So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

Having now familiarized myself with the Kentucky RFRA, I understand your difference of opinion about the burden of proof on the objector, because of that artful bit of language about a "sincerely held belief." Not good legislation, IMO, but there it is. The courts may well be untangling that in time. But yeah, per you and Volokh, she probably has a good case under the Kentucky law, but that is not the venue for this scrap. I agree with the judge (and the circuit) that her job in determining whether or not the applicants meet the legal requirements for a marriage license does not impinge upon her ability to practice her faith. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.
 
This whole Kim Davis thing is irritating. If she can't follow the law because it conflicts with her beliefs, she should resign her position. We can't have our government employees ignoring and not following the law based on their personal feelings. If she gets away with it, what's next? Whole cities and town ignoring immigration law by making themselves "sanctuary cities"?
 
Krgrecw said:
This whole Kim Davis thing is irritating. If she can't follow the law because it conflicts with her beliefs, she should resign her position. We can't have our government employees ignoring and not following the law based on their personal feelings. If she gets away with it, what's next? Whole cities and town ignoring immigration law by making themselves "sanctuary cities"?
Click to expand...

Hey, we should bring these lawbreakers to justice. You bring a torch, and I'll supply the pitchforks. Before we round the posse up, though, could you explain to me exactly what responsibility American municipalities have to enforce federal immigration law?
 
Julio3000 said:
Having now familiarized myself with the Kentucky RFRA, I understand your difference of opinion about the burden of proof on the objector, because of that artful bit of language about a "sincerely held belief." Not good legislation, IMO, but there it is. The courts may well be untangling that in time. But yeah, per you and Volokh, she probably has a good case under the Kentucky law, but that is not the venue for this scrap. I agree with the judge (and the circuit) that her job in determining whether or not the applicants meet the legal requirements for a marriage license does not impinge upon her ability to practice her faith. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.
Click to expand...

Btw, thanks friend.
 
BedellBrave said:
Btw, thanks friend.
Click to expand...

B, I appreciate your raising the questions of conscience and dissent throughout the thread. It's necessary and thought-provoking even if I don't end up drawing the same conclusions as another might. This whole thread is a reminder that there are a few things that should be blind to personality, politics, and our human weaknesses—justice, conscience, and our multifaceted faiths.
 
Julio3000 said:
Having now familiarized myself with the Kentucky RFRA, I understand your difference of opinion about the burden of proof on the objector, because of that artful bit of language about a "sincerely held belief." Not good legislation, IMO, but there it is. The courts may well be untangling that in time. But yeah, per you and Volokh, she probably has a good case under the Kentucky law, but that is not the venue for this scrap. I agree with the judge (and the circuit) that her job in determining whether or not the applicants meet the legal requirements for a marriage license does not impinge upon her ability to practice her faith. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.
Click to expand...

I think the big difference here, regardless of what the Kentucky RFRA says, is that she took an oath as an elected official to uphold the laws of the US Constitution. This isn't about serving alcohol on a plane. To somehow make that comparison is trite. This is more like George Wallace blocking the schoolhouse door. She may win in Kentucky because of the sentiment, but I think it's really a cop-out.
 
50PoundHead said:
I think the big difference here, regardless of what the Kentucky RFRA says, is that she took an oath as an elected official to uphold the laws of the US Constitution. This isn't about serving alcohol on a plane. To somehow make that comparison is trite. This is more like George Wallace blocking the schoolhouse door. She may win in Kentucky because of the sentiment, but I think it's really a cop-out.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm firmly in the camp that she's more George Wallace than Rosa Parks, or whoever. And I think that Bunning and the Circuit are correct that her free exercise of religion has not been violated, so there is neither a 1st Amendment claim not a federal RFRA complaint. However, she has a legitimate case—not necessarily a winning case, but a legitimate one—under the state law. I understand her putative argument (though not the one her lawyers, who appear to be attention/money-seeking grandstanders, have advanced) better, but I haven't changed my previous opinion that if the dictates of her conscience won't allow her to do her job, she should resign.

On a personal note, I find that the tearful handwringing about HER treatment has obscured the fact that her actions clearly treated some blameless folks like second-class citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top