I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
They should just fire her for not performing the duties of her job Â
She has every right to refuse to do something based on her religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean she gets to keep her job if she refuses to do something legally required.....
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
That's an interesting question because I would argue that she and her community have the same rights to do and believe and hang together as the gay community or any other community. But all that is superseded by the law. I think it's great that she has principles but if she truly had them, then she needs to find a new line of work. Failing that, she has to fulfill her job requirements.
She has every right to refuse to do something based on her religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean she gets to keep her job if she refuses to do something legally required.....
Exactly. She isn't doing her job so she needs to lose it. If they want to keep her then she should be held in contempt and fined or jailed. Whether she agrees with the law is irrelevant, her job is to issue a marriage license to those who meet the legal requirements not biblical requirements.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
That's an interesting question because I would argue that she and her community have the same rights to do and believe and hang together as the gay community or any other community. But all that is superseded by the law. I think it's great that she has principles but if she truly had them, then she needs to find a new line of work. Failing that, she has to fulfill her job requirements.
How likely do you think it is that she takes this principled stand and quits her job?
I think a more likely scenerio is a GD circus, with morons filing petions with the governors office to reinstate her. Fair and balanced inverviews on Fox News championing her bravery in standing up to a tyrannical and hedonistic government. You get the picture.
this is about the rule of law. When a clerk with an attitude, or POTUS decides to disobey the law, this is what you get... obey the laws you like instead of changing the law.
RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws... Â
She doesn't want to discriminate against gay couples, so she is not issuing any marriage licenses at all. (At least, I heard a radio report to that effect.)
I know this is a big thing right now, but I don't get it. If she thinks same-sex marriage is a sin, she shouldn't marry a woman. Lots of people commit lots of sins, it's not her job to prevent people from sinning, it's her job to issue marriage licenses to people who legally qualify for them.
I am unfamiliar with Kentucky laws, but this would be easily solved if someone else in that office had the authority to issue the licenses. What happens when she goes on vacation and a heterosexual couple comes into the office and wants a license?
this is about the rule of law. When a clerk with an attitude, or POTUS decides to disobey the law, this is what you get... obey the laws you like instead of changing the law.
An attorney says the Kentucky clerk who won't issue marriage licenses and all her deputy clerks have been called for a federal court hearing Thursday morning.
Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins says the federal court alerted him that a hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday in Ashland.
Watkins says clerk Kim Davis is summonsed to attend, along with all the deputy clerks who work in her office.
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws... Â
That the gays would impose their beliefs on the various houses of worship.
This is more like a government authority forcing their beliefs on other people. Would you also agree if she refused to give marriage licenses to people who were divorced? Some churches believe that divorced people should not marry again.
Ignorance of the First Amendment extends well beyond BBI Â
A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, who has protested alongside Ms. Davis, insisted Tuesday that “we’ve not tried to prevent,” same-sex marriages, “we’ve only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights.”
And I don't see the argument about standing up for her beliefs - at their core, her belief is discriminatory and hateful - what is the honor is standing up for that?
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
That the gays would impose their beliefs on the various houses of worship.
This is more like a government authority forcing their beliefs on other people. Would you also agree if she refused to give marriage licenses to people who were divorced? Some churches believe that divorced people should not marry again.
I couldnt care less. What a given church believes or doesn't believe is immaterial to law.
RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws... Â
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Fun fact - the right Church will allow you to "pay" for an annulment, even in the case of a multi-year marriage with children.
this is about the rule of law. When a clerk with an attitude, or POTUS decides to disobey the law, this is what you get... obey the laws you like instead of changing the law.
You're just so way off, here. This is a case of two people going to a government office and being denied a license to which they have a right because the office's clerk objects to the law on religious grounds.
Your contorting it into some Obama criticism is absurd and pretty pathetic. No one is going to Obama and asking him to provide him or her with a rightful entitlement, with Obama refusing it based on a religious objection.
You are the one contorting the issue of the rule of law. Emotion about the efficacy of law is not a reason to apply it when you 'believe' it's right or wrong. Just because you think a written immigration law is arcane doesn't excuse ignoring it. My point is that this clerk isn't doing her job by ignoring her duty and the law... same for the Federal Government willfully ignoring immigration laws.
RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws... Â
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
RE: RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws... Â
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
she should become a Pastor. However, as an elected Clerk she has a duty to enforce the law, even if she disagrees with it. Nobody forced her to become the Clerk and the law puts the requirement to issue on marriage licenses to whomever holds the office. It is not like the law says Mrs. Davis has to sign the marriage licenses but no other Clerk is required to.
It's 'apples and oranges' when people who replace the rule of law with their interperation of justice (and good vibes). Anyone who disagrees is stupid, bigoted, homophobic, etc.
she should become a Pastor. However, as an elected Clerk she has a duty to enforce the law, even if she disagrees with it. Nobody forced her to become the Clerk and the law puts the requirement to issue on marriage licenses to whomever holds the office. It is not like the law says Mrs. Davis has to sign the marriage licenses but no other Clerk is required to.
