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

[The Nehor]

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.

Bull. She is acknowledging that the people meet the legal requirements when she signs not giving consent. No one cares whether she consents or not.

[Guest]

And when the supremacy (intended pun) court one day allows for polygamy for those seeking to move that through the courts...where will we stand then?

[Daniel2]

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.

 

I acknowledge and support that her personal religious views are her own and are none of anyone else's business, just as the religious personal views of those members of the public whom she swore to serve are none of her business. 

 

If she is as sensitive as she seems to you about "not doing anything wrong," then she has the option of keeping her conscience clear and her religious freedom entirely in tact by choosing to step down, so as not to violate the dictates of her own conscience and what she believes God doesn't want her to do.

 

What she doesn't have a right to do is expect to continue receiving a publically-funded (via tax payer money) salary for a position that she refuses to fulfill the public requirements of by declining to serve tax-paying members who contribute to her salary.

[Scott Lloyd]

I acknowledge and support that her personal religious views are her own and are none of anyone else's business, just as the religious personal views of those members of the public whom she swore to serve are none of her business. 

 

If she is as sensitive as she seems to you about "not doing anything wrong," then she has the option of keeping her conscience clear and her religious freedom entirely in tact by choosing to step down, so as not to violate the dictates of her own conscience and what she believes God doesn't want her to do.

 

What she doesn't have a right to do is expect to continue receiving a publically-funded (via tax payer money) salary for a position that she refuses to fulfill the public requirements of by declining to serve tax-paying members who contribute to her salary.

What Ahab seems to me to be saying -- and what I definitely am saying -- is that it is uncharitable and questionable of you to dredge up her past history pertaining to marriages, adultery and what not as a basis on which to discredit her without duly recognizing -- or without even mentioning -- that several years ago, she repented and pledged to give her life over to the service of God and, presumably, has cleaned up her lifestyle since then.

 

I'm saying that if you were in such a position, I would not be inclined to use your past history as ammunition against you in a political debate such as this one.

[Russell C McGregor]

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:

Honestly Daniel, despite our differences, I really thought better of you than this.

[KevinG]

Two wrongs don't make a right...  but if I had to pick a spokesperson for traditional marriage I'd pick someone who hadn't been divorced three times.  

[Calm]

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.

Including apparently where she hides in her office and tells someone else to face the music for her

[Daniel2]

What Ahab seems to me to be saying -- and what I definitely am saying -- is that it is uncharitable and questionable of you to dredge up her past history pertaining to marriages, adultery and what not as a basis on which to discredit her without duly recognizing -- or without even mentioning -- that several years ago, she repented and pledged to give her life over to the service of God and, presumably, has cleaned up her lifestyle since then.

 

I'm saying that if you were in such a position, I would not be inclined to use your past history as ammunition against you in a political debate such as this one.

 

And what I am definitely responding is this:

 

Repentance is a religious process--not a civic one.

 

Whether or not she has "chosen to turn her heart over to Jesus" or "repented and pledged to give her life over to the service of God" have no bearing or relevance to the need for her to do her job as a government employee.

 

You claim that I am being "questionable" and "uncharitable" and you feel I'm being "unforgiving" of her past by bringing it up in this discussion.

 

I would respond by saying any "forgiveness of her past sins" is a religious matter which has nothing to do with the members of the public that she is serving because a) her religion shouldn't come into play at all, in so far as carrying out the duties in service of them as of a county clerk, and b) because "turning her life over to Jesus" and "pledged to give her life over to the service of her God" is entirely irrelevant to those of us who don't believe in Jesus or the Christian God anyway.  So far as her relationship to those she's serving: it doesn't matter what her religious beliefs or behaviors have been.

 

I assert what is "questionable" and "uncharitable" are Ms. Davis's actions to deny the licenses to the very couples in her county who's taxes pay her salary, as well as her doing so in a demeaning fashion of claiming that their relationships are contrary to "God's authority."  That is none of her blankety-blank business, and a clear violation of the need to avoid having a public official establish any one religion over another.  How dare she use her political office to preach her religion at others?!  That is both uncharitable and unconstitutional.

