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

[Russell C McGregor]

Agreed.  Including police officers riding formation in a parade.  

Yes, we mustn't ever allow someone's conscience to stop them celebrating wickedness, must we?

Such nonconformity isn't "diverse" enough.

Merely asking to swap duties with another officer is sufficient to make him unfit for his job, right?

[sethpayne]

Yes, we mustn't ever allow someone's conscience to stop them celebrating wickedness, must we?

Such nonconformity isn't "diverse" enough.

Merely asking to swap duties with another officer is sufficient to make him unfit for his job, right?

 

Not when you are a public servant with a salary being paid with tax dollars.  You follow the law.  Because it is your job and because it is the law.  No one is forced to become a public servant.  

 

It's like taking a job as a club bouncer and then taking moral objection to scantily clad young women.  When you are a public servant you serve the public.  ALL of the public.  If you don't like it, then get another job.

[Flyonthewall]

I think she should ask for other duties or step down if she is a contentious objector to the law that has been passed.

...

This is spot on...

[Flyonthewall]

Why face prosecution? Simply fire them.

From the story, because she is an elected official, she cannot be fired - she would need to be impeached.

This is not a speedy process...

[Russell C McGregor]

Not when you are a public servant with a salary being paid with tax dollars.  You follow the law.  Because it is your job and because it is the law.  No one is forced to become a public servant.  

 

It's like taking a job as a club bouncer and then taking moral objection to scantily clad young women.  When you are a public servant you serve the public.  ALL of the public.  If you don't like it, then get another job.

Yes, someone who doesn't want to ride in a parade to celebrate immorality doesn't deserve a job.

[Flyonthewall]

She needs to take into consideration she was not put into office by God so God's authority does not come into play here.

This is not a church calling or position it is a secular position and need to follow the law of the land.

As Jesus said, "render unto Ceasar ...".

If she cannot fulfill her duties, then she needs to step down.

[sethpayne]

Yes, someone who doesn't want to ride in a parade to celebrate immorality doesn't deserve a job.

 

You nailed it.  As a public servant, you are paid to serve the public.  So when you decide -- for whatever reason -- that you don't want to serve the public, you "deserve" to be canned.

[Russell C McGregor]

You nailed it.  As a public servant, you are paid to serve the public.  So when you decide -- for whatever reason -- that you don't want to serve the public, you "deserve" to be canned.

And merely asking to swap assignments with another officer is sufficient.

I understand you perfectly.

[sethpayne]

I think Carly Fiorina said it well:

 

“First, I think that we must protect religious liberties with great passion and be willing to expend a lot of political capital to do so now because it’s clear religious liberty is under assault in many, many ways,” she said. “Having said that, when you are a government employee, I think you take on a different role. When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government.”

 

“And, while I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case. This woman now needs to make a decision that’s conscious — is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as as government employee,” Fiorina continued.

 

 

And:

 

Hewitt then asked whether she would advise the clerk continue practicing civil disobedience.

 

“Given the role that she’s playing. Given the fact that the government is paying her salary, I think that is not appropriate,” she answered. “Now that’s my personal opinion. Others may disagree with that, but I think it’s a very different situation for her than someone in a hospital who’s asked to perform an abortion or someone at a florist who’s asked to serve a gay wedding. I think when you’re a government employee, you are put into a different position honestly.”

 

 

While I don't fully agree with everything Fiorina says here, on the issue of the clerk, she is spot on.

 

(Pardon the source .. "The Blaze" ... blech.  It's the bizarro Huffington Post in so many ways...)

Edited September 2, 2015 by sethpayne

[provoman]

She needs to take into consideration she was not put into office by God so God's authority does not come into play here.

This is not a church calling or position it is a secular position and need to follow the law of the land.

As Jesus said, "render unto Ceasar ...".

If she cannot fulfill her duties, then she needs to step down.

Well there is that verse in the Bible that suggests that God puts people in positions of power or something along those lines. While she has proven herself unfit to fulfill her oath of office in her present capacity (she should be removed from the position) I would not say that she should be placed in the unemployment line. Reassign her to a backroom position.

