Jailed for Contempt (Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis)

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Question...I don't feel strongly about this case - in either direction.  I saw a meme today on Facebook though that sparked my curiosity.  It said something to the effect if you are upset about her being put in jail, would you feel the same way if it were a Muslim clerk denying your wife a right to drive because that violates HIS religion.  Thoughts? 

[Guest MormonGator]

Question...I don't feel strongly about this case - in either direction.  I saw a meme today on Facebook though that sparked my curiosity.  It said something to the effect if you are upset about her being put in jail, would you feel the same way if it were a Muslim clerk denying your wife a right to drive because that violates HIS religion.  Thoughts? 

 Great question, and one I have a cynical answer too. 

The right will say "She needs to follow the law, get over it." 

The left will say "She's celebrating her religion, go to another clerk!" 

If the clerk is a Christian-

 

The right will say "She's celebrating her religion, go to another clerk!"

The left will say "She needs to get over it and follow the law" 

 

Sorry, but that's how I feel. It's also the same reason why the left will never argue for gay marriage in a mosque.  

Edited September 6, 2015 by MormonGator

[skippy740]

When you value a religious belief OVER performing the current job duties you were hired to do... then that employee is in violation of their employer/employee contract.

 

That employee should go look for work elsewhere, or become comfortable being uncomfortable.

 

There's no problem hiring a vegetarian to do the work of a butcher... unless they refuse to touch meat after being hired.  Every vegetarian on these cooking competition shows still handle meat and cook with it.  If they were so against meat that they couldn't compete, don't go on the show.

 

 

Now, the only difference is the context.  The job description CHANGED on these county clerks while they were in the office of serving the public.  And that is where the difference lies:  their job is to serve the public and carry out their duties according to the law.

[estradling75]

 Great question, and one I have a cynical answer too. 

The right will say "She needs to follow the law, get over it." 

The left will say "She's celebrating her religion, go to another clerk!" 

If the clerk is a Christian-

 

The right will say "She's celebrating her religion, go to another clerk!"

The left will say "She needs to get over it and follow the law" 

 

Sorry, but that's how I feel. It's also the same reason why the left will never argue for gay marriage in a mosque.  

 

Interesting now please read my response to what should happen for the Christan lady...  Know that my response doesn't change for the Muslim test that was just asked?   So what would you say I am?

[Just_A_Guy]

You are starting your argument with an assumption that simply insults my intelligence.  It will be difficult, but I will try to help you understand by giving you an example -->>

 

"Joseph Smith was a con man, a pedophile, an adulterer, he lead the Danites to kill and murder his enemies, etc etc.  Now let's now have that discussion about Mormonism."

 

There is nothing to talk about, we have no common ground for a discussion.  He sees that anything I say is just trying to defend the indefensible. 

 

-->> whenever you inject the nazis into a discussion, that is the end of any intelligent discourse.  

"I am on the side of the angels, and if you disagree with me, you are defending the Nazis."

Okay, let's leave the Nazis aside for a moment and you can just answer a couple of relatively simple questions:

 

Your position seems to be that the law's the law, therefore, Davis should suck it up and do something she finds morally abhorrent.  Am I interpreting your position accurately?

 

If so--how abhorrent does something have to be before Davis is permitted to tell her employers "no, I won't do that"--and whose definition of "abhorrent" do we use?

Edited September 7, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

Question...I don't feel strongly about this case - in either direction.  I saw a meme today on Facebook though that sparked my curiosity.  It said something to the effect if you are upset about her being put in jail, would you feel the same way if it were a Muslim clerk denying your wife a right to drive because that violates HIS religion.  Thoughts? 

 

 

When you value a religious belief OVER performing the current job duties you were hired to do... then that employee is in violation of their employer/employee contract.

 

That employee should go look for work elsewhere, or become comfortable being uncomfortable.

 

There's no problem hiring a vegetarian to do the work of a butcher... unless they refuse to touch meat after being hired.  Every vegetarian on these cooking competition shows still handle meat and cook with it.  If they were so against meat that they couldn't compete, don't go on the show.

 

Now, the only difference is the context.  The job description CHANGED on these county clerks while they were in the office of serving the public.  And that is where the difference lies:  their job is to serve the public and carry out their duties according to the law.

 

The thing is, federal law does not require a person who has religious or moral scruples about performing one aspect of their duties, to get out of the business entirely.  In fact, it rather aggressively requires the employer to make accommodations.  Eugene Volokh recently wrote an excellent and readable (if very long) treatment of the topic, here.  Much as the progressives may wish to, they cannot expel conservatives from civil government simply by inserting a "poison pill" duty in each and every public position of any consequence.  (Well, at least, they didn't used to be able to.  Recent developments suggest that at this point, the judiciary is pretty much just making the rules up as they go.)

 

Rowan County may have an obligation to see that the marriage licenses are issued; but it also has an obligation to let Ms. Davis carry out the other aspects of her duty as County Clerk (maintaining land and court records, collecting fees owed to the county, etc) if there's a way to keep her out of the gay marriage business without creating "undue hardship" on the county (whatever that means).

