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

[Zakuska]

Ironically... Ms. Davis is a democrat. And here I thought it was the "conservative" in her. Lol

Edited September 4, 2015 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

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.

 

So now you're the victim?

[Russell C McGregor]

So now you're the victim?

 

I'm not accustomed to thinking of myself as a "victim" when someone tries a manipulative trick that doesn't work.

 

I don't buy into the "victim" narrative that seems to pervade these discussions.  I leave that to the people who feel "victimised," and just have to blame someone else because people saw the video they chose to post on YouTube.

[The Nehor]

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?

 

Because doctors can refuse to perform services and not get paid for it.

 

She is a public official and is paid by the taxpayers to uphold the law. The people she was refusing were PAYING HER SALARY! She swore an oath when she took the job that she would do her job. She is now violating that oath. So she is a liar and is guilty of defrauding the public. She belongs in jail.

 

 

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.

 

This is a stupid argument. It would not work. Small courthouses in small jurisdictions might only have one clerk. What do you do then if they are an objector?

 

If you don't want to put your livelihood DON'T GET A JOB YOU OBJECT TO! If I got hired at a medical clinic and it got bought out and became an abortion clinic could I insist that I be allowed to keep my job while not dealing with abortions. If I am a Catholic priest who announces the Catholic faith is wrong can I do that without risking my livelihood? Would you respect the right of a soldier in the army to object to what they saw as an immoral war by refusing to participate in that conflict and just hope other soldiers will be able to handle it? Why do you give elected officials this broad exemption from following the rules when they should be under the strictest standards of all? Many faiths refuse to take on any kind of public office because of these kinds of situations. I respect them for it. It is one of the reasons I would not want to work for the government. Why does this woman (and the others out there doing the same thing) think they are so special?

 

Seriously, it is no wonder we lost the same sex marriage fight if this is how we operate. It is humiliating that so many are flocking to this crazy person's support. Her actions are so petty. When the Savior told us to expect mockery in this world he did not include an addendum to do things that are actually worthy of mockery to make sure we get enough.

Edited September 4, 2015 by The Nehor

[Russell C McGregor]

Because doctors can refuse to perform services and not get paid for it.

 

She is a public official and is paid by the taxpayers to uphold the law. The people she was refusing were PAYING HER SALARY! She swore an oath when she took the job that she would do her job. She is now violating that oath. So she is a liar and is guilty of defrauding the public. She belongs in jail.

 

 

 

This is a stupid argument. It would not work. Small courthouses in small jurisdictions might only have one clerk. What do you do then if they are an objector?

 

If you don't want to put your livelihood DON'T GET A JOB YOU OBJECT TO! If I got hired at a medical clinic and it got bought out and became an abortion clinic could I insist that I be allowed to keep my job while not dealing with abortions. If I am a Catholic priest who announces the Catholic faith is wrong can I do that without risking my livelihood? Would you respect the right of a soldier in the army to object to what they saw as an immoral war by refusing to participate in that conflict and just hope other soldiers will be able to handle it? Why do you give elected officials this broad exemption from following the rules when they should be under the strictest standards of all? Many faiths refuse to take on any kind of public office because of these kinds of situations. I respect them for it. It is one of the reasons I would not want to work for the government. Why does this woman (and the others out there doing the same thing) think they are so special?

 

Seriously, it is no wonder we lost the same sex marriage fight if this is how we operate. It is humiliating that so many are flocking to this crazy person's support. Her actions are so petty. When the Savior told us to expect mockery in this world he did not include an addendum to do things that are actually worthy of mockery to make sure we get enough.

 

I'll tell you why elected officials -- and everyone else -- ought to be able to opt out of same sex "marriage."  They ought to be able to opt out because same sex "marriage" is an unprecedented innovation that they have a complete right to see as immoral.  Because if only the people who will bend over for it are allowed to work in government, then you will be freezing out anyone who holds to traditional values and still has a conscience.  Is that how you want your public servants to be chosen?

 

Likewise for people in health care, or in anything remotely or conceivably connected to the wedding industry.

 

And see my updated sig.

[The Nehor]

I'll tell you why elected officials -- and everyone else -- ought to be able to opt out of same sex "marriage."  They ought to be able to opt out because same sex "marriage" is an unprecedented innovation that they have a complete right to see as immoral.  Because if only the people who will bend over for it are allowed to work in government, then you will be freezing out anyone who holds to traditional values and still has a conscience.  Is that how you want your public servants to be chosen?