[The Nehor]

Yes, we mustn't ever allow someone's conscience to stop them celebrating wickedness, must we?

Such nonconformity isn't "diverse" enough.

Merely asking to swap duties with another officer is sufficient to make him unfit for his job, right?

 

If your conscience is so fragile then do not work for the state or seek public office. Works for the Jehovah's Witnesses and many other faiths.

[The Nehor]

Well there is that verse in the Bible that suggests that God puts people in positions of power or something along those lines. While she has proven herself unfit to fulfill her oath of office in her present capacity (she should be removed from the position) I would not say that she should be placed in the unemployment line. Reassign her to a backroom position.

 

Hard to do with an elected official. You can't reassign an elected official to another position. You can arrest them for contempt of court, fine them, and have them removed by whatever processes are in place to do so. I expect at least some of those will happen. If she seriously wants to be a martyr she now has every opportunity to do so.

[Yirgacheffe]

Wait...I thought they still had cooties!

Well you are correct about them still having them but you're 180 out since it's the boys who have cooties

[ERayR]

Well you are correct about them still having them but you're 180 out since it's the boys who have cooties

 

Quick tell me what I can do to get rid of them.  I have a date tomorrow.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

delete

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Buckeye]

Dan Savage said it best: "She Thinks She Works For God When She Actually Works For Caesar" http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/dan_savage_slams_kim_davis

[Zakuska]

If you work at 7-Eleven, will you refuse to sell a 12 pack of beer to a legal adult because consuming alcohol is against your religious beliefs?

 

Kim Davis is not issuing marriage licenses in the name of God. She is issuing them is the name of the state, of which she is an employee.

 

the 7-eleven clerk's name does not appear on the receipt for the 12 pack. Her name appears on the marriage license as the person giving concent.  Apples and Oranges comparison.

[sethpayne]

the 7-eleven clerk's name does not appear on the receipt for the 12 pack. Her name appears on the marriage license as the person giving concent.  Apples and Oranges comparison.

 

Have you worked with POS systems lately?  There is a VERY good chance that the clerk's name could end up on a receipt.

[Buckeye]

the 7-eleven clerk's name does not appear on the receipt for the 12 pack. Her name appears on the marriage license as the person giving concent.  Apples and Oranges comparison.

 

Good heavens. Her name is not evidence of "consent." Clerks don't look a couple over and decide whether they approve of the marriage. The signature evidences that the clerk, as an officer of the state, has verified that the couple meets all the requirements to be married (i.e., proper age, not already married to someone else, etc.). That's it.

 

Edit to add: if a clerk's signature was actually evidence of their personal approval, then all heck would have broken out years ago when clerks who personally supported SSM started issuing licenses to SS couples even though such licenses violated the state's law. Back then, clerks had to turn away SS couples because they didn't meet the state's marriage requirements, even if the clerk personally thought that they should be married. The same principle holds true today. The only thing that's changed is the law excluding SS couples from civil marriage.

 

If you don't want to be a business where laws can change, and thereby change your obligations, then don't work for the government. That's the nature of the beast.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Buckeye

[Zakuska]

<snip>

 

If you don't want to be a business where laws can change, and thereby change your obligations, then don't work for the government. That's the nature of the beast.

 

I agree completely. She should step down. However, I also see some slippage down the slope in so doing.

[Daniel2]

Ms. Davis' has come under quite a bit of scrutiny since entrenching herself in her stance, and at least one takeaway seems to be that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

Newsweek revealed today that when she decided to divorce husband #1, Ms. Davis was already 4 months pregnant with husband #3's biological twin children (that wasn't a typo--yes, husband #3...)... but then the twins were actually adopted by husband #2... but then Ms. Davis ultimately divorced adoptive-father husband #2 and married the actual father of of the twins (husband #3)... before divorcing again (this time, husband #3) and now being married to husband #4. 

 

So, Ms. Davis' unbiblical marital conduct isn't merely limited divorce and re-marriage; it also includes adultery.

