Kentucky clerk defies gay marriage court order again 'under God's authority'

She's not entitled to the position even if her family members have worked or are working in that office. Hell, she wouldn't even be in the position had voters not agreed to elect her, so the "family tradition" thing doesn't really have any bearing on anything. She's owed nothing except a paycheck in exchange for doing her job (which she's not doing to the satisfaction of those above her).

What does the first ammendement have to do with any of this? She can speak out as much as she wants but that has nothing to do with how she does her job. Pretty much nobody's job is dictated by "free expression".

Let me ask you this: How much support would this woman be getting if she was refusing to hand out hunting licenses because it was against her religion?

-Byshop

Just going to leave this here...

It doesn't matter if they believe this shit or not, their character is just as bad either way. I think it's a combination of corruption and actual stupidity, though.

Huckabee is one of the absolute worst.

Damn the south is so backwards lol...

You misunderstood something there byshop. What i meant was that clearly the job have some importance to her, so why would she be more steadfast in her faith by resigning? Infact if the job has importance, it makes perfect sense for her to fight for it and not just resign on religious grounds, particular not when US have religious freedom via the 1st amendment and federal laws.

So i get why she assumes that would be the case and that her faith would be respect and not ridiculed.

And the 1st amendment Byshop is what states that there is religious freedom, which is why it's important.

Hmm, hunting licenses, do you have any place in the bible that clearly states that hunting is a sin? No? then your question is useless.

If you asked if she would get the support because of moral conviction like with most PETA members, than it would be a different question and it would matter if the job included hunting licenses when she applied.

What part of she works for the government don't you get? Government officials aren't protected by freedom of religion since the government isn't allowed to associate itself with religion (as stated in the first amendment).

What difference does it make what the law was when she applied for the job? The fact is that the law now says that gays can marry. Whether they couldn't before is irrelevant. You can't pay your employees the minimum wage of 10 years ago, you go by what the current law is, same applies here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling-jail/

Ding dong the witch is dead

@Jacanuk: Hey it's obvious that you are angry about this situation, and I get it, but perhaps you should step away from the keyboard at this point. It's just a suggestion which you can feel free to ignore. I'm not a mod who can enforce anything, but I've been posting in OT a long enough to know it might be wise to consider just chilling out for a bit.

It's funny how even die hard right-wing homophobes are against her. Even Fox Nation (Fox News inbred cousin) is against her.

The only people supporting her are people with absolutely no legal knowledge what so ever yet inexplicably think they do, and crazy people.

So if you choose a government job you are suddenly no longer entitled to the same protection and its ok to discriminate?

But then again liberals here and on the street tend to be some of the most close minded people you could ever run into, and it makes it so sad to witness because their tunnel vision like with many people on this forum aparently makes them incapable of seeing the big picture.

Either you have protection for all discrimination within reason or you dont, there is no middle way particular not when said protection is a fundamental part of the foundation the country is built on.

As a government employee she is still entitled to her religious beliefs but they can not interfere with her job. This is a rudimentary concept.

Lets put it this way. It's a free country, I'm allowed to eat as much shit as I want, I can even invite my friends round so we can eat shit together. However I'm not allowed to open a restaurant and sell food covered in my shit, because when I made this business I have agreed to follow the terms and conditions, such as passing a health and safety examination.

When she accepted the job she made an oath to put the law above her personal feelings (while working, she's free to say what ever she wants when off duty). And just like a waiter who shits on your food she has broken that oath.

You don't seem to understand what religious protection means. Religious protection is to prevent say a Muslim county clerk from refusing to issue marriage licences to Christian couples. Which ironically is the exact thing you're supporting.

As a government employee a gay person is still entitled to his/hers sexuality, but they can not interfere with His/her job.

See where you and others argument fail.

People constantly misunderstand what the first amendment is about. The first amendment is about limiting what laws congress can make. It doesn't mean "I'm allowed to do this because of the first amendement", it means "the government can't put into place a law that restricts free speech or religious practice as a private individual". Functionally, they are similar but not exaclty the same.

