DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:23 pm**

Or as translated: My rights trump your rights because my right to violate your rights comes from a higher calling, God. I know this woman is the current right-wing test case for their "freedom of religion" cause celeb and that she was just hauled off to jail today for willfully violating a court order by not performing her civil duty to give out requested marriage licenses to ANY couples, gay or straight. By the way, she was hauled off to jail on a judge's decision, probably a right-winger making a martyr out of her, not just fined like the ACLU had requested.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cler ... t-33502590

"God's moral law conflicts with my job duties," Davis told the judge before a federal marshal escorted her out. "You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul."

So if she believes God's moral laws conflict with the performance of her duties, why is she even in a public service job in the first place? I know she's an elected official, but she had to know when she ran for that position that sooner or later, gay marriage was coming, not everyone in the public purview is a Christian and that she would soon be put in a position that violates her morals. Here's what she signed to when she was sworn into office:

Oath of clerk and deputies:

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court:

"I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."

___

— Source: Kentucky Legislative Research Commission

If she can't perform her duties because those duties violate her moral code, why doesn't she just quit? Why should her personal rights trump the general public's rights?

If everyone's looking for a slippery slope to all this "religious freedom" nonsense, here's a little example to think about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-mar ... 76170.html

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:28 pm**

Surely her $80k annual salary had absolutely nothing to do with her decision to not resign. Surely!

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:32 pm**

Kinda seems like a high salary to be paid for not doing the job she was elected for. I'd like a job like that.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:42 pm**

it's the family business. Her mom held the office for a couple decades. Nearly the entire staff is family.

funny take from Twitter(supposed to be the office worker next to her desk):
https://twitter.com/nexttokimdavis

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:45 pm**

That's rich!

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:22 pm**

loved the one that said,"I suppose God told you not to refill the paper in the copier, too, right?"

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:33 pm**

Oath of clerk and deputies:

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court:

"I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."

___

— Source: Kentucky Legislative Research Commission

Oh, the irony.

I do, however, agree with tunnel's conclusion (though maybe not for the same reasons): if your job asks you to do something against your beliefs, ask for relief from those duties; if the duties are essential to the job, leave the position. (You could replace "job" with almost anything and the statement would remain true... if the situation won't relieve you of a conflict, relieve yourself of it by leaving.)

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:40 pm**

in this case, Kentucky has a law on the books that places a penalty of up to one year in jail and something like $5000 for EACH instance of an elected official or other civil servant willfully refusing to perform the duties of their position. It will be interesting to see if they press charges.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:49 pm**

And yet she will become a religious martyr. I'm looking for prayer vigils to be held outside the prison she is in and, if they were smart, hold vigils outside the home of the judge who ordered her to jail.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:52 pm**

I'm looking for a book deal and a huge contribution from some right wingnut GoFundMe account. Oh, so Christian.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:11 pm**

callmeslick wrote:It will be interesting to see if they press charges.

The right response to a situation like this is to keep her tied up in jail/court for long enough for her to be removed from office, and then try to let it go quietly. Pursuing unnecessary charges -- especially for each violation -- just builds on the martyr narrative. Makes it seem like people are actually being vindictive or intentionally oppressive, instead of just trying to make sure that gays can marry.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:50 pm**

should be a good test of 'separation of church and state'.

and it turns out she's been married four times. Guess it's a case of "I'll do what god says here, but not here."

and: “a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place.” Sound familiar?

--------

related: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Persecution_complex

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:39 am**

Ferno wrote:and it turns out she's been married four times.

From what I understand, she converted after her third divorce.

This forum usually has strong opinions about expecting someone to hold the tenets of a religion they don't belong to. More convenient to ignore since she's wrong about a lot of stuff?

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:01 am**

Also interesting she's a Democrat tho you don't hear much about it in the press.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:05 am**

callmeslick wrote:in this case, Kentucky has a law on the books that places a penalty of up to one year in jail and something like $5000 for EACH instance of an elected official or other civil servant willfully refusing to perform the duties of their position. It will be interesting to see if they press charges.

One defense is when she was elected the law regarding same sex marriages was different...as in same sex marriages were not allowed.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:00 pm**

woodchip wrote:Also interesting she's a Democrat tho you don't hear much about it in the press.

except in every Press report.........at least every reputable source I've ever read.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:03 pm**

Lothar wrote:
Ferno wrote:and it turns out she's been married four times.
From what I understand, she converted after her third divorce.