Yeah this. I respect her conscience even though I disagree with the conclusions to which it leads her. But if you find your conscience incompatible with what you're asked to do as part of a job you took and maintain voluntarily, you need to stop doing it. It is all well and good, in many cases admirable, that you conscientiously object to the duties of being a soldier, but you should not have signed on in the first place and if the duties or your conscience changed in the meantime such that you can no longer perform those duties America is not obligated to continue to cut you a check to do only those duties that comport with your moral compass.
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Fun fact - the right Church will allow you to "pay" for an annulment, even in the case of a multi-year marriage with children.
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
The main difference is that Presidents, historically, have had lots of leeway to set "prosecutorial priority" and regulations and policy that further specifies what to do in interpreting the gaps in the law. Obama's immigration changes are, in theory, being made in agreement with that precedent. Reagan and Bush 1 have done things that are at least similar on face value. The courts will figure out if Obama has gone too far, as I think that stuff will be challenged. This is an orange.
This lady is a county clerk. She's not been given, nor have holders of her office been given, authority to make any changes to how she discharges her duties. The legality of her requested change has been completely settled, including the Supremes saying, "not interested". This is an apple.
Now, I will admit that if the courts agree with those who say that Obama has exceeded the precedents of his office and his authority, it may change from an orange to a pear (Closer). If after that he says, "screw you guys, I'm sticking with it", well, then we'd have an apple.
Hope this helps :)
RE: RE: If she wants to speak on faith/current events Â
she should become a Pastor. However, as an elected Clerk she has a duty to enforce the law, even if she disagrees with it. Nobody forced her to become the Clerk and the law puts the requirement to issue on marriage licenses to whomever holds the office. It is not like the law says Mrs. Davis has to sign the marriage licenses but no other Clerk is required to.
Yeah this. I respect her conscience even though I disagree with the conclusions to which it leads her. But if you find your conscience incompatible with what you're asked to do as part of a job you took and maintain voluntarily, you need to stop doing it. It is all well and good, in many cases admirable, that you conscientiously object to the duties of being a soldier, but you should not have signed on in the first place and if the duties or your conscience changed in the meantime such that you can no longer perform those duties America is not obligated to continue to cut you a check to do only those duties that comport with your moral compass.
This isn't a dig at you duned, so I hope it doesn't come across as that.
I think most people are using their lack of "comfortability" with gay people as the driving force in how they interact with them. So I don't respect her conscience, as you said, because if she truly feels that this is religion driven, can we go down the list of things that the bible would find "objectionable" and how she treats those instances?
I'm not "comfortable" as such, with gay people--because I'm straight. Gay guys kiss? Yuck. But I get that. We are different in that way and I think it is the right thing to not treat them differently, regardless of how I feel about gay acts. Or gay people acting sexually.
We should remind ourselves that we live in a country where many people can't talk openly about straight sex, for pete's sake.
somewhat funny this women fighting for the sanctity of marriage has only been divorced a couple of times. I guess god likes one women and at least two men. I did see reports she is on her fourth marriage, but cannot find reliable sources. I just hate people who are hypocritical about gay marriage and don't think twice about divorce.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
Quote:
she's employed and it's her work function.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
That's an interesting question because I would argue that she and her community have the same rights to do and believe and hang together as the gay community or any other community. But all that is superseded by the law. I think it's great that she has principles but if she truly had them, then she needs to find a new line of work. Failing that, she has to fulfill her job requirements.
Exactly. She isn't doing her job so she needs to lose it. If they want to keep her then she should be held in contempt and fined or jailed. Whether she agrees with the law is irrelevant, her job is to issue a marriage license to those who meet the legal requirements not biblical requirements.
Quote:
In comment 12446735 Bill L said:
Quote:
she's employed and it's her work function.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
That's an interesting question because I would argue that she and her community have the same rights to do and believe and hang together as the gay community or any other community. But all that is superseded by the law. I think it's great that she has principles but if she truly had them, then she needs to find a new line of work. Failing that, she has to fulfill her job requirements.
How likely do you think it is that she takes this principled stand and quits her job?
I think a more likely scenerio is a GD circus, with morons filing petions with the governors office to reinstate her. Fair and balanced inverviews on Fox News championing her bravery in standing up to a tyrannical and hedonistic government. You get the picture.
There's nothing brave or principled here.
Wah, poor straight people can't understand the bible and choose to ignore the law.
We have enough of them here alone as examples.
And the she falls for Big Bertha that she's sharing a cell with. This shit writes itself!
How about not conflating two separate issues?
I actually think that you have a point there as well. The law is the law.
Quote:
how about some consistency?
I actually think that you have a point there as well. The law is the law.
Not really. Federal agencies and and municipalities choose to ignore laws that they deem archaic all the time.
I know this is a big thing right now, but I don't get it. If she thinks same-sex marriage is a sin, she shouldn't marry a woman. Lots of people commit lots of sins, it's not her job to prevent people from sinning, it's her job to issue marriage licenses to people who legally qualify for them.