Keeping her job might make moral sense to her, but here's a bit of a revelation. Everyone who has a belief system thinks that belief system is right. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, people have their own set of morals and they live by them. Extreme anti-abortionists might bomb an abortion clinic because they feel like they are fighting for what they think is morally right. Eco terrorists might destroy a dam if given the chance for the same reason. Laws are in place because we can't always leave this kind of decision up to the invidual. She can feel she's right as much as she wants, and she can choose to fight for her position, but at this point she's very clearly breaking the law and now jailtime is the result of her "struggle".

"Hmm, hunting licenses, do you have any place in the bible that clearly states that hunting is a sin? No? then your question is useless."

This question is very telling about your position because it really makes it seem like you are arguing the legitimacy of gay marriage rather than freedom of religion. Whether or not something is "in the bible" is completely irrelevant -if- you're arguing that this is a freedom of religion issue. Freedom of religion applies to -all- religions, not just Christianity. There can be any number of different things that a person (even a County Clerk) might be expected to do that might be against -some- religion, and the amount of support given to the individual should have no bearing on which religion the person believes in. The only thing that matters is "what are the expecations of the job" and "what is the thing that the person doesn't want to do relative to those expectations and does that create undue hardship on the employer (or in this case, the community as well)".

If I'm wrong then by all means correct me but that's where it seems like you're coming from.

"If you asked if she would get the support because of moral conviction like with most PETA members, than it would be a different question and it would matter if the job included hunting licenses when she applied."

Again, "when she applied" doesn't matter because you (as the employee) have little to no control over what your position entails in the future. I'm not sure where you got the idea that an employee would. But again, this isn't a "different question". It's literally the same question, and that's "what does the job entail" versus "what do you want to do per your religion". The fact that the other question is about gay marriage doesn't change anything unless you are viewing it from the perspective of "yeah, but she has a point because it's gay marriage".

My problem with this whole thing is that everyone on her side is arguing "freedom of religion" but in reality they are arguing "gays shouldn't marry and we can use freedom of religion to support this woman". I don't see anyone arguing "yes, I support gay marriage but I also feel this woman should be allowed to not marry gays if her religion doesn't agree with the idea". Those people don't seem to exist, or if they do then they don't seem to exist in any significant numbers that you would hear about them.

-Byshop

well yeah, what the issue there? If someone's sexuality was somehow preventing them form doing their job, then they should get a different job. Doesn't make much sense because I can't think of a single job where sexuality would have any relevance, but whatever.

A judge seems to think you are full of crap. Hence why she is going to jail. Her religious beliefs are impacting the performance of her duties. That's a big no no.

We can also put it this way.

There are X number of other county clerk offices in close proximity to this office, it's a free country if gay couples and straight do not like the practice of one office, they can go to any of the many other offices. Right?

When she accepted the job there was no question of whether or not gay couples should also have marriage licenses. Therefore again you fail to see that she has every right to demand that her workplace even as a elected government official take her faith serious and do not trample on it as long as its not a unfair burden to them.

Also what? you seem to be severely misguided when it comes to what entails in religious freedom protection. For example some faiths have saturday as a holy day, and that is protected under the religious freedom protection.

It's actually quite astonishing that Jacanuk is still having trouble with this concept.

@Jacanuk: job parameters subject to change is a pretty standard concept. And a change such as issusing gay marrige licenses is a pretty foreseable possibility. It's simply a case of what do my morals tell me to do. Do I go against my views on gay marrige by being part of the process or do I resign because it's too much to ask of me. You don't get to keep your parameters exactly the same.

I don't even know why we bother at this point since it's just wash rinse repeat on the same points

@dave123321: @Aljosa23: I just think he wants the law to be something other than it is and for people to support her position.

Yes people do seem to misunderstand the 1st amendment. But as i put this is not just about the 1st amendment but also about the federal laws protecting religious freedom.