This forum usually has strong opinions about expecting someone to hold the tenets of a religion they don't belong to. More convenient to ignore since she's wrong about a lot of stuff?

correct. I don't care if she was born evangelical, or converted last Thursday. She has a job, described by law. She is refusing to do that job. The honorable thing to do would have been to resign, but that means her and her immediate family stand to lose around $120,000 per annum. She needs the martyrdom project to raise a lot of money from the rubes, er, faithful, to make that up........call me cynical, if you will.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:12 pm**

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:in this case, Kentucky has a law on the books that places a penalty of up to one year in jail and something like $5000 for EACH instance of an elected official or other civil servant willfully refusing to perform the duties of their position. It will be interesting to see if they press charges.
One defense is when she was elected the law regarding same sex marriages was different...as in same sex marriages were not allowed.

Laws change and she still has an obligation to follow the law and her duties as part of her job description. Our laws were set up in an attempt to be fair to everyone, not just Christians. America is not a theocracy, but a nation of democratic ideals. If her morals conflict with those duties, she should resign and get another job that she's comfortable performing. We have a judge here in Oregon that refuses to issue marriage licenses at all for the same reasons as Davis. But in Oregon's case, judges are not required to issue marriage licenses as part of their job description and there are plenty of alternate legal sources to get a license if a couple needs it.

I noticed that since she's now in jail and not commanding others in her office to follow her orders like a dictator, her underlings have had no problem issuing marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight. The world moves on.

Except for Ted Cruz. It's the end of the world and a Constitutional crisis that needs Christian action to correct. Never mind that not everyone is a "believer", at least as he defines the word. If there is a God, I'd like to thank Him personally for keeping Ted Cruz below 1% in the national polls.

https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-i-cal ... kim-davis/

Ted Cruz wrote:Cruz: I Call Upon Every Believer, Every Constitutionalist, Every Lover of Liberty to Stand with Kim Davis

Statement on Arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

HOUSTON, Texas – U.S. Sen. Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding the arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis:

“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.

“In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

“Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:56 pm**

as was pointed out yesterday, only 3 clerks, nationwide, seem to find this an issue that isn't clear. That is less than 0.1% of all counties. It isn't like some mass revolt here, so once again, I puzzle why on Earth the GOP boys jump onto a bandwagon that is so small as to not be seen on the overall road.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:51 pm**

callmeslick wrote:I puzzle why on Earth the GOP boys jump onto a bandwagon that is so small

Because there's a much larger bandwagon of people who, even if they are kinda-neutral on gay marriage, are scared that they'll be oppressed for their beliefs and this case happens to kind of look like that if you squint at it and ignore the details.

The outcry against the pizza place in rural Indiana that would never be asked to cater a wedding in the first place, when the guy was like "no, I wouldn't cater a gay wedding because that's against my beliefs" and then people started sending death threats and forced them to (temporarily) close... that kind of bull★■◆● is what keeps this kind of bull★■◆● going.

You work for the government? Do your job. If you don't like the law, resign in protest, and work to change the law, but you can't stay in a position of power while you protest. You're homosexual and getting married? Choose caterers who are OK with being a part of your wedding, and stop suing people who would happily serve you in the ordinary course of business but don't want to participate in your ceremony that has heavy religious connotations -- don't ask people to be a part of your personal lives if they shouldn't. You have a business? Serve homosexuals, people of other religions, etc. the same as you serve every other customer, as long as they're not asking you to be involved in their personal lives. You're anybody else? Stop supporting all the types of jerks. Support official government neutrality and private choice, simultaneously.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:59 pm**

Lothar wrote:
callmeslick wrote:I puzzle why on Earth the GOP boys jump onto a bandwagon that is so small
Because there's a much larger bandwagon of people who, even if they are kinda-neutral on gay marriage, are scared that they'll be oppressed for their beliefs and this case happens to kind of look like that if you squint at it and ignore the details.

lotta big 'ifs' there for anyone with functional grey matter. No one is being oppressed for their beliefs. No one was jailed for their beliefs. They were jailed for failure to uphold their sworn duty. She could resign her position and have never served a minute in jail. She could even protest gay marriage in public, if she wanted. I know enough Christians to know very few of them have trouble seeing the difference.

the rest of your post echoes my sentiments.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:16 pm**

Lothar wrote:You work for the government? Do your job. If you don't like the law, resign in protest, and work to change the law, but you can't stay in a position of power while you protest. You're homosexual and getting married? Choose caterers who are OK with being a part of your wedding, and stop suing people who would happily serve you in the ordinary course of business but don't want to participate in your ceremony that has heavy religious connotations -- don't ask people to be a part of your personal lives if they shouldn't. You have a business? Serve homosexuals, people of other religions, etc. the same as you serve every other customer, as long as they're not asking you to be involved in their personal lives. You're anybody else? Stop supporting all the types of jerks. Support official government neutrality and private choice, simultaneously.

