Calm Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) What can I aay, even out of it I am obsessive:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/02/meet-kim-davis-the-ky-clerk-who-defying-the-supreme-court-refuses-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/"Kim Davis, 49, would have known that when she was narrowly voted into office last November. Her mother had been county clerk for nearly 40 years before her, and for 26 of them Davis had worked under her as deputy. She wasn’t looking to shake things up, she told the Morehead News at the time. She just wanted to do a good job.“My words can never express the appreciation,” she said of the constituents who voted for her, “but I promise to each and every one that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and follow the statutes of this office to the letter......“If I’m elected it will be a seamless transition with no break in services to our citizens,” she promised then. “Licenses, taxes, election-related activities and all of our other services cannot stop or slow down.”.""Justification of not following through on her promise based on following God's law doesn't make it for me given option to resign.Looks like she has invited the attention some:"Davis isn’t the only clerk to reject the Supreme Court’s ruling, but she is certainly the most notorious. That’s in part because of a now viral video that Moore and Ermold filmed in July during their first attempt to obtain a marriage license in Rowan County.But Davis is also the most outspoken of the holdout clerks — she has issued a statement explaining her stance on the issue and is being represented by the public interest law firm Liberty Counsel, which provides free legal assistance for “advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life and the family,” according to its Web site. The Southern Poverty Law Center has called the firm an “anti-LGBT hate group.”" Edited September 3, 2015 by calmoriah 1
MorningStar Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 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.A police officer is required by law to be in a parade or be at a parade? 1
The Nehor Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 A police officer is required by law to be in a parade or be at a parade? Not targeted at you specifically but Christian martyrdom has really gone downhill if police officers not riding in parades, cake bakers who refuse to bake cakes, and county clerks who refuse to perform basic job functions have become our heroes. The martyrs in the fifth seal in the Book of Revelation who died for their beliefs are probably insulted by the comparison. 1
Calm Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) A police officer is required by law to be in a parade or be at a parade?He volunteered to be part of the motorcycle performance patrol. It was part of his duties for that.Not saying he should have been investigated, especially given his past commendation from the gay community for his treatment of a gay couple facing arrest, just pointing that out. They had been doing it for quite some time so if he was unaware, I think it was his own fault as he should have looked at what the job he was interested entailed. I think at this point in time he should have been given a choice to resign from the patrol and not be penalized for a personal feeling if it didn't affect his other as apparently it didn't. Edited September 3, 2015 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) He volunteered to be part of the motorcade patrol. It was part of his duties for that.Not saying he should have been investigated, especially given his past commendation from the gay community for his treatment of a gay couple facing arrest, just pointing that out. They had been doing it for quite some time so if he was unaware, I think it was his own fault as he should have looked at what the job he was interested entailed.Let's review the facts:The worst thing he did was try to swap duties with another officer who wouldn't have minded doing motorcycle stunts in a gay pride parade.When it was clear the chief was upset by it, he would have gone ahead and done the motorcycle show, but the police chief, incensed that he would even bring up the matter, suspended him and then approved a false news release being put out that said he had refused to provide traffic control and blustering about the department refusing to tolerate bigotry and such.This was after the chief suspended him and basically made the work environment too hostile for him to continue.But it's water under the bridge now. The police officer (Moutsos) landed on his feet. He took a job as communications director with the Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank in Salt Lake City.The chief, meanwhile, was forced to resign earlier this year for being too sluggish about obeying the mayor's directive in a case of sexual harassment in the department.Anyway, here a link to the thread about it:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64993-lds-officer-says-he-resigned-due-to-religious-discrimination/And here's the followup thread about the resignation of the police chief:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65491-a-footnote-to-officer-says-he-resigned-due-to-religious-discrimination/Here's the KSL/Deseret News story from last February, when Moutsos went public and issued a six-page statement:http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33605041Edited to add:I don't see how it would have harmed anything or anyone for Burbank to have allowed Moutsos and his fellow officer to follow through on the shift swap as they had arranged. Obviously, Moutsos did not have an attitude problem since, as you note, he had a history of being fair and respectful to gays.All indications are that the department lost a good man when he was coerced into resigning. And apparently, the department needs all the good men it can get, as it apparently has a problem with sexual harassment. Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 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? What would you have every person deciding which law they will obey? It has already started for polygamy.As for the Church we will still not perform polygamous marriages.SEE http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/08/28/sister-wives-polygamists-cite-gay-marriage-ruling-in-court-fights/
Russell C McGregor Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Looks like she has invited the attention some:"Davis isn’t the only clerk to reject the Supreme Court’s ruling, but she is certainly the most notorious. That’s in part because of a now viral video that Moore and Ermold filmed in July during their first attempt to obtain a marriage license in Rowan County.But Davis is also the most outspoken of the holdout clerks — she has issued a statement explaining her stance on the issue and is being represented by the public interest law firm Liberty Counsel, which provides free legal assistance for “advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life and the family,” according to its Web site. The Southern Poverty Law Center has called the firm an “anti-LGBT hate group.”"So they took a video, did they?I wonder how many people routinely video their filing of paperwork with civil servants at government offices?One might almost suspect that they might have been anticipating that it wouldn't be a rubber-stamp exercise.Hmm, I wonder why they might have thought that?Double-hmm, I wonder why they didn't just drive a few klicks farther down the road to get their license with no fuss? Save themselves the nationwide humiliation about which they are so pathetically bleating?(Okay, I admit it. I don't really wonder.)So, at best we have a grandstanding county clerk and a couple of grandstanding drama queens -- and the media only notices the clerk's grandstanding.Why am I not surprised?If the roles were reversed, I wonder how long it would take before the usual suspects started sanctimoniously pontificating about "the scent of hypocrisy?" 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 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.I can go along with this.