 

So... why did I even bring up the Newsweek article?  Contrary to your's, Ahab's, and Russell's posts indicating otherwise, it wasn't a matter of trying to slander her merely because of her own indiscretions.  I noticed that none of you addressed the substance of my post, which was bolded in the quoted portion you all left out:

 

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.

 

All religion/sin/repentance issues aside, the simple fact remains that Ms. Davis has chosen on four different occasions to exercise her right of civil marriage.  I DO NOT condemn her for her divorces, nor do I even condemn her for her adultery.  After all, I have committed adultery, and I have divorced.  I don't need to forgive her for her past behaviors, because none of them violated or affected me, personally, and I wouldn't expect, ask, or hope that she (or you, Scott) need to forgive me for mine.

 

Yet Ms. Davis claims that allowing gay couples to marry would violate her faith, thereby bringing religion into a civil discussion where religion should have no bearing.

 

Additionally, since Ms. Davis has chosen to marry four different times, she reaches a new level of hypocrisy in denying something to others that she has so willingly embraced in the past.  One of the most poignant moments I thought was when one of the gay couples informed Ms. Davis that their commitment to one another has been continuous for the past 17 years, and then asked her how long her longest marriage has been...?  It was a demonstrative moment highlighting the absurdity of Ms. Davis' passing her own religious judgment on someone she had no business refusing a civil license.

 

Let me be clear:  I DO NOT condemn Ms. Davis for her past indiscretions; I condemn her hypocrisy of holding others to a different standard than she has enjoyed in the past.  She may have repented, but what if some self-righteous, sanctimonious county clerk denied her her second marriage license because of said clerks' religious objections... Heck, what if ALL the other Kentucky county clerks do....???   Does the law protect all of their ability to abstain from doing their job, without repercussions?    

 

Despite my past adultery and divorce, and regardless of my personal beliefs allowing for same-sex marriage, I am not trying to impose my values on others by either forcing others to marry someone of their same-sex, or preventing couples of opposing genders from marrying...

 

And if any religious conviction of mine interfered with my ability to do my job, in the interest of fairness, I would seek other employment.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Daniel2

[Calm]

Two wrongs don't make a right... but if I had to pick a spokesperson for traditional marriage I'd pick someone who hadn't been divorced three times.

The Anti-Nephi-Lehites were great examples of peace loving people...but then we hear the story from their side and not those challenging them.

Making a marriage successful is often seen as decades long work...or rather the expectation level of success raises as time goes on, so probably better for a more traditional 'traditional spokesperson', though someone who holds themseleves up as an example of what can happen when choice goes astray can work at times.

Edited September 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"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"

I don't think this necessarily follows. Previously she could have approved gay marriage along with her own personal behaviour. Now, when she is making the stand...sort of...she may be as strongly against adultery, etc and uphold in the future if she made the choice again for adultery, she would not apply nor want to be given a marriage license.

So not consistent with her entire life, but possibly with her current belief and behaviour system.

Not saying this should stop her from resigning or taking a much stronger civil disobedience stance.

Edited September 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[Brian 2.0]

Someone made this as a joke.  The issue comes into focus a lot more sometimes when you simply switch the religion involved.

 

[Daniel2]

Someone made this as a joke.  The issue comes into focus a lot more sometimes when you simply switch the religion involved.

 

 

Fantastic!!!  Love it...

[Scott Lloyd]

Two wrongs don't make a right...  but if I had to pick a spokesperson for traditional marriage I'd pick someone who hadn't been divorced three times.  

I don't think she's setting herself up as a spokeswoman (I hate the contrived word "spokesperson" and refuse to use it) for traditional marriage. Rather, I see her as simply holding fast to values and ideals that she embraces today even as she acknowledges past wrongdoing. Is there any indication that she sought to be in the media spotlight regarding this thing?

[Yirgacheffe]

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

Best you can do is not let them show

[Scott Lloyd]

And what I am definitely responding is this:

 

Repentance is a religious process--not a civic one.

 

Whether or not she has "chosen to turn her heart over to Jesus" or "repented and pledged to give her life over to the service of God" have no bearing or relevance to the need for her to do her job as a government employee.

 

You claim that I am being "questionable" and "uncharitable" and you feel I'm being "unforgiving" of her past by bringing it up in this discussion.