 

In acknowledging the above, the following post I made earlier in this thread is all the more significant:

 

 

Many have commented on the fact that Davis herself has been divorced several times. As a strategic matter, this makes her a rather poor poster child for "traditional Christian marriage": Jesus himself treats divorce and remarriage as akin to adultery. But the point is not merely ad hominem: Davis's willingness to impose a standard of marriage on gays that she does not apply to others, herself included, shows that she's less interested in enforcing a consistent traditional Christian view than in singling out gays for disapproval. In its Obergefell decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rightly rejected such treatment as an affront to dignity and equal treatment under the law.

 

Private citizens are free to express their religious views about homosexuality — however hypocritically and inconsistently — and to practice their faith as they see fit. But religious liberty is not a "get out of your job free" card.

 

(emphasis added)

Edited September 2, 2015 by Daniel2

[Ahab]

Ms. Davis' has come under quite a bit of scrutiny since entrenching herself in her stance, and at least one takeaway seems to be that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Newsweek revealed today that when she decided to divorce husband #1, Ms. Davis was already 4 months pregnant with husband #3's biological twin children (that wasn't a typo--yes, husband #3...)... but then the twins were actually adopted by husband #2... but then Ms. Davis ultimately divorced adoptive-father husband #2 and married the actual father of of the twins (husband #3)... before divorcing again (this time, husband #3) and now being married to husband #4.

So, Ms. Davis' unbiblical marital conduct isn't merely limited divorce and re-marriage; it also includes adultery.

In acknowledging the above, the following post I made earlier in this thread is all the more significant:

Perhaps you missed the report that she "turned her life over to Jesus" after all of that, "converting" fairly recently.

She seems to be very sensitive to the idea about trying to avoid doing anything wrong, according to what (she thinks) God doesn't approve of.

I think that if she can't change the system through her efforts that the system will reject her and label her as some kind of rebel. A rebel to a law and system that she doesn't approve of. And her strategy is simply to follow her conscience and not do anything which (she believes) God doesn't approve of.

That's what I admire about her, or how she seems to be. She seems to be very determined not to do anything that goes against her conscience, even to the point of not doing what some others keep telling her she should do when what they are telling her to do doesn't seem right to her.

[Brian 2.0]

I am sorry what is there to discuss? She is wrong. Everyone knows that and so does she. She has no case and will be held in contempt.

 

I was a little scared to start reading this thread thinking I might find people cheering her on and defending her actions... thankfully that wasn't the case!   I will cease my hacking efforts to burn MDDB to the ground.  Still some good people here.  

[ALarson]

I just heard on the radio that Davis has been given until the end of today to tell them what she plans to do.  Also, that she has been ordered to appear before a judge tomorrow.  Any truth to either of these?

 

ETA (This may already be included on what has been posted too):

 

A Kentucky judge has called for a hearing for Davis for 11 a.m. on Thursday in Ashland.

 

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Ms. Davis' has come under quite a bit of scrutiny since entrenching herself in her stance, and at least one takeaway seems to be that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

Newsweek revealed today that when she decided to divorce husband #1, Ms. Davis was already 4 months pregnant with husband #3's biological twin children (that wasn't a typo--yes, husband #3...)... but then the twins were actually adopted by husband #2... but then Ms. Davis ultimately divorced adoptive-father husband #2 and married the actual father of of the twins (husband #3)... before divorcing again (this time, husband #3) and now being married to husband #4. 

 

So, Ms. Davis' unbiblical marital conduct isn't merely limited divorce and re-marriage; it also includes adultery.

 

In acknowledging the above, the following post I made earlier in this thread is all the more significant:

This is from an Associated Press story I found online:

 

 

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — Kim Davis sat in a church pew on a Sunday morning about four years ago, listening as the man in the pulpit preached of forgiveness and God's grace.

Davis until then might have seemed an unlikely candidate to wage a moral war over the institution of marriage. She has acknowledged through her attorney that she had made "major mistakes" before she was born again.

But that Sunday morning, as the preacher spoke from the book of Galatians, Davis — then 44 years old — repented and pledged the rest of her life to the service of the Lord.

 

If you had a history of misdeeds for which you had repented, rest assured I would be more disposed to forgive you than you apparently are toward this woman, whether or not I agreed with you politically.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd