County Clerk Defies Federal, Appeals, And Scotus Court Orders Against Her, Invoking Her Faith And Religious Freedom

[KevinG]

She is not above the law. Now if we can just apply that to mayors of sanctuary cities, officials who abuse private mail servers, Presidents who are in contempt of congress, DOJ officials who run illegal guns across boarders, etc.

Edited September 3, 2015 by KevinG

[Russell C McGregor]

So, going to a government office to exercise your civil rights is "spoiling for a fight," and being denied your right is not a humiliation. Maybe not in New Zealand, perhaps.

 

The claim that they were subjected to "nationwide humiliation" when in fact the only reason anyone outside the county office knows that they were refused a marriage licence -- just like anyone else -- was because THEY chose to video it, and THEY chose to make the video public, is clearly false and self-serving.

 

But then, that's not something you find at all objectionable, is it?  False claims of "victimhood" in order to demonise someone you detest?

[Russell C McGregor]

More updates:

 

 

Ms. Davis' own refusal to let her 5 deputy clerks to issue licenses puts to rest the assertions or complaints that Ms. Davis should be left alone because "anyone else in the office that's willing to issue the licenses could do so in her stead."

 

It is clear now that this isn't about her own persona autonomy or beliefs--she is a government official imposing her personal religious beliefs and restrictions on other employees and the members of the public she swore to serve.

 

Who made that claim?

 

Who is defending her overreaching?

 

Everyone (on the side of decency, that is) agrees that she ought to be allowed to regulate her own actions in accordance with her conscience.  Everyone also agrees that she ought not forbid her employees to carry out their duties. 

[Daniel2]

Who made that claim?

 

Who is defending her overreaching?

 

The Liberty Counsel, Mike Huckabee, the GOP rep that spoke on her behalf, Ms. Davis' supporters outside the courtroom and county offices, etc.

 

Everyone (on the side of decency, that is) agrees that she ought to be allowed to regulate her own actions in accordance with her conscience.  Everyone also agrees that she ought not forbid her employees to carry out their duties.

 

I agree that everyone on the side of decency agrees that Ms. Davis ought to be allowed to regulate her own actions in accordance with her conscience by quitting.

 

It's clear that NOT "everyone" agrees that she ought not forbid her employees to carry out all of their duties"--starting with the Liberty Counsel, and potentially her many other supporters.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[HappyJackWagon]

The Liberty Counsel, Mike Huckabee, the GOP rep that spoke on her behalf, Ms. Davis' supporters outside the courtroom and county offices, etc.

 

I agree that everyone on the side of decency agrees that Ms. Davis ought to be allowed to regulate her own actions in accordance with her conscience by quitting.

 

It's clear that NOT "everyone" also agrees that she ought not forbid her employees to carry out all of their duties"--starting with the Liberty Counsel.

I'm so glad this fiasco is taking place in Kentucky and NOT Utah.

[toon]

She is not above the law. Now if we can just apply that to mayors of sanctuary cities, officials who abuse private mail servers, Presidents who are in contempt of congress, DOJ officials who run illegal guns across boarders, etc.

 

The difference between this case and sanctuary cities is that sanctuary cities are using their administrative and prosecutorial discretion to decide how they allocate resources.  While I guess you could argue that this is a county clerk making a unilateral decision on behalf of her office to save resources and get out of the marriage license business, I think it's quite a bit more of a strain to get there.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"And the key to border security is a big wall." -- person with a 12 year old's understanding of immigration and border crossings.

And you think that what is happening is immigration.  "- person with a 12 year old's understanding of immigration and border crossings."

 

 

BTW Nehore, more can be and should be done than just a wall and more is proposed than said wall. I suppose this is not really the place for this see you later.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[The Nehor]

And you think that what is happening is immigration.  "- person with a 12 year old's understanding of immigration and border crossings."

 

 

BTW Nehore, more can be and should be done than just a wall and more is proposed than said wall. I suppose this is not really the place for this see you later.

So you are worried about emigration? We are going full on East Germany?

I expect that this one up brinksmanship will lead to proposals for more then a wall. Minefields? Artillery? Automated drone strikes? The possibilities are endless.

[Russell C McGregor]

The Liberty Counsel, Mike Huckabee, the GOP rep that spoke on her behalf, Ms. Davis' supporters outside the courtroom and county offices, etc.

Ah. So you were arguing against nobody on this forum.

Got it.

 

I agree that everyone on the side of decency agrees that Ms. Davis ought to be allowed to regulate her own actions in accordance with her conscience by quitting.

How would you know? Have you asked them?

Being on the side of decency, I hold that Ms Davis ought to be allowed to conscientiously object to performing official actions that she finds personally repugnant, without being forced from her job. I realise that by so saying, I find myself in conflict with those who wish to enforce immorality, but that just reinforces my perception that I am right.

 

It's clear that NOT "everyone" agrees that she ought not forbid her employees to carry out all of their duties"--starting with the Liberty Counsel, and potentially her many other supporters.

IOW, nobody in this forum, engaged in this conversation.

[webbles]

I agree that everyone on the side of decency agrees that Ms. Davis ought to be allowed to regulate her own actions in accordance with her conscience by quitting.

I'm wondering if you would say the same for the few state Attorney Generals who said they wouldn't uphold their state's laws/constitituons because of their personal opinion about same-sex marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm wondering if you would say the same for the few state Attorney Generals who said they wouldn't uphold their state's laws/constitituons because of their personal opinion about same-sex marriage.

The proper plural form is attorneys general, not "attorney generals."

[jkwilliams]

The claim that they were subjected to "nationwide humiliation" when in fact the only reason anyone outside the county office knows that they were refused a marriage licence -- just like anyone else -- was because THEY chose to video it, and THEY chose to make the video public, is clearly false and self-serving.

If you thought you might be denied your civil rights, wouldn't you want to record the evidence that your rights were actually denied? Is there something wrong with publicizing injustice? The bloody attack on marchers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge was predictable and publicized in advance. The logic here seems to be that when civil rights are denied, the real villains are those who dare to publicize it.

 

But then, that's not something you find at all objectionable, is it?  False claims of "victimhood" in order to demonise someone you detest?

No demonizing necessary, Russell, and no one is detesting anyone. Ms. Davis isn't an evil person and doesn't deserve to be demonized. But she's breaking the law and must be held accountable. I can't imagine that using public office to further one's religious goals is encouraged in your country, either.

[jkwilliams]

Ah. So you were arguing against nobody on this forum.

Got it.

 

How would you know? Have you asked them?

Being on the side of decency, I hold that Ms Davis ought to be allowed to conscientiously object to performing official actions that she finds personally repugnant, without being forced from her job. I realise that by so saying, I find myself in conflict with those who wish to enforce immorality, but that just reinforces my perception that I am right.

No, she doesn't have a right to conscientiously object to performing official actions she has sworn an oath to perform, any more than a soldier who decides to be a conscientious objector has any right to continue to get paid and maintain rank and standing in the army. The law is clear on her duty to issue licenses to those who meet the legal standard, without prejudice. She knew this when she ran for office, and she knew she would likely be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (after all, she was just elected last fall). So, either she ran for office and swore an oath under false pretenses, knowing she would not uphold laws she didn't like, or after she was elected, she decided to violate the oath she had taken. I think most people understand that her religious beliefs are heartfelt (otherwise, she would't be in jail), but her actions are illegal and indefensible from a government official.

[Russell C McGregor]

If you thought you might be denied your civil rights, wouldn't you want to record the evidence that your rights were actually denied? Is there something wrong with publicizing injustice? The bloody attack on marchers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge was predictable and publicized in advance. The logic here seems to be that when civil rights are denied, the real villains are those who dare to publicize it.

As you perfectly well know, that is not my argument. As you perfectly well know, we are talking about their false and self-serving claims of "humiliation." As you perfectly well know, my argument is that if they were really "humiliated" as they claim, they brought it upon themselves by publicising their "humiliation."

My real point being that I don't believe they really feel all the "humiliation" they claim to feel.

I find their claims dishonest and self-serving.

But I suppose they imagine themselves immune to criticism because they pose as "victims."

After all, that's what the phony "victim" pose is for, isn't it?

I don't like being manipulated like that, and those who resort to that kind of manipulation tend to lose my respect rather quickly.

And permanently.

[jkwilliams]

As you perfectly well know, that is not my argument. As you perfectly well know, we are talking about their false and self-serving claims of "humiliation." As you perfectly well know, my argument is that if they were really "humiliated" as they claim, they brought it upon themselves by publicising their "humiliation."

Of course it's humiliating to be denied your civil rights by a public official. It's bizarre to say someone brought it on themselves by recording what happened.

My real point being that I don't believe they really feel all the "humiliation" they claim to feel.