The problem with that argument is that if you're doing business in the public sphere, you shouldn't be able to discriminate against one group of people within the general public. Blacks were discriminated against by public businesses that catered to "whites only" and it stank to high heaven as a business practice in the South. Blacks and Jews were bared from purchasing homes in certain neighborhoods for years all over America. It was also found to be a violation of their civil rights. If you want to ONLY cater to those people you wish to do business with, say people of your same moral beliefs, form a private club or company and then do business only by invitation. If a person wants to do business that way and look like the hateful, intolerant jerks they are while pretending to be Godly and forgiving, that's their right.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:01 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:

Laws change and she still has an obligation to follow the law and her duties as part of her job description.

Perhaps she has been watching how Obama operates and decided she didn't need to follow the law either.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:05 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:
The problem with that argument is that if you're doing business in the public sphere, you shouldn't be able to discriminate against one group of people within the general public. Blacks were discriminated against by public businesses that catered to "whites only" and it stank to high heaven as a business practice in the South. Blacks and Jews were bared from purchasing homes in certain neighborhoods for years all over America. It was also found to be a violation of their civil rights. If you want to ONLY cater to those people you wish to do business with, say people of your same moral beliefs, form a private club or company and then do business only by invitation. If a person wants to do business that way and look like the hateful, intolerant jerks they are while pretending to be Godly and forgiving, that's their right.

Except in the pizza case, did the pizza store ever refuse a gay person a pizza? And slick, public intimidation is worse than going before the law. At least in the court you know what the rules are. With intimidation you don't. So you think intimidation is OK when it goes against what you are against?

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:32 pm**

Lothar wrote:
Ferno wrote:and it turns out she's been married four times.
From what I understand, she converted after her third divorce.

That, I didn't know.

One defense is when she was elected the law regarding same sex marriages was different...as in same sex marriages were not allowed.

That would be a chewbacca defense.

stand to lose around $120,000 per annum

Exactly. That's the only reason why she did not resign. But now she's going to make more than that on the right-wing talking circuits about her supposed persecution.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:20 pm**

woodchip wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:

Laws change and she still has an obligation to follow the law and her duties as part of her job description.
Perhaps she has been watching how Obama operates and decided she didn't need to follow the law either.

which could only be the deduction made by a stupid person, which sort of fits her, from what I've seen.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:27 pm**

woodchip wrote:Except in the pizza case, did the pizza store ever refuse a gay person a pizza? And slick, public intimidation is worse than going before the law. At least in the court you know what the rules are. With intimidation you don't. So you think intimidation is OK when it goes against what you are against?

did I ever say a word about the pizza guy, except that it was a dumb move on his part? No. That said, in response to your question, I am somewhat against mass bullying via social media(what you call intimidation). However, we live in a social media world, and if you're going to paint a bullseye on your forehead making public declarations about your personal hatreds, or publish photos of that dead lion you just baited, don't be shocked that the public reacts, en masse.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:49 pm**

woodchip wrote:Except in the pizza case, did the pizza store ever refuse a gay person a pizza? And slick, public intimidation is worse than going before the law. At least in the court you know what the rules are. With intimidation you don't. So you think intimidation is OK when it goes against what you are against?

I have no idea. Maybe no one told him they were gay. If that's the case, he probably already violated his beliefs by serving gays pizza from his storefront. The pizza owner DID refuse to cater a gay wedding. Maybe he should've quit catering to ALL weddings just like Kim Davis did for marriage licenses.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:28 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:The pizza owner DID refuse to cater a gay wedding

... a hypothetical gay wedding. There was not an actual gay couple who hired an actual pizza shop in Indiana to cater their actual wedding. It was just a question asked by someone from a newspaper who was looking for a story about rural bigotry, and asked a leading question to somebody at a pizza parlor.

tunnelcat wrote:The problem with that argument is that if you're doing business in the public sphere, you shouldn't be able to discriminate against one group of people within the general public

You skipped over a great deal of subtlety in my argument. I have not argued that people should be able to discriminate against people in the normal course of business, only that in spheres where someone is being invited to participate in the private lives of others (say, a wedding, bar mitzvah, or other religious ceremony) one should be free to refuse on personal grounds -- you can't refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple, or a black guy, or a Muslim, but you should be able to choose not to cater an event with specific private or religious connotations even if everyone here thinks you're an idiot for your private convictions. And on the other side of that same coin, if you're hiring people to be involved in your private event, you should hire people who are cool with it -- why the F would you want to hire a baker or a photographer who's going to be grumpy at your wedding?