 

I would respond by saying any "forgiveness of her past sins" is a religious matter which has nothing to do with the members of the public that she is serving because a) her religion shouldn't come into play at all, in so far as carrying out the duties in service of them as of a county clerk, and b) because "turning her life over to Jesus" and "pledged to give her life over to the service of her God" is entirely irrelevant to those of us who don't believe in Jesus or the Christian God anyway.  So far as her relationship to those she's serving: it doesn't matter what her religious beliefs or behaviors have been.

 

I assert what is "questionable" and "uncharitable" are Ms. Davis's actions to deny the licenses to the very couples in her county who's taxes pay her salary, as well as her doing so in a demeaning fashion of claiming that their relationships are contrary to "God's authority."  That is none of her blankety-blank business, and a clear violation of the need to avoid having a public official establish any one religion over another.  How dare she use her political office to preach her religion at others?!  That is both uncharitable and unconstitutional.

 

So... why did I even bring up the Newsweek article?  Contrary to your's, Ahab's, and Russell's posts indicating otherwise, it wasn't a matter of trying to slander her merely because of her own indiscretions.  I noticed that none of you addressed the substance of my post, which was bolded in the quoted portion you all left out:

 

 

All religion/sin/repentance issues aside, the simple fact remains that Ms. Davis has chosen on four different occasions to exercise her right of civil marriage.  I DO NOT condemn her for her divorces, nor do I even condemn her for her adultery.  After all, I have committed adultery, and I have divorced.  I don't need to forgive her for her past behaviors, because none of them violated or affected me, personally, and I wouldn't expect, ask, or hope that she (or you, Scott) need to forgive me for mine.

 

Yet Ms. Davis claims that allowing gay couples to marry would violate her faith, thereby bringing religion into a civil discussion where religion should have no bearing.

 

Additionally, since Ms. Davis has chosen to marry four different times, she reaches a new level of hypocrisy in denying something to others that she has so willingly embraced in the past.  One of the most poignant moments I thought was when one of the gay couples informed Ms. Davis that their commitment to one another has been continuous for the past 17 years, and then asked her how long her longest marriage has been...?  It was a demonstrative moment highlighting the absurdity of Ms. Davis' passing her own religious judgment on someone she had no business refusing a civil license.

 

Let me be clear:  I DO NOT condemn Ms. Davis for her past indiscretions; I condemn her hypocrisy of holding others to a different standard than she has enjoyed in the past.  She may have repented, but what if some self-righteous, sanctimonious county clerk denied her her second marriage license because of said clerks' religious objections... Heck, what if ALL the other Kentucky county clerks do....???   Does the law protect all of their ability to abstain from doing their job, without repercussions?    

 

Despite my past adultery and divorce, and regardless of my personal beliefs allowing for same-sex marriage, I am not trying to impose my values on others by either forcing others to marry someone of their same-sex, or preventing couples of opposing genders from marrying...

 

And if any religious conviction of mine interfered with my ability to do my job, in the interest of fairness, I would seek other employment.

So not professing a religious belief relieves one of the ethical obligation to be forgiving or tolerant of one who has recognized the error of her ways and has determined to change?

 

Interesting. I don't find that appealing at all.

 

I have just found another good reason for holding fast to a religious faith.

[Ahab]

Including apparently where she hides in her office and tells someone else to face the music for her

You mean because she doesn't want to tell others that she isn't approving any marriage registration forms anymore, personally?

Nothing wrong with delegating tasks to others while she still retains the responsibility of what goes on, or doesn't go on, in her office.

And I don't really consider mourning cries to be a form of music.

[Ahab]

And what I am definitely responding is this:

Repentance is a religious process--not a civic one.

Whether or not she has "chosen to turn her heart over to Jesus" or "repented and pledged to give her life over to the service of God" have no bearing or relevance to the need for her to do her job as a government employee.

You claim that I am being "questionable" and "uncharitable" and you feel I'm being "unforgiving" of her past by bringing it up in this discussion.