Or it could be that they figure the humiliation is worth it in order to further the cause of civil rights in this country. Do you think it was humiliating or frightening when Ruby Bridges walked through a gauntlet of people spitting on her, or did she bring it on herself?

I find their claims dishonest and self-serving.

Neither you nor I have any insight into what someone else feels. The important point is whether these couples have a legal right to be married. Our laws say they do. And the second point is whether Ms. Davis has a legal right to violate her oath of office. Again, our laws say no. Casting this as being the forces of "decency" against promoters of immorality is a red herring. The personal views of a county clerk have no bearing on that person's responsibility to

uphold the law.

But I suppose they imagine themselves immune to criticism because they pose as "victims."

They just rightly claim that their civil rights have been denied.

After all, that's what the phony "victim" pose is for, isn't it?

Again, this is about an elected official refusing to uphold her oath of office. The only person talking about victimhood appears to be you.

I don't like being manipulated like that, and those who resort to that kind of manipulation tend to lose my respect rather quickly.

And permanently.

Injustice is injustice, and illegal actions are illegal actions, and one's disapproval of the personal stance of those on the receiving end does not mitigate the injustice or justify breaking the law.

[Russell C McGregor]

Of course it's humiliating to be denied your civil rights by a public official. It's bizarre to say someone brought it on themselves by recording what happened.

As you perfectly well know, I am not saying that they brought anything upon themselves. But anyone who publicises their alleged "humiliation" and then gushes about how many people know about it cannot possibly blame anyone else for that.

 

Or it could be that they figure the humiliation is worth it in order to further the cause of civil rights in this country. Do you think it was humiliating or frightening when Ruby Bridges walked through a gauntlet of people spitting on her, or did she bring it on herself?

Did Ruby Bridges go to great lengths to publicise the event, and then cry about how humiliated she was that people who weren't present knew about it?

 

Neither you nor I have any insight into what someone else feels. The important point is whether these couples have a legal right to be married. Our laws say they do. And the second point is whether Ms. Davis has a legal right to violate her oath of office. Again, our laws say no. Casting this as being the forces of "decency" against promoters of immorality is a red herring. The personal views of a county clerk have no bearing on that person's responsibility to

uphold the law.

They just rightly claim that their civil rights have been denied.

Again, this is about an elected official refusing to uphold her oath of office. The only person talking about victimhood appears to be you.

Injustice is injustice, and illegal actions are illegal actions, and one's disapproval of the personal stance of those on the receiving end does not mitigate the injustice or justify breaking the law.

I fail to see the "injustice." Ms. Davis wasn't granting marriage licenses to anyone at all.

Of course, no-one else is as self-centred and entitled as, well, those who are as self-centred and entitled as they are; but it's not like they were singled out.

I'm not disputing, BTW, that she was wrong in law to refuse to grant the licenses. But there's no "injustice" in view.

It is almost as dishonest and manipulative for them to cast themselves as "victims," when they could very easily have obtained the "marriage" licenses they needed just by going for a drive to a nearby county, as it would be to claim that someone told you to commit suicide when you know perfectly well that they in fact said no such thing.

But only almost.

 

But back to my central argument: If Ms Davis were to allow her deputies to issue licenses for same sex "marriages" while refusing to personally issue them, then what would be the matter with that?

 

Christian doctors can refuse to perform medically unnecessary abortions, despite the fact that under Roe vs. Wade, every woman who wants an abortion is legally entitled to have one.  Feminists, it seems, are content to have everything they want just as soon as they want it, without insisting that nobody can opt out of providing it; why are only a certain segment of the population so self-centred and entitled that everyone must be compelled to personally give them what they want?

Edited September 4, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[ttribe]

Christian doctors can refuse to perform medically unnecessary abortions, despite the fact that under Roe vs. Wade, every woman who wants an abortion is legally entitled to have one.  Feminists, it seems, are content to have everything they want just as soon as they want it, without insisting that nobody can opt out of providing it; why are only a certain segment of the population so self-centred and entitled that everyone must be compelled to personally give them what they want?

 

That's a bad comparison.  Said "Christian doctors" aren't elected officials who have sworn to uphold the law for all of their constituents. 

[Russell C McGregor]

That's a bad comparison.  Said "Christian doctors" aren't elected officials who have sworn to uphold the law for all of their constituents. 

 

They have, however, taken an oath, which some interpret as obligating them to provide whatever "treatment" their patients demand.