This paragraph fails on a basic thing Byshop, You seem to forget that this is not just about moral, its about faith and what her interpretation of her bible says. And this is not just a matter of some whacky belief that has not grounds or hold in anything for her, this is a established religion , a major US religion. Not just some backwards homebrewed nonsense made up by a madman in his moms basement. And we correctly have laws to protect that established religions members are protected against discrimination based on their religion, so when you can find supreme court decisions confirming that something as ridiculous as not working on a saturday is protected and that an employer should accommodate a employee who is a member of this faith and work on making sure that even if everyone else have to, that he has saturday off. "within the confines of the laws letter of course"

See here you seem to be misunderstanding what i am saying. I have absolute nothing on the legitimacy of gay marriages. What i do how ever look at is that does this women have a reasonable source to her faith, and you cannot argue against that there are passages in the bible that on several occasions explains that homosexual behaviour is a sin. And also describes what happens to sinners. (and yes i know we have the absolute joke catholic religion where you can Ask/pay for forgiveness which just makes them look dumb)

So yes you are wrong. For me this is all about being consistent in one's opinions and not show double standards. So if people like on this board and in general wants equality and acceptance and equal rights for gays, minorities and what else might come up, then that applies to all also religious people that is within reason.

So yes that means that if this women can show a legitimate reasonable source for her faith and beliefs, she should have the exact same protection as someone who have a certain sexuality, when there are laws in place.

So no i am not arguing "gays should not marry" i couldn't give a flying potato, this is about equality.

I'm a Christian and even I can't stand behind her stance on this one. A woman married 4 times is in no position to judge others' marital choices, regardless of sexual orientation.

@Serraph105: yeah that's more and more apparent

Well at least it all turned out for the best. She had to get gay married in jail for protection.

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? (Luke 6:41)

Seems relevant

Although perhaps us dwelling too much on her problems is sort of missing the point of that passage

You really can't say "this is about equality" while simultaneously trying to put Christianity above other religions with comments like "Not just some backwards homebrewed nonsense made up by a madman in his moms basement."

"So yes that means that if this women can show a legitimate reasonable source for her faith and beliefs, she should have the exact same protection as someone who have a certain sexuality, when there are laws in place."

That bolded part is absolutely incorrect. The law quite clearly states the exact opposite of this, in that if someone believes something as a part of their religion they are NOT required to prove the legitimacy of a claimed belief and no religion is considered more or less valid than any other, regardless of how many people practice it in the US.

Okay, so if your views are gay marriage are neutral, you certainly appear to be giving more credence to the issue of gay marriage -because- it's mentioned in the bible. But you can't say "this is how legitimate it is to this religion" when arguing religious freedom because it's not in any way related to the discussion or the law. If you look again at the ADL link I posted:

http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/religfreeres/ReligAccommodWPlace-docx.pdf

Employees do not have to justify or prove anything about their religious belief to the employer (for example, the employee need not provide a note from clergy): an employer is required to accommodate - subject to the undue hardship rule - any of the employee's sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Although the law requires that employers must accommodate "sincerely held" religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements, courts rarely question either the sincerity or religiosity of a particular belief. The law's intention is to provide protection and accommodation for a broad spectrum of religious practices and belief - not merely those beliefs based upon organized or recognized teachings of a particular religion. Therefore, religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others to be entitled to protection and courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.In short, the fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief.

So yeah, if someone said their religion prohibits them from wearing blue because Cthulhu doesn't like it, that's no more or less legit than any other belief in the eyes of the law. It's always, only a question of "what does the job require" versus "what does the employee not want to do because of their beliefs".

-Byshop

Yeah, I don't really get down on her too much for that one. At the end of the day, a person's belief system is really their's alone. She can choose to believe in divorce while not believing in gay marriage, although if she points at the bible as the reason then I do think that's a bit hypocritical. That affects my personal opinion of her but it doesn't make her claim and more or less legitimate.

-Byshop

I can't finish watching that. What a fucking idiot...

The judge phrased his response to her perfectly.

@-God-: Why did you tell her she cannot issue marriage licenses to them?

I did no such thing, she is delusional.

yeah yeah, our arguements "failed" on the internets. Mean while in reality gay marriage is legal, and this woman was sent to jail.

While it is unfortunate that this situation resulted in someone going to jail, I suppose the good that will come from this case is a new precedent for fair treatment. It is ironic that someone acting as a representative of law did not understand it thus was removed from her position.

The only unfortunate thing about her going to jail is that people will try to make her a martyr. It would be a lot worse if they didn't throw her in jail.

These people really have the persecution complex down.

acceptable then?

there aren't enough words that will fix that.

it's wilful ignorance at this point. might as well save your keystrokes

And that is coming from you? sorry kiddo but personal attacks is just .... but congrats on showing the bottom.