 

Likewise for people in health care, or in anything remotely or conceivably connected to the wedding industry.

 

And see my updated sig.

 

That sounds convincing if you believe that putting your name on a document endorsing something you disagree with is a violation of your feeble and easily bruised conscience. You just sign the paper, hand it to the people, and move on. Why do we pick this hill to die on? Government officials also have to give marriage certificates to serial adulterers, driver's licenses to sex offenders, business licenses to people who (as Brigham Young said) would defraud the widow of her last cow and go home and pray to God thanking him for the good business deal. Why does no one object to that? Why will just this one thing destroy the soul and alienate one from God?

 

As far as I am concerned if it keeps such limp-wristed (irony intended) easily offended prone to hysterics nutters like this woman out of public office I am all for it. The more we marginalize those people the better. Meanwhile the rest of the Christians and others opposed to same sex marriage who are more stable and less prone to going to pieces and who take the balance between work and faith seriously can get elected and will undoubtedly do a much better job and not make total idiots of themselves.

 

"You may say I'm a dreamer.......but I'm not the only one."

[Russell C McGregor]

That sounds convincing if you believe that putting your name on a document endorsing something you disagree with is a violation of your feeble and easily bruised conscience. You just sign the paper, hand it to the people, and move on. Why do we pick this hill to die on? Government officials also have to give marriage certificates to serial adulterers,

But they're not (yet) being ordered to issue licenses to commit adultery.

driver's licenses to sex offenders,

But they're not (yet) being ordered to issue licenses to commit sexual crimes.

Oh, wait. They are.

Sodomy, for instance.

business licenses to people who (as Brigham Young said) would defraud the widow of her last cow and go home and pray to God thanking him for the good business deal.

Yet again, Nehor, it's not about the people. It's about the specific activity they're being asked to personally endorse.

[Teancum]

I'll tell you why elected officials -- and everyone else -- ought to be able to opt out of same sex "marriage."  They ought to be able to opt out because same sex "marriage" is an unprecedented innovation that they have a complete right to see as immoral.  Because if only the people who will bend over for it are allowed to work in government, then you will be freezing out anyone who holds to traditional values and still has a conscience.  Is that how you want your public servants to be chosen?

 

Likewise for people in health care, or in anything remotely or conceivably connected to the wedding industry.

 

And see my updated sig.

What you espouse is dangerous ground to be treading on.

What if this woman denies a marriage license to a Mormon who wants to wed in an LDS temple? She is after all and evangelical Christian. Who knows but that she may find the LDS church satan spawned and the idea of a temple marriage of exaltation an abomination and mockery of God? What then Russell? It works well when it is what you view as immoral and traditional. Not so much if you are on the other side.

[Russell C McGregor]

What you espouse is dangerous ground to be treading on.

What if this woman denies a marriage license to a Mormon who wants to wed in an LDS temple? She is after all and evangelical Christian. Who knows but that she may find the LDS church satan spawned and the idea of a temple marriage of exaltation an abomination and mockery of God? What then Russell? It works well when it is what you view as immoral and traditional. Not so much if you are on the other side.

Even the most ardently anti-Mormon EV understands that a Mormon marriage is an actual marriage. A same sex "marriage" is not. It is a legal fiction based upon a court-manufactured "right."

But if there were such a person, then the LDS couple drives down the road to an office staffed by someone who knows the difference between apples and oranges.

[The Nehor]

Yet again, Nehor, it's not about the people. It's about the specific activity they're being asked to personally endorse.

 

They are not being asked to endorse it. They are being asked to say that the paperwork was properly filed and both parties agreed. Signing a business license or a liquor license is not an endorsement that the activities of the business are right in the sight of God. You seem to have an overdeveloped sense of the clerk's importance. No one cares what she thinks. No one thinks she is signing off on this marriage being successful or unsuccessful, virtuous or filled with vice and betrayal. That isn't her concern.

 

 

But they're not (yet) being ordered to issue licenses to commit sexual crimes.

Oh, wait. They are.

Sodomy, for instance.

 

Marriage is not primarily about sex and one does not need a marriage license to participate.

 

 

But if there were such a person, then the LDS couple drives down the road to an office staffed by someone who knows the difference between apples and oranges.

 

And if every clerk in the state hated Mormons enough to deny them the license? In the whole region? Would you just keep driving? You would not put up with it if there was legal recourse nor should you. More importantly we should not be setting a legal precedent for it to happen to any disenfranchised group.