 

Incidentally, florists, bakers and jewellers aren't elected officials either; nor do they have any equivalent to a Hippocratic Oath.  But members of the new privileged class consider themselves "entitled" to compel service from them, too.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Now she's in jail.

[ttribe]

They have, however, taken an oath, which some interpret as obligating them to provide whatever "treatment" their patients demand.

 

Incidentally, florists, bakers and jewellers aren't elected officials either; nor do they have any equivalent to a Hippocratic Oath.  But members of the new privileged class consider themselves "entitled" to compel service from them, too.

 

Well, I didn't say anything about florists, et al.  Frankly, I think most of the controversy regarding those private citizens to be a little ridiculous.  Like there aren't plenty of other florists willing able to support their wedding(s).  Nevertheless, still not comparable to an elected public official.

As to the Hippocratic Oath, yours is the first comment I've ever seen that suggests that they are obligated to "provide whatever 'treatment' their patients demand."  In fact, I would posit that the H.O., which requires "Do no harm" would actually preclude treatments that the physician considers to be harmful regardless of whether the patient demands it.

[Russell C McGregor]

Well, I didn't say anything about florists, et al.  Frankly, I think most of the controversy regarding those private citizens to be a little ridiculous.  Like there aren't plenty of other florists willing able to support their wedding(s).  Nevertheless, still not comparable to an elected public official.

As to the Hippocratic Oath, yours is the first comment I've ever seen that suggests that they are obligated to "provide whatever 'treatment' their patients demand."  In fact, I would posit that the H.O., which requires "Do no harm" would actually preclude treatments that the physician considers to be harmful regardless of whether the patient demands it.

 

You're underestimating the trauma some people experience when they hear the word "No."

[Teancum]

Who made that claim?

Who is defending her overreaching?

Everyone (on the side of decency, that is) agrees that she ought to be allowed to regulate her own actions in accordance with her conscience. Everyone also agrees that she ought not forbid her employees to carry out their duties.

Sure. Have her employees issue the licenses. If that does not work she should resign her government position. Edited September 4, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Ah. So you were arguing against nobody on this forum.Got it. How would you know? Have you asked them?Being on the side of decency, I hold that Ms Davis ought to be allowed to conscientiously object to performing official actions that she finds personally repugnant, without being forced from her job. I realise that by so saying, I find myself in conflict with those who wish to enforce immorality, but that just reinforces my perception that I am right. IOW, nobody in this forum, engaged in this conversation.

You mean your definition of immorality based on what you think your God says. Others may view much of what you hold as truth as immoral as well as perhaps how you act. They may be right or wrong.

Problem is at least in the USA we don't establish a religion while at the same time we allow anyone the right to worship whatever they want. However as I am sure you know when one has a civil position one has to abide by the law and administer it equitably. If someone cannot do that they can find a new job.

There are lots of laws I don't like. Many that may be worth opposing. But should I do so I could not hold a number of jobs or a variety of political offices,

Edited September 4, 2015 by Teancum

[ttribe]

You're underestimating the trauma some people experience when they hear the word "No."

 

No, I'm simply disagreeing with them, respectfully, instead of engaging in puerile name calling.

[Russell C McGregor]

Sure. Have her employees issue the licenses. If that does not work she should resign her government position.

 

It really should work.  From what I've heard, all but one of her deputies has expressed a willingness to issue them.

 

IMHO, the only thing she really did wrong was when she ordered her deputies to stop issuing marriage licenses.  Her own actions (including her job performance) falls within the purview of her conscience, but the actions of her deputies does not.  That is precisely where she shot herself in the foot regarding freedom of conscience.  She has no more right to abrogate the consciences of her employees than anyone else does to abrogate hers.

 

It really ought to be possible to have a same sex "marriage" regime that allows people to individually opt out without putting their livelihood on the line.  I can easily envision a situation where in the average county clerk's office, there will be half a dozen people at the counter, handling paperwork applications, and those who don't want to touch same sex "marriage" applications can simply pass them on to those who do.

 

Such a regime ought to work, and it would work, right up to the moment when a couple of activists decide to lurk in the waiting area until a known conscientious objector is free; then they would pounce, demanding that that person handle their application for a "marriage" license.  The clerk would try to pass the application to someone who wants to deal with it, and then the activists would start bleating about how "humiliated" and traumatised they are.

 

That's why I can't see America ever again being the kind of pluralistic society it once seemed to be.