I would respond by saying any "forgiveness of her past sins" is a religious matter which has nothing to do with the members of the public that she is serving because a) her religion shouldn't come into play at all, in so far as carrying out the duties in service of them as of a county clerk, and b) because "turning her life over to Jesus" and "pledged to give her life over to the service of her God" is entirely irrelevant to those of us who don't believe in Jesus or the Christian God anyway. So far as her relationship to those she's serving: it doesn't matter what her religious beliefs or behaviors have been.

I assert what is "questionable" and "uncharitable" are Ms. Davis's actions to deny the licenses to the very couples in her county who's taxes pay her salary, as well as her doing so in a demeaning fashion of claiming that their relationships are contrary to "God's authority." That is none of her blankety-blank business, and a clear violation of the need to avoid having a public official establish any one religion over another. How dare she use her political office to preach her religion at others?! That is both uncharitable and unconstitutional.

So... why did I even bring up the Newsweek article? Contrary to your's, Ahab's, and Russell's posts indicating otherwise, it wasn't a matter of trying to slander her merely because of her own indiscretions. I noticed that none of you addressed the substance of my post, which was bolded in the quoted portion you all left out:

All religion/sin/repentance issues aside, the simple fact remains that Ms. Davis has chosen on four different occasions to exercise her right of civil marriage. I DO NOT condemn her for her divorces, nor do I even condemn her for her adultery. After all, I have committed adultery, and I have divorced. I don't need to forgive her for her past behaviors, because none of them violated or affected me, personally, and I wouldn't expect, ask, or hope that she (or you, Scott) need to forgive me for mine.

Yet Ms. Davis claims that allowing gay couples to marry would violate her faith, thereby bringing religion into a civil discussion where religion should have no bearing.

Additionally, since Ms. Davis has chosen to marry four different times, she reaches a new level of hypocrisy in denying something to others that she has so willingly embraced in the past. One of the most poignant moments I thought was when one of the gay couples informed Ms. Davis that their commitment to one another has been continuous for the past 17 years, and then asked her how long her longest marriage has been...? It was a demonstrative moment highlighting the absurdity of Ms. Davis' passing her own religious judgment on someone she had no business refusing a civil license.

Let me be clear: I DO NOT condemn Ms. Davis for her past indiscretions; I condemn her hypocrisy of holding others to a different standard than she has enjoyed in the past. She may have repented, but what if some self-righteous, sanctimonious county clerk denied her her second marriage license because of said clerks' religious objections... Heck, what if ALL the other Kentucky county clerks do....??? Does the law protect all of their ability to abstain from doing their job, without repercussions?

Despite my past adultery and divorce, and regardless of my personal beliefs allowing for same-sex marriage, I am not trying to impose my values on others by either forcing others to marry someone of their same-sex, or preventing couples of opposing genders from marrying...

And if any religious conviction of mine interfered with my ability to do my job, in the interest of fairness, I would seek other employment.

We've all done things we shouldn't have done, and all of that is now in the past.

What matters now is what we do now and she is on the right path now by choosing to follow her conscience and do what she believes is the right thing to do.

Personally I am not a fan of peer pressure regardless of who is trying to get me to do something that I don't think I should do.

Unrighteous dominion be damned!!!

[Calm]

I don't think she's setting herself up as a spokeswoman (I hate the contrived word "spokesperson" and refuse to use it) for traditional marriage. Rather, I see her as simply holding fast to values and ideals that she embraces today even as she acknowledges past wrongdoing. Is there any indication that she sought to be in the media spotlight regarding this thing?

Besides running for office for November, I don't know.

If she considered the possibility the SC would decide the way it did and had paid much attention to the media surrounding it, while she may not have sought it out, it seems likely to me she should expect it.

When and what happened the previous times couples came into get a license....my apologies for not searching it out myself maybe later.

[Calm]

So not professing a religious belief relieves one of the ethical obligation to be forgiving or tolerant of one who has recognized the error of her ways and has determined to change?

 

Interesting. I don't find that appealing at all.

 

I have just found another good reason for holding fast to a religious faith.

I think Daniel was referring specificaly to sins and not errors in generals. Nonreligious would believe in being forgiving, but would they label error as sin?

[The Nehor]

What Ahab seems to me to be saying -- and what I definitely am saying -- is that it is uncharitable and questionable of you to dredge up her past history pertaining to marriages, adultery and what not as a basis on which to discredit her without duly recognizing -- or without even mentioning -- that several years ago, she repented and pledged to give her life over to the service of God and, presumably, has cleaned up her lifestyle since then.