Edited September 7, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

It is my personal belief that all citizens must uphold the law – including and especially those they do not like or agree with some particular law. I believe this lady should go to jail for not respecting the law – but my problem is – for all the government officials that refuse to enforce the law because they do not like a particular law – why is this country starting here – is this particular law so much more important than so many other laws deliberately not enforced – for example immigration laws?

Edited September 7, 2015 by Traveler

[RMGuy]

...and she has been released from jail.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/08/kim-davis-released-jail/71882274/

[Guest MormonGator]

...and she has been released from jail.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/08/kim-davis-released-jail/71882274/

 Thank God.

[Blackmarch]

I"m ambivalent on this one or equally pissed at all sides in the matter, still figuring out which.

[NightSG]

And that is where the difference lies:  their job is to serve the public and carry out their duties according to the law.

The public that elected her overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage.

[NightSG]

Let's see how her detractors defend this one:

http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/this-gay-judge-is-refusing-to-perform-straight-marriages-no-jail-time-no-media-outrage/

[pam]

Unfortunately for her there is now a $1.2M lawsuit filed against her by the band Survivor for her use of their song "Eye of the Tiger."

[Guest Godless]

Let's see how her detractors defend this one:

http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/this-gay-judge-is-refusing-to-perform-straight-marriages-no-jail-time-no-media-outrage/

1. This story is 3 years old.

2. Judges do not issue marriage licenses. They are authorized to perform ceremonies AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION. The county clerk doesn't have that luxury.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Godless

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not ready to condemn Kim Davis for her act of civil disobedience.  She knows what she is doing.  Some even think she's winning.  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-triumph-of-kim-davis/404410/

[Guest Godless]

Update: Davis is now being offered protection (from US Marshalls) from the Oath Keepers, an organization that would almost certainly be labeled as terrorists if their skin color and religious affiliation were different.

link

Edited September 11, 2015 by Godless

[Vort]

Update: Davis is now being offered protection (from US Marshalls) from the Oath Keepers, an organization that would almost certainly be labeled as terrorists if their skin color and religious affiliation were different.

link

 

And we can trust Rachel Maddow to be unbiased.

[Guest]

I'm not ready to condemn Kim Davis for her act of civil disobedience.  She knows what she is doing.  Some even think she's winning.  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-triumph-of-kim-davis/404410/

Talk with me about what you think she is doing and how you think she is winning (if that's what you think). To what extents beyond personally abstaining from homosexuality do you think you and I should copy her in order for us to please God?  And how (in your opinion) should we follow the Savior's example with regard to this issue? Or are my questions better left to a different OP?

Edited September 11, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Guest Godless]

And we can trust Rachel Maddow to be unbiased.

I wouldn't have posted it if there were any doubt about the facts presented in the article. But here you go, straight from the horse's mouth . In this case, I think it sounds more like treason when you take out the liberal bias.

[Guest Godless]

And we can trust Rachel Maddow to be unbiased.

I wouldn't have posted it if there were any doubt about the facts presented in the article. But here you go, straight from the horse's mouth . In this case, I think it sounds more like treason when you take out the liberal bias.

[Vort]

I wouldn't have posted it if there were any doubt about the facts presented in the article. But here you go, straight from the horse's mouth . In this case, I think it sounds more like treason when you take out the liberal bias.

 

I already know the facts. "Oath Keepers" strikes me as an ignorant and potentially subversive overreaction to creeping Leftist practices.

 

I wonder where Rachel Maddow was when California governor Moonbeam Brown was savaging his oath to uphold the law when he openly refused to enforce the democratically imposed Proposition 8.

 

The Left are liars. They invoke ideals of abiding by law only when they think it benefits their position. You can believe literally nothing they say without getting other sources. Rachel Maddow's word is exactly as good as no word at all.

[Just_A_Guy]

2. Judges do not issue marriage licenses. They are authorized to perform ceremonies AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION. The county clerk doesn't have that luxury.

 

Is that why a judge in Oregon is now facing an ethics investigation that was launched due to his refusal to solemnize marriages?

 

Is that why gay rights activists in Utah squealed like pigs at the slaughter when the legislature proposed a bill last session that specifically allowed judges to opt out of performing wedding ceremonies?

 

Re "Oath Keepers":  I'm not gonna get up here and apologize for 'em--they could be an honest-to-gosh hate group for all I know--but I'm pretty sure that "terrorist groups" kill people with some degree of regularity.  Where does Oath Keepers' body count stand at present?

[NightSG]

2. Judges do not issue marriage licenses. They are authorized to perform ceremonies AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION. The county clerk doesn't have that luxury.

Last I checked, bakeries and other privately owned businesses provide products and services at their own discretion. Doesn't stop them from getting sued when they won't violate their beliefs.

[Guest]

Last I checked, bakeries and other privately owned businesses provide products and services at their own discretion. Doesn't stop them from getting sued when they won't violate their beliefs.

I think that's not strictly true in the sense I understand you to be saying. Privately owned businesses which provide products and services have legal obligations where there are federal, or state, or local laws prohibiting discrimination.

Edited September 11, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Just_A_Guy]

Surely you're not saying a public officer has more leeway to discriminate than a private-sector worker?