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:37 am**

Lothar, this is a subtle point to the above, but still valid. If you are operating a catering business, open as a public business, NO you cannot refuse to cater an event if hired because of your personal biases. That said, I agree with you that it makes little sense to hire someone like that in the first place.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:25 am**

I doubt a catering service is in the public accommodation category, they do all of their work by appointment and mostly at remote locations, and have every right to be exclusive to a single or limited type of service…such as only doing Jewish weddings, for example.

Ever hear of Jdate, yes they have every right to discriminate as they are not a public accommodation. (yet they are available to the public)

Are you going to tell me a caterer would have to take a job that involved going into a drug house and serving a gang?

Public accommodations include a wide range of different types of business, but do not include every type of business that is open to the public. (defining “open to the public” as being able to be contacted by or available to the public)

If you look at any list of public accommodations you will see that they are mostly permanent structures that serve the general public, and do not include things like maid services, landscaping and contractors for example. (a lot of business is done in this country by contract, even though it may not be obvious)

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:36 am**

as I said, an arcane point. In my opinion the pizza guy was just looking for publicity(which he got) over something that likely was never going to happen anyway.

In a story related to the gay marriage thing, I see that a Tennessee judge has decided to now not grant divorces, whining about the Court intervening in marriage. This should be interesting to see how this goes.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:40 am**

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:05 pm**

Spidey wrote:I doubt a catering service is in the public accommodation category, they do all of their work by appointment and mostly at remote locations, and have every right to be exclusive to a single or limited type of service…such as only doing Jewish weddings, for example.

Ever hear of Jdate.... do not include things like maid services, landscaping and contractors for example

callmeslick wrote:as I said, an arcane point

Seems like a point on which Spidey is correct. Not every type of business is "open to the public" in the same way. For businesses where you're asked to go in to someone's home or place of worship or otherwise to become a part of their personal lives, there are different considerations than for a business where people are coming in to your office and getting the same product/treatment as everyone else. (Simple example: you can choose not to babysit someone's children based on their gender, even though that's normally a protected category. "I'm not comfortable babysitting boys" is a perfectly valid business decision, though making the same decision with a home day-care instead of a travel-to-your-place babysitter would get you in trouble.)

In my opinion the pizza guy was just looking for publicity

If the big-city reporter showed up at a pizza place that was already advertising "no gays" or something, then you could accuse the guy of looking for publicity. But I think it's the opposite -- the pizza guy was just a pizza guy. A big-city reporter went out to his town looking for a story about bigotry, and manufactured one. They didn't have to run the story; they chose to run the story because it was the story the paper wanted to run.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:19 pm**

you might have a point about attempting to manufacture news. Getting back to my take expressed all along, the pizza guy was dumb even if he was simply going along with the ruse.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:14 am**

from a site called #StandwithKim(but only at visiting times):

this is the whole issue in a nutshell regarding Kim Davis.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:23 pm**

The problem of Islam is that Muslims demand tolerance in religion to them, while Muslims themselves do not want to be tolerant towards the religious freedom of others.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:00 pm**

This guy has stated it better than I ever have, even on those other right wing political dog whistles and memes that have been birthed upon us before.

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/rel ... from-here/

sigma wrote:The problem of Islam is that Muslims demand tolerance in religion to them, while Muslims themselves do not want to be tolerant towards the religious freedom of others.

Sounds just like how our Christian Evangelicals and Apostates act towards others who are not of their faith if you ask me.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:57 pm**

From that site…

“Some of us even believe no religious order can be required to ordain a woman, admit a congregant of a proscribed race or, yes, perform a same-sex marriage.”

Why should I give any credibility to a person that can’t understand the difference between a marriage and a wedding?

No church in America can perform a same sex marriage. If you can’t understand the issue at hand, why do you have a right to explain it to me?

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:43 am**

tunnelcat wrote:

Sounds just like how our Christian Evangelicals and Apostates act towards others who are not of their faith if you ask me.

Yeah, I see them chopping heads off every day.

DescentBB

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion

Re: Freedom of Religion