 

I'm saying that if you were in such a position, I would not be inclined to use your past history as ammunition against you in a political debate such as this one.

 

With the scum she is working with on her legal case I am not convinced she has repented if that helps.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think Daniel was referring specificaly to sins and not errors in generals. Nonreligious would believe in being forgiving, but would they label error as sin?

Call it error then.

 

I just find the notion remarkable that the concept of forgiveness and respect for reformation in behavior should be limited to people of faith.

 

This is separate and apart from the issue of whether she is right to be refusing to issue marriage licenses. I've not expressed an opinion on that.

 

In fact, I really don't have much interest in this, and will probably disengage from this thread. It just rubbed me the wrong way to see someone's past brought up as a point of character assassination after that person has made a dramatic alteration in her life.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

You mean because she doesn't want to tell others that she isn't approving any marriage registration forms anymore, personally?

Nothing wrong with delegating tasks to others while she still retains the responsibility of what goes on, or doesn't go on, in her office.

And I don't really consider mourning cries to be a form of music.

I think I prefer halconero's position:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65989-county-clerk-defies-federal-appeals-and-scotus-court-orders-against-her-invoking-her-faith-and-religious-freedom/?p=1209532754

[The Nehor]

We've all done things we shouldn't have done, and all of that is now in the past.

What matters now is what we do now and she is on the right path now by choosing to follow her conscience and do what she believes is the right thing to do.

Personally I am not a fan of peer pressure regardless of who is trying to get me to do something that I don't think I should do.

Unrighteous dominion be damned!!!

 

I am not convinced she is on the right path.

 

Do we want Muslims refusing to sign marriage licenses for Christian couples on the grounds that this kafir couple hasn't been paying jizya and is thus ineligible. No, some stupid Christians are in favor of this because they know that smaller religious groups are more protective of their liberties and they figure that only Christians will be able to get away with this discrimination.

 

The cynic in me is also convinced this is a ploy. If a cake-baking establishment can make huge amounts of money from refusing to serve a gay couple think how much she can make if she "stands by her principles" and faces fines and jail time. Morons will turn out their pockets to help her pay the fines and think of the speaking gigs as she talks of her martyrdom 30 days in jail or whatever. If I was an amoral sociopath I would have already jumped on that gravy train.

[Calm]

Call it error then.

I just find the notion remarkable that the concept of forgiveness and respect for reformation in behavior should be limited to people of faith.

.

But I don't think that is what he said. I think he was talking about forgiveness for religious reasons, in this case because she is claiming to follow Jesus better now....and even this is limited to a public/governmentsl responsibility if I am reaing him rightly.

Perhaps if she had made a general statement of apology to the people she hurt and that she was trying to live a life that did not damage people to the best of her understandinding, that is something Daniel would accept.

Otoh, the issue now is religious, so perhaps he sees no such distinction and I am reading it in.

Edited September 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[Russell C McGregor]

Call it error then.

 

I just find the notion remarkable that the concept of forgiveness and respect for reformation in behavior should be limited to people of faith.

 

This is separate and apart from the issue of whether she is right to be refusing to issue marriage licenses. I've not expressed an opinion on that.

I'll happily express mine.

In any plausibly free society, she ought to be able to personally decline to endorse behaviour that goes against her conscience. Just like a police officer ought to be free to personally decline to participate in celebrating any form of immorality, a principle agreed upon by all but the most intolerant and overbearing statists.

That right to personal objection does not, in my view, entitle her to set any policy for her department, other than to implement the law. The county clerk's office is a statutory body, which has no authority to do anything but carry out the laws of her state. If those laws officially endorse immoral acts, then her office is obligated to facilitate that. If those laws mandate racial discrimination, then her office must discriminate. It has no other authority and no discretion in the matter, and if she cannot ensure that her office does its job -- or, alternatively, if she cannot in good conscience make such provision -- then the proper and dignified way for to make her protest is by resigning.

She has no more right to withhold marriage licenses now than the mayor of San Francisco previously had to issue licences not permitted under the laws of his state.