equal rights. They want to squash all beliefs, other than their own.

No one's beliefs trump anyone else's. Of course, everyone would be totally fine with THEIR beliefs winning out, though, as made very clear by a variety of posts in this thread.

 

[Gracie09]

He does not have a valid point.

If Davis was being compelled to actually perform marriages she felt violated her beliefs he may have a leg to stand on with legal arguments but even then, the argument that if David doesn't want to perform the duties of her job she needs to resign holds true.

The only way Davis would be having liberal beliefs FORCED on her would be if someone was forcing her to marry a woman. And that is not the case.

I believe in the scientific theory of evolution. I'm not going to go get a job at the Creationist Museum (also in Kentucky) and then complain that the job violates my beliefs.

I realize that in Davis' defense the rules were changed on her after she had already held that position for several years but still, the rules changed, she has the option to follow them or resign.

She was elected to the position I November and sworn in in January- after her mother held the position for years. S

 

[GaryDis]

The job did not require her to go against her religious beliefs, until the recent SCOTUS ruling.

I wonder about that. What about issuing a license to an opposite sex couple, when one or both of them was divorced? Or a license where one is Christian and the other atheist, and they've agreed to raise any children without religion?

Or let's set this particular case aside, and consider a different example. Intermarriage isn't allowed under either Orthodox or Conservative Judaism, and no Rabbi of either denomination will officiate at an intermarriage. But if an Orthodox Jew took a job in a municipal clerk's office, and had to issue a civil marriage license to a couple that wanted to intermarry, would that clerk be justified in refusing to do so?

My take is that it wouldn't happen, because Orthodox and Conservative Judaism don't equate a civil license with a Jewish marriage, and thus it's not an intermarriage for Jewish purposes. And to me, that's the key thing: A piece of government bureaucracy is not a religious act, and it's inappropriate to seize upon it as an act under one religion.

 

[mnrose]

You are correct. And that's a shame. However, Gay Marriage is now the law of the land. If she can't uphold the laws she swore to uphold, she should resign.

What if she said "The bible says there should be no interracial marriages" (I'm sure people claimed that back in the 50's and 60's)? Should she be allowed to withhold licenses from a mixed race couple?

They absolutely did. The claim was that God was against interracial marriages at the time. Interesting how we don't have court clerks running around espousing that view of marriage. Or court clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses to divorced people (seeing how the Bible DOES explicitly address this point). Hmmmm. I know there are Christian religions that take that admonition seriously and refuse to marry people who have been divorced. Would those who think this is a-ok, be ok with the clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses based on this religious belief?

 

[TLSnell1981]

Of course, everyone would be totally fine with THEIR beliefs winning out, though, as made very clear by a variety of posts in this thread.

I don't feel this way. I was raised to be tolerant, respectful and compassionate. I don't feel the need to judge others or hold their feet to the flames.

What a boring world this would be, if we were all the same.

 

[DanaLynn07]

Well actually, it IS true. Davis refused to hand out ANY marriage licenses. Homosexual couples from other counties and states went to Rowan County to apply for marriage licenses.

You said "As mentioned, she decided to stop issuing ALL marriage licenses. Once that word got out, homosexual couples traveled to Rowan County to apply for a license." That insinuated to me that there was 0 demand for gay marriage licenses before "word got out." The way I read your statement, it was false. I apologize for my response if that isn't the way to intended your comment to come across. I have a hard time with the perpetuation of the narrative that gay people are seeking out persecuted christians to shove their gayness down the throats of christians. I responded due to feeling you were continuing that narrative.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

I'm guessing she was Christian in name only. But at some point she decided to be a more stringent follower of the religion.

If someone decides at 30 they want to be vegan, does that mean they are now a hypocrite because they ate meat in their 20's?

If they were a vegetarian in their 20's and decided to be a vegan at 30, they would be a hypocrite if they ate meat in their 20s.

No version of vegetarianism (Christianity) condones eating meat (adultery).

 

[Turn the Page]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html

Different state but not long ago.

 

[Gracie09]

I don't feel this way. I was raised to be tolerant, respectful and compassionate. I don't feel the need to judge others or hold their feet to the flames.

What a boring world this would be, if we were all the same.

So you would be okay with a Muslim refusing a license to a couple because the woman wasn't wearing a burka.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

How about a Quaker refusing to issue a CCW because of his religious views?

 

[TLSnell1981]

So you would be okay with a Muslim refusing a license to a couple because the woman wasn't wearing a burka.

Where did I say any of this was "okay"? Personally, I feel those, who "hired" her, should decide her fate.

And, to be clear, she didn't issue a license to ANYONE...PERIOD.

 

[mnrose]

I can't imagine a world where state or county government officials get to impose whatever their religious beliefs are on those dealing with whatever branch of government they represent. I think our constitution is quite clear on this point.

You need to check your PERSONAL religious convictions/beliefs at the door of your employment, and if you can't, don't accept the job (or quit). It really is that simple.

None of us get to bring our religious point of view to bear on the tasks of our job in the government context, nor do I think people would be comfortable if that were the case. Sure, it's easy to say "this was fine, she's being persecuted" because you agree with her particular brand of Christianity. But, let's suppose that the religion is Christian Science...and your nurse is a true believer (a recent convert even!)....she decides to pray over your child rather than administer an antibiotic. Or you want a building permit for your house, and the clerk is a believer in a religion that thinks homes should be plain, rather than fancy, and rejects your request on that basis. Really? You'd all be a-ok with that because, heck, they are just carrying out their firmly held religious beliefs.

 

[Barbara76]

I'm guessing she was Christian in name only. But at some point she decided to be a more stringent follower of the religion.

If someone decides at 30 they want to be vegan, does that mean they are now a hypocrite because they ate meat in their 20's?

No, but they are a hypocrite if they are a waitress who refuses to serve steak that is on the menu of the restaurant she works in because she now is a vegan.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

How about a Quaker refusing to issue a CCW because of his religious views?

I am an avowed pacifist for religious reasons and will never run for office because I could never order the military into war, authorize the spending of money on the military, or uphold that part of the Constitution (there are other reasons I will not run, as well, including completely lacking the temperament). That was also her option, particularly since everybody with any understanding of the 14th Amendment knew this ruling was on its way and it would become an issue for somebody whose job includes issuing marriage licenses.

She's a glory-seeking narcissistic hypocrite (did she previously issue licenses to divorced couples?). And, just because I am shocked that nobody has pointed this out, she was also elected as a Democrat.