I am unfamiliar with Kentucky laws, but this would be easily solved if someone else in that office had the authority to issue the licenses. What happens when she goes on vacation and a heterosexual couple comes into the office and wants a license?
Would someone please think of the children?
Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins says the federal court alerted him that a hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday in Ashland.
Watkins says clerk Kim Davis is summonsed to attend, along with all the deputy clerks who work in her office.
Quote:
how about some consistency?
I actually think that you have a point there as well. The law is the law.
Isn't that currently being litigated?
This is more like a government authority forcing their beliefs on other people. Would you also agree if she refused to give marriage licenses to people who were divorced? Some churches believe that divorced people should not marry again.
And I don't see the argument about standing up for her beliefs - at their core, her belief is discriminatory and hateful - what is the honor is standing up for that?
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Quote:
That the gays would impose their beliefs on the various houses of worship.
This is more like a government authority forcing their beliefs on other people. Would you also agree if she refused to give marriage licenses to people who were divorced? Some churches believe that divorced people should not marry again.
I couldnt care less. What a given church believes or doesn't believe is immaterial to law.
Quote:
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Fun fact - the right Church will allow you to "pay" for an annulment, even in the case of a multi-year marriage with children.
You're just so way off, here. This is a case of two people going to a government office and being denied a license to which they have a right because the office's clerk objects to the law on religious grounds.
Your contorting it into some Obama criticism is absurd and pretty pathetic. No one is going to Obama and asking him to provide him or her with a rightful entitlement, with Obama refusing it based on a religious objection.
Come on. Think a little.
Quote:
She'll make a sweet jailhouse martyr for her cause, though.
And the she falls for Big Bertha that she's sharing a cell with. This shit writes itself!
And then when she gets out, they secretly vacation together. Pretending to fish, but really longing for the days of herding sheep on the mountain.
Quote:
how about some consistency?
Quote:
In comment 12446781 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
how about some consistency?
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
It happens all the time.
Yeah this. I respect her conscience even though I disagree with the conclusions to which it leads her. But if you find your conscience incompatible with what you're asked to do as part of a job you took and maintain voluntarily, you need to stop doing it. It is all well and good, in many cases admirable, that you conscientiously object to the duties of being a soldier, but you should not have signed on in the first place and if the duties or your conscience changed in the meantime such that you can no longer perform those duties America is not obligated to continue to cut you a check to do only those duties that comport with your moral compass.
Quote:
In comment 12446810 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Fun fact - the right Church will allow you to "pay" for an annulment, even in the case of a multi-year marriage with children.
They were (maybe still are) called "indulgences."
She can find a job in the private sector where she can exercise her beliefs to her hearts content.
Quote:
In comment 12446781 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
how about some consistency?
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
The main difference is that Presidents, historically, have had lots of leeway to set "prosecutorial priority" and regulations and policy that further specifies what to do in interpreting the gaps in the law. Obama's immigration changes are, in theory, being made in agreement with that precedent. Reagan and Bush 1 have done things that are at least similar on face value. The courts will figure out if Obama has gone too far, as I think that stuff will be challenged. This is an orange.
This lady is a county clerk. She's not been given, nor have holders of her office been given, authority to make any changes to how she discharges her duties. The legality of her requested change has been completely settled, including the Supremes saying, "not interested". This is an apple.
Now, I will admit that if the courts agree with those who say that Obama has exceeded the precedents of his office and his authority, it may change from an orange to a pear (Closer). If after that he says, "screw you guys, I'm sticking with it", well, then we'd have an apple.
Hope this helps :)
Quote:
she should become a Pastor. However, as an elected Clerk she has a duty to enforce the law, even if she disagrees with it. Nobody forced her to become the Clerk and the law puts the requirement to issue on marriage licenses to whomever holds the office. It is not like the law says Mrs. Davis has to sign the marriage licenses but no other Clerk is required to.
Yeah this. I respect her conscience even though I disagree with the conclusions to which it leads her. But if you find your conscience incompatible with what you're asked to do as part of a job you took and maintain voluntarily, you need to stop doing it. It is all well and good, in many cases admirable, that you conscientiously object to the duties of being a soldier, but you should not have signed on in the first place and if the duties or your conscience changed in the meantime such that you can no longer perform those duties America is not obligated to continue to cut you a check to do only those duties that comport with your moral compass.
I think most people are using their lack of "comfortability" with gay people as the driving force in how they interact with them. So I don't respect her conscience, as you said, because if she truly feels that this is religion driven, can we go down the list of things that the bible would find "objectionable" and how she treats those instances?
I'm not "comfortable" as such, with gay people--because I'm straight. Gay guys kiss? Yuck. But I get that. We are different in that way and I think it is the right thing to not treat them differently, regardless of how I feel about gay acts. Or gay people acting sexually.
We should remind ourselves that we live in a country where many people can't talk openly about straight sex, for pete's sake.
AP confirms - ( New Window )