No. This is not about standing up any alleged beliefs. This isn't about religion at all. If she truly held such religious convictions, she would have resigned the minute she knew her job would entail doing something that compromised her beliefs. She didn't. Instead, she took this as an opportunity to impose her personal will on people who wanted a legally sanctioned right. She is like a person who instead of going to her church, goes to a different religion's house of worship and disrupts their rituals because she wants to impose her will on them. "All rise . . . " "NO!! You all keep sitting because you, unlike me, have a FALSE god!!!!" Being hateful towards people is not a christian value. No-one is forcing her to change her beliefs or do something she believes interferes with her version of her religion. Working for the government is a privilege, not a right, and if the job requires certain actions she cannot take, she should resign, as the truly pious would do. This isn't about religion. This is about one bad person who refuses to do the job she accepted and took an oath to do. This is about one woman's power trip to impose her personal will on others who have done nothing bad to her.
Beheadings lol. Hey King Calm. Prepare ur butt bro. Summer is over. Half baked wannabe shill. U push propaganda like a chump.
She didn't resign, because federal laws doesn't match state law. A simple solution is offered for this dilemma. Take the clerk of courts off marriage liscenses. They can do that next general assembly. I really don't care, but stop acting like you know something. See everyone can still win.
The Kentucky Constitution in this specific instance is invalidated by the US Constitution. You like to ignore THAT fact though.
The people who are defending Ms.Davies are either delusional, or are well aware that they are wrong regarding the real issue here - namely, that Ms. Davies refused to do her job, and should resign, or be removed for gross negligence of duty. However, they, like Ms. Davies, believe this is an opportunity to express their fear or hatred of gay people as well as their unhappiness with the Supreme Court decision, under the guise of "religious oppression," despite the fact that there is absolutely no religious oppression here. To that end, they will employ fake arguments, such as: 1) Ms. Davies is being jailed for exercising her religious freedoms. No. She was held in contempt of court for not allowing anyone in her Clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to legally deserving couples, despite compromises offered by Kentucky. She violated the law, and the courts, to deny people their Constitutional rights. 2) The law is unconstitutional. No. This is a ridiculous argument that people can decide which laws are constitutional and must be followed, and which laws aren't. 3) Those couples could have gone to another County. No. It is their legal right to be issued a marriage license in their County. They should not be forced, by one woman's malfeasance, to have to travel to another County and shop around for an office that will grant them their Constitutional rights. 4) Ms. Davies was abiding by the Kentucky constitution which defined marriage for that state. No. When the U.S. Constitution operates in the same sphere of influence as a state constitution, the U.S. Constitution controls. This includes areas of Civil Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue, any contrary provision in a state constitution is immediately invalidated. 5) Ms. Davies is the victim of a society intolerant of her religious beliefs. No. Ms. Davies is a public servant trying to force her so-called beliefs on others through her position as a government official. She is the oppressor, not the victim. If she is jailed or fined, that is what we should hope for when a government agent violates the Establishment Clause and tries to force a state religion. I'm sure there are others, just as bogus or more so. Consider this: If instead of marriage licenses, she were refusing to issue gun licenses because she believes "thou shalt not kill." No-one would be defending her from complying with the law, no-one would call the law unconstitutional, no-one would call her a victim, and no-one would argue that her religious beliefs would trump the law or her duties.
tl/dr man wall of text bro. They will change things the next general assembly in Kentucky so Christians can still be clerk of court. Thanks Not just Christians, but Muslims, Jews or anyone else who morally objects. It's part of being in a secular society. Respecting everyone's believes. No matter how YOU feel. Get over it dude.
There's another type of response, avoiding the topic: Here, someone ignores the issue by saying this will be worked out at the next legislative session. The next session was scheduled for February 2016. It may be moved up. However, that does not address the immediate problem of Ms. Davies' refusal to perform her functions as a government official and uphold the law, or resign. Any other lunatics with half-baked arguments or avoidances?
They got it, they can get married. The lady is jail. Geez dude. Get a life. Now we need to make it so people like her can work be clerk of court and still hold to their personal believes. What wrong with that? Ignorant man. Atheist burn down churches and blame it on racist whites to start civil unrest. Top page. Pew pew pew and I can't even spell. Played like checkers.
Hydra there is nothing wrong with her doing her job and holding her beliefs. However she can't use her state job to force her beliefs onto others.
I agree and disagree. I'm part LGBT so bear with me. I agree that you should not stay at a job that interferes with your religious beliefs and will prevent you from completing your duties. Although, I've never worked in a place issuing marriage licenses, I'm sure there are other positions? If not, then she should move along. Where I disagree, she works at a marriage license place, knowing well that she'd have to issue marriage licenses out to LGBT couples. However, she may have thought she could plead her case, that's fine. Where I disagree is where she refused to let her staff issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples. How does she know they had the same religion as her or cared? :|
Heehee guys I don't care about this. Not like you do. I am interested in a harmonious society, that means accommodating all people and all believes. Not catering to division by attack a old lady. Get grip.
I'm not sure I did lose them hydra, I've no issue with her keeping her job as long as she does her job or allows others to do the parts she won't due to her religious belief. She didn't and she's gone to jail which I find tragic, there was a comprise she refused. As for your burning churches comment no religion should fear attack on it's holy shrines or buildings that's discriminating against them and that's just as bad. There needs to be less insistence that there is only one solution to a problem more acceptance and cooperation.
You are the lunatic with a half naked argument. You are ignoring the fact entirely that in no situation, ever, should a woman be forced to quit her job or violate her views. Never. Muslim women throw up a fuss when they are asked to remove their head scarves at work. And they are then allowed to. But every left wing crackpot is screeching that she should have quit her job if it was infringing on her beliefs. No! Never in any sane society would a woman be forced to either violate what she believes in, or quit her job. She has a life. Bills. You don't just quit a job out of the blue. Not often anyway. Imagine if instead she was Muslim, and quite clearly forcing her views on other people as Muslims often do. How would it be handled then? If an innocent precious Muslim woman was thrown in jail for hatin on them gays, THE MUSLIMS WOULD RIOT. The democrats would protest. The hipsters would make hashtags, demanding that that innocent peaceful muslim woman be freed, and that her peaceful religion was being discriminated against by the judge, who could have easily wrote the licenses. Imagine, if you will, the clerk was gay, and refused to let a straight Christian couple marry. How would they handle that? Would the"Gay Rights" trump religious ones still? Nowhere should a woman be forced to quit or violate her beliefs. I can give you many examples of other situations like this, where the victim was Islamic instead, and it went quote differently. She offered Judge Bunning a compromise. She didn't want her name on the licenses. But no. She was going to do it, or her deputies were going to do it, and her name would be pasted all over a gay marriage license. You're all saying that the gay couple shouldn't be forced to go elsewhere, well she shouldn't be forced to do it either. You're nitpicking human rights. What happened to the human right to religion without other infringing on it? The law IS unconstitutional. The Supreme Court does not pass laws like this. It is not allowed to. The Gay Marriage Vote was going from state to state, and in cases where a state voted against it, it was repealed and they were assimilated nonetheless, giving people the false impression that people were voting of their own free will. When the state to state got too tedious, five unelected members passed an illegal bill. And yes, the problem is immediate. There is a Christian woman in jail because she doesn't pander to the homosexual agenda. See something wrong with that? Nobody ever answered my question. This is a prime example of federal government getting FAR too large. Big government is a very bad thing. Tell me how, why, and when it is not. Give me ONE reason why the government should continue to go unchecked like this. First they tell you how to marry. Then they tell you what to say in your churches. Then they tell you who the bad guys are.