 

I think same sex marriage is sin but we lost. It is the law now. Secular law is not perfect but if it does not infringe on our religious rights we fight it legally or just deal with it. And no, this does not by any stretch of the imagination infringe on religious rights. It might be morally dangerous. It almost certainly is but this woman's antics are not helping. All it does is stir up hatred. It convinces no one to change sides, does not alter the law, does not make altering the law more likely, and stirs up the hearts of men to contend against each other and to hate each other.

 

I'll just say it. This little stunt undoubtedly brings a smile to Satan's blackened little heart.

[thatjimguy]

Didn't a church leader mention something about following the law, and if we disagree with it, fight the good fight with debate and teaching until we win with a vote like the system is supposed to be about?

[sjdawg]

Didn't a church leader mention something about following the law, and if we disagree with it, fight the good fight with debate and teaching until we win with a vote like the system is supposed to be about?

Does this undermine the "civil disobedience" argument I've seen apologists use regarding early polygamy? Haha. Sorry. I don't mean to hijack the thread

[Calm]

Call it one of those weird, twist-of-fate things, but I find myself in agreement with Happy Jack Wagon and, consequently, in disagreement with calmoriah. There is a difference between merely refusing to roll over and be a victim and picking a fight by aggressively confronting someone to demand something, however entitled to that thing one may believe one is.

 

As I understand it, Rosa Parks was exhausted after a hard day of work and, on this occasion, was not going to be intimidated into moving. It was a textbook example of passive resistance.

 

Not so with the marriage license seekers. They were not being forced to do anything. As Russell has pointed out, they could have gone elsewhere and gotten what they wanted.

 

I don't agree with what the county clerk is doing, but those who confronted her are far from comparable to Rosa Parks.

19 years before Rosa got offthe bus and took another. Telling those entitled to be married at the county clerk place they have in essence already paid for theservices to be available through taxes to 'get off the bus and use another one' seems to be suggesting a greater comparison.

Now ifthey had just sat there and said not moving as they did originally iirc, that seems to match as well. But Even Rosa attended activist training, this was the fourth confrontation, demanding for the woman who was refusing to follow the law on their behalf---the big difference betewwen Rosa and the couples---seems appropriate to me.

[Calm]

I feel bad for her. I think she's reacting to all this emotionally, caught up in her recent conversion. And maybe not having fully thought things through.

And having bad legal counsel.

[Calm]

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

Including promising as part of their election to uphold all the laws and statues.

[HappyJackWagon]

Do we really want to imbue a lowly governement official like a county clerk, the authority to override the Supreme Court and create & enforce her own law (which she claims is God's law)?

 

She's acting like a tyrant, infringing on the personal liberty and religious liberty of her staff and her constituents.

[KevinG]

Do we really want to imbue a lowly governement official like a county clerk, the authority to override the Supreme Court and create & enforce her own law (which she claims is God's law)?

 

She's acting like a tyrant, infringing on the personal liberty and religious liberty of her staff and her constituents.

 

No distaste reserved for the Supreme Court who created a whole new type of tyranny when insisting the law of one state must be applied in all states?

[Daniel2]

This morning, the couoles finally recieved their marriage licenses, as deputy clerks in Rowan County were finally free to do their job without interference from their boss's imposition of her religion on everyone else.

The best article I've read yet:
 

Stupidity, Not Religion, Put Kim Davis in Jail

1 hour ago

Timothy D. Easley/AP

Kim Davis is in jail. That seems to be what both she and her attorneys wanted.

Ms. Davis may be an elected Democrat, but she is first and foremost a Bible-thumper. She is convinced her job is Guardian of Morals according to the teachings of her fundamentalist sect.

Under Kentucky law, Davis, as a public official, is obligated to fulfill all duties of her position. She refused. In addition, she actively prevented other employees from doing their jobs as well--all because she claims it violates her religious beliefs.

Her attorneys, who are from an anti-gay group designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, have steered her wrongly in terms of the law. They are more interested in creating a martyr for their fund appeals than in giving good legal advice--which calls into question whether they should lose their law licenses for malpractice.

Not only has Davis refused to do her job, she also used her position to forbid assistant clerks from doing their jobs as well. There are clerks in her office willing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis ordered them to refuse service to gay clients because her religion is anti-gay. Davis isn't just demanding the right to drag her religious beliefs into her job. She is also demanding county employees abide by her religious beliefs, as well as local residents, even those in same-sex relationships.

One of her attorneys, Roger Gannam, claims:

"Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And she's been ordered to stay there until she's willing to change her mind, until she's willing to change her conscience about what belief is."

That is a bald-faced lie. Ms. Davis is in jail for contempt of court, not for her beliefs. Her attorney knows this, but the rubes on the Right, whose pockets they want to pick, don't know this. Gannam's statement isn't legally accurate, but it is good publicity for Liberty Counsel's fund appeal letters and e-mails.

Davis maneuvered herself onto the cross and is now the martyr she sought to be.

What she never understood was she was never acting on her own behalf as country clerk.

Davis is a public official doing the work of government. Government should treat all citizens fairly. It doesn't, but should. Davis was not acting on her own behalf. She didn't issue marriage licenses; the county did. She issued them on behalf of the government.

Since she was acting on behalf of the state,her own religious views are utterly immaterial. If they forbid her from doing the job, she had the moral obligation to step down.

Davis has only been in this job a few months. When she took office, it was already widely known that gay marriage would be ruled on shortly. It was also widely speculated that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of marriage equality, especially given the almost unanimous lower court rulings. So, the "hazard" of having to issue same-sex marriage licenses was one she knew was a very real possibility when she took the job. She went into this with eyes wide open.

The marriage license was legally valid because the Country Clerk issued it, not because Kim Davis issued it. She could resign and issue licenses all day long from her home, but that wouldn't make them legal. Kim Davis has no legal authority other than when acting as Clerk, and, when she is acting as County Clerk she is not acting on her own behalf.

As this is the case, her personal religious views are utterly immaterial. The County itself does not hold religious views. State and religion are separate entities. If Ms. Davis is under the impression the County Clerk should have religious beliefs, she is mistaken. The County Clerk is an office, not a person.

What Davis is doing in issuing a license is merely saying two people are legally qualified to enter a marriage. She is not sanctioning the marriage. She is not saying she approves of their choices. She is merely affirming they are legally qualified, nothing more. She is not approving of it, or disapproving of it. If she can't do her job, then she should resign.

If Davis refuses to do the job she was elected to do, she should be impeached, which is the function of the Kentucky legislature. That the Republican dominated legislature refuses to do that is a disservice to Davis and to constitutional government. Local officials don't have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

Davis took this to court by her own actions. She lost. She appealed. She lost again. She appealed again. She lost again. Every step of the way the courts have told her she has no right to refuse to fulfill her job functions. She is now in contempt of court and that is why she is in jail. It is her actions, not her beliefs that landed her there.

(emphasis added)
 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[sethpayne]

Do we really want to imbue a lowly governement official like a county clerk, the authority to override the Supreme Court and create & enforce her own law (which she claims is God's law)?

 

She's acting like a tyrant, infringing on the personal liberty and religious liberty of her staff and her constituents.

 

Yep.

 

And now she sits in jail while marriage licences are legally issued to gay couples.  

 

But hey ... 10 bucks says that she is hired by the Family Research Council and will gain a salary larger than her current government job provides.  

Edited September 4, 2015 by sethpayne

[KevinG]

I am all for Kim Davis being put in jail for contempt of court.  She should have resigned her position.

I am all for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome being put in jail for issuing same sex marriage liscenses before they were the law of the land.  He should have resigned his position.

I am all for Justice Anthony Kennedy being impeached for his judicial activism imposing one state's law on all states over an issue that is not enumerated in the Constitution and upending 200 years of jurisprudence.  He should resign his position.

I am all for Barak Obama being put in jail for contempt of congress.  He should have resigned his position.

I am all for Hillary Clinton being put in jail for braking espionage laws.  She should have resigned her position.

I am all for the mayors of  Washington, D.C.; New York City (see also Illegal immigration in New York City); Jersey City; Los Angeles; Philadelphia, San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; San Jose; Oakland; Salt Lake City; Houston; Detroit; Chicago; Salinas, California; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven; Somerville; Cambridge; and Portland, Maine being put in jail for creating sanctuary cities and failing to uphold several immigration and licensing laws.  They should resign their positions.

 

At least I'm consistent.

Edited September 4, 2015 by KevinG

[Daniel2]

And having bad legal counsel.

 

I tend to agree with the last article I posted... It seems that both Liberty Counsel and Ms. Davis got exactly what they wanted--Ms. Davis ending up in jail.  It appears they are attempting to create a martyr for their cause.  In that sense, their counsel wasn't incompetent--it resulted in their desired outcome.

 

However, both LC's and Ms. Davis's manipulations are so contrived that it seems fairly self evident that in the long run, their actions attempting to create long-term sympathy for their cause will likely backfire.  At least, I hope they'll fail. 