Calm Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) the media only notices the clerk's grandstanding.Why am I not surprised?I am not sure what you mean, but at least one article I read mentioned the one's yelling and demanding attention while contrasting with another couple who left refusing to be interviewed, they were upset enough iirc.I am pretty sure most mentioned the yelling. Edited September 3, 2015 by calmoriah
Russell C McGregor Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I am not sure what you mean, but at least one article I read mentioned the one's yelling and demanding attention while contrasting with another couple who left refusing to be interviewed, they were upset enough iirc.I am pretty sure most mentioned the yelling. I wasn't so much thinking about the yelling as I was about the obviously contrived setup.
Calm Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I wasn't so much thinking about the yelling as I was about the obviously contrived setup.I guess it was obvious enough they had arranged the first video at least. It was a given for me and didn't need to be said.
CA Steve Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 So they took a video, did they?I wonder how many people routinely video their filing of paperwork with civil servants at government offices?One might almost suspect that they might have been anticipating that it wouldn't be a rubber-stamp exercise.Hmm, I wonder why they might have thought that?Double-hmm, I wonder why they didn't just drive a few klicks farther down the road to get their license with no fuss? Save themselves the nationwide humiliation about which they are so pathetically bleating?(Okay, I admit it. I don't really wonder.)So, at best we have a grandstanding county clerk and a couple of grandstanding drama queens -- and the media only notices the clerk's grandstanding.Why am I not surprised?If the roles were reversed, I wonder how long it would take before the usual suspects started sanctimoniously pontificating about "the scent of hypocrisy?" This is the age where every one with a cell phones can take a video any time anywhere easily.
The Nehor Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I wasn't so much thinking about the yelling as I was about the obviously contrived setup.Just like Rosa Parks. These jerks who set things up are so petty when they try to expose injustice. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Just like Rosa Parks. These jerks who set things up are so petty when they try to expose injustice.I don't think Rosa Parks was trying to pick a fight. Arguably, the gay couples were when they ambushed the county clerk with video cameras. Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I guess it was obvious enough they had arranged the first video at least. It was a given for me and didn't need to be said.I think the point is that it indicates they were spoiling for a fight from the beginning and were determined to make a spectacle.
omni Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) It seems, Ms. Clark should be focusing a little more on her own marriage. It appears she's been married four times and gave birth to twins from her third husband while still married to her first husband. Clearly, she is very pro marriage. Edited September 4, 2015 by omni 1
sjdawg Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 "I'm sure the organization can find other accounting or clerk duties that don't involve marriage licenses for her to do."It appears she is the boss of the department. Finding a comparable job that is open might be hard. Also, isn't it an elected office? Not exactly the same as being hired. But also she would have been aware she could lose her job at anytime the voters ousted her, so not the same as someone who has been working for a company for decades.Personally I don't believe her employer has any obligation (legal or moral) to find other duties for her. She is a public official and obligated to follow the law. If she wants her job duties to be protected by freedom of religion then she needs to go and work for a religious organization
sethpayne Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 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. LOL. Carly Fiorina is a "statist." LOLOLOLOLOL
Yirgacheffe Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Not targeted at you specifically but Christian martyrdom has really gone downhill if police officers not riding in parades, cake bakers who refuse to bake cakes, and county clerks who refuse to perform basic job functions have become our heroes. The martyrs in the fifth seal in the Book of Revelation who died for their beliefs are probably insulted by the comparison.Well maybe it's a step up from being offended because cashiers say happy holidays.
Buckeye Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 LOL. Carly Fiorina is a "statist." LOLOLOLOLOL Apparently Justice Scalia has joined the statist club too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/justice-scalia-explains-why-kim-davis-should-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-or-find-a-new-job/
thesometimesaint Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I don't think Rosa Parks was trying to pick a fight. Arguably, the gay couples were when they ambushed the county clerk with video cameras. Yes she was.https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9aAVehVHyMA0d0snIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=Rosa+Parks+Was+Trying+To+Pick+a+Fight.&vid=e758bc4f767dc6b699322b80be340720&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.%252busR5OlZ60BlYhFe4VLFhg%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D225%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D15p5HB-FpjI&***=Rosa+Parks_Dec+1%2C+1955+achievement&c=0&h=225&w=300&l=198&sigr=11b4huhfh&sigt=112mkb6t0&sigi=12ndn6rbk&age=1169352931&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-005&hsimp=yhs-005&hspart=mozilla&tt=b
The Nehor Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I don't think Rosa Parks was trying to pick a fight. Arguably, the gay couples were when they ambushed the county clerk with video cameras.Wait.......are you serious?
The Nehor Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Well maybe it's a step up from being offended because cashiers say happy holidays.Not sure about that. That is almost cute in its stupidity. This is not.On the bright side many Christians today seem dedicated to fulfilling the prophecy that in the last days many will be easily offended. I am not sure they got the context of the prophecy right though.
thesometimesaint Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”Brigham Young
Calm Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 "Yes she was."Middle aged black woman telling middle age white man "no". In a bus with the front full, a white passenger waiting and she knew the rules, having apparently gotten off a bus for the same reason 19 years before with the same driver according to wiki.I believe she had also been trained in activism but that might have come after.I would agree.
Recommended Posts