 

Ms. Davis isn't and has never been the victim here--she was the bully, and is now in "detention" for her bad behavior.  She deserves the jail time she could have avoided at multiple turns, and ultimately brought upon herself.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I am all for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome being put in jail for issuing same sex marriage liscenses before they were the law of the land.  He should have resigned his position.

I am all for Justice Anthony Kennedy being impeached for his judicial activism imposing one state's law on all states over an issue that is not enumerated in the Constitution and upending 200 years of jurisprudence.  He should resign his position.

 

 

Who's civil rights did Mr. Newsom violate by issuing same-sex marriage before it was legal?

 

What are you referring to, with regards to Justice Kennedy's alleged "judicial activism" and "imposition of one's state law on all states"?

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[KevinG]

Who's civil rights did Mr. Newsom violate by issuing same-sex marriage before it was legal?

 

What are you referring to, with regards to Justice Kennedy's alleged "judicial activism" and "imposition of one's state law on all states"?

 

Newsome issued licenses in violation of the law at the time.  Very similar to what Davis is held in contempt for.

 

Kennedy upended over 50 years of jurisprudence on civil rights and equal protection under the law by imposing a federal standard from the bench that was not originated in the congress, or enumerated in the constitution, thus forcing states to adopt a law they had no voice in creating.

 

I am in favor of gays having the right to marry, even if it does not agree with my own religious sensibilities.  What offends me more is that 200 years of law has been trampled under the current administration's heavy use of federalism and trampling states ability to self govern.

Edited September 4, 2015 by KevinG

[Ahab]

I struggle understanding this as well. Would people prefer gay individuals NOT commit to a loving relationship? Would they rather them act permiscuously with multiple partners where they are more susceptible to contracting and spreading disease? The fact that gays are moving in the direction of desiring marriage should be applauded and encouraged in my view. It's a healthy evolution for them and for society.

Good grief, No, you still don't get it!!!

Nobody should be having sexual relations with anyone of the same sex, regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is legal or some people think it's an "evolution" in society for everyone on the planet to get onboard with the idea that sexual relatoons between people of the same sex is okay. Those who think same sex sexual relations is okay need to wake up and realuze that it really is not oksy and should not be accepted as if it is okay. Teachers should be deployed all over the world if necessary to teach how and why it is not okay, and those who make laws should be legally required to hear those teachers and get a passing grade from the teachers before being allowed to make any more laws. When any lawmaker makes any law that says it is legal to do something bad we need to have some way to stop those lawmakers from making and upholding bad laws. As it ia now a lot of lawmakers need to be losing their jobs instead of continuing to uphold and make some bad laws.

Kim Davia isn't exactly what I have in my mind as the poster child for the revolution that is needed but at least she is doing the right thing by not upholding bad laws. What we really need though is some way to overturn all of the bad laws on this planet, along with taking all bad lawmakers out of office.

The change that is needed now is an almighty big change.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Ahab

[Daniel2]

Newsome issued licenses in violation of the law at the time. Very similar to what Davis is held in contempt for.

I understand that Newsome issued licenses in violation of the law at the time. But that didn't answer my question, which was: "Who's civil rights did Mr. Newsome violate by issuing marriage licenses before it was legal?" Can you answer that?

Additionally, Mr. Newsome's case is nothing like Ms. Davis' contempt in several key ways:

• First, NO ONE'S civil rights were violated or denied to them when Mr. Newsome issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
• There were no legal proceedings that found that Mr. Newsom was wrong to have issued marriage licenses, as Ms. Davis was in refusing to issue them (at least, none that I am aware).
• Mr. Newsome did not lose multiple appeals that found him to be in violation of the law and calling for a cease and desist, as Ms. Davis lost multiple appeals ordering her to issue marriage licenses.
• And since Mr. Newsom did not lose multiple appeals, no judge ordered Mr. Newsome to be taken into federal custody, as Ms. Davis was.
• Ms. Davis was found at every level to be wrong--including at the highest court of the land.
• Mr. Newsome issued licenses during a period where the court had not yet ruled on the substance of the issues--but when a long series of courts did rule, all the appeals in his juristiction agreed with him; whereas Ms. Davis refused to issue something that said same string of appeals courts affirmed should be issued--entirely different than Mr. Newsome's process.

Mr. Newsome was found at every level to have been right--and his issuance of marriage licenses was upheld by the highest court of the land.

So, you see, Mr. Newsome's justified exoneration and Ms. Davis's justified incarceration are entirely different.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2