So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

BedellBrave said:
I'm not saying she is. I am saying that her argument is based on her conscience.

50, I'm not a Lutheran and thus not a strict 2 kingdom guy. Both the civil magistrate and the church are under a higher authority than their own.
Click to expand...

That's true Bedell. The "render unto Caesar" approach should always recognize that at base level, it all belongs to God. But in Luther (and it's been awhile for me), the secular authority is in place to manage the world and not necessarily make the world perfect. We hope to witness perfect someday in the great beyond, but it's only a rough approximation down here on the ground.
 
50PoundHead said:
There are countless instances where employees are allowed adjustments to not go against their consciences. I grew up in an era where all males were subject to the military draft, but one could apply for conscientious objector status to avoid military service. However, there was an expectation that in being granted that status, the individual would serve in some other capacity. The difference between Davis and an employee is that Davis is an elected official and has taken an oath to uphold the law. Employees usually do not take such an oath. That is a pretty big difference. If Davis were an employee and didn't want to be involved with gay couples due to her beliefs, I'm sure someone else in the office could assume that duty. Unfortunately for her, as an elected official sworn to uphold the Constitution, Davis doesn't have that luxury. There were likely a bunch of officials throughout the country whose worldview was jostled by the Civil Rights Movement. If they were elected officials, they had the same choice then that Davis does now.

The state is fallible by its very nature. It is man-made. It cannot meet the needs and desires of all. Hence, a consensus needs to be reached and, again, by its nature, consensus will not meet with 100% of the desires of 100% of the people.
Click to expand...

When law changes after one has made that oath, is the only proper recourse for an employee of the state to resign? That's the rub for me. Or is there ever a place for critique from within?
 
I think, as I continue to read about this issue, that Ms. Davis errs chiefly when she doesn't allow any clerks under her to issue marriage licenses. That's a step too far, imho. A reasonable accommodation can be (should be) made (even with government officials).

Anderson, explains a better way - one actually being enacted here in NC:

Link
 
57Brave said:
She was ordered by the Court and defied that order.

That is by law Contempt of Court. Being arrested and put in jail is what happens when you defy a court order.

When for instance a man is ordered to pay back child support and doesn't -- he isn't in jail for not paying child support. He is there for simply not doing what the court told him.

That is why Cruz,Huckabee, Paul etal are railing on about a tyrannical court.
Click to expand...

All they're doing is making a martyr out of her.
 
yeezus said:
it turns people away, makes them sour on it, makes them question it more. as it should. it's pathetic.

being religious at all leads me to question someone's intellect, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that's what you think, because all of your posts on religion seethingly read like Christ ****ed your Mom, but it makes me chuckle to believe that anyone fundamentally seeking a higher being would give a **** about the behavior of other people. If you are weak enough to be 'made sour' by one individual, or a group of individuals, it sounds like your faith was pretty limp to begin with.

'I stopped believing in God because of Kim Davis' is a great line though.
 
BedellBrave said:
When law changes after one has made that oath, is the only proper recourse for an employee of the state to resign? That's the rub for me. Or is there ever a place for critique from within?
Click to expand...

One takes an oath to execute the law as proscribed and laws are subject to change. It's not a seamless comparison, but a number of elected officials in the South had to make similar changes in mindset as Davis has during the Civil Rights Era. I can think of other examples (penalties for drug possession and voter identification) where local officials may not want to comply with the law, but need to. We don't elect county clerks in Minnesota, so it's a bit of a different situation up here and the people applying laws are often employees and not elected officials. But the law is the law. If you don't like it, get it changed. Unfortunately, that won't work for Davis because the Supreme Court has constructed the playing field
 
50PoundHead said:
One takes an oath to execute the law as proscribed and laws are subject to change. It's not a seamless comparison, but a number of elected officials in the South had to make similar changes in mindset as Davis has during the Civil Rights Era. I can think of other examples (penalties for drug possession and voter identification) where local officials may not want to comply with the law, but need to. We don't elect county clerks in Minnesota, so it's a bit of a different situation up here and the people applying laws are often employees and not elected officials. But the law is the law. If you don't like it, get it changed. Unfortunately, that won't work for Davis because the Supreme Court has constructed the playing field
Click to expand...

So there aren't any more options other than compliance or resignation?

We have numerous officials who didn't/don't enforce existing law. Right? Including Eric Holder, sanctuary cities, and the like. It seems most all of us have a place for this sort of dissent, civil disobedience, and critique from within - at least somewhere along the line. Which, imho, can at times be a good thing.

Meanwhile the judge has imprisoned her with an unlimited sentence. Nice that.

One other angle - are oaths absolute? Or is there ever a conditional nature to them? Yeah, I know the idea gets a bit dicey, but it seems like it's really how we take oaths/vows.
 
"Professor Robin F. Wilson of the University of Illinois Law School writes, “A common refrain is that religious objectors in government service should do all of their job or resign. This stance conflates the public receipt of a service offered by the state with the receipt of that service from each and every employee in the office who is available to do it.” In other words, as Wilson says, citizens have a claim to receive certain “services from the state, but they do not necessarily have a claim to receive the service from a particular public servant.”

Religious objection is not a trump card, but employees’ religious objections should be accommodated when possible.

The Rowan County clerk’s demand couldn’t be accommodated. But North Carolina provides a great model for achieving peaceful coexistence going forward."

Again, it looks to me at this point that Davis erred in not allowing others in her office to issue the licenses.
 
Let's not forget that this "conscience" is completely arbitrary and actually a personification of her own intolerance. Her "religion" could just as easily make her more tolerant of others and more likely to honor her position.
 
Runnin said:
Let's not forget that this "conscience" is completely arbitrary and actually a personification of her own intolerance. Her "religion" could just as easily make her more tolerant of others and more likely to honor her position.
Click to expand...

Even if I agreed, I'd still see that as beside the point.
 
BedellBrave said:
Even if I agreed, I'd still see that as beside the point.
Click to expand...
The point is the religion card shouldn't be a panacea for citizens to use whenever they don't want to do something.

As I've said, jail time should've been avoided. Couldn't she have been forced into a leave of absence, even paid, until her term was up?
 
Runnin said:
As I've said, jail time should've been avoided. Couldn't she have been forced into a leave of absence, even paid, until her term was up?
Click to expand...

This is where I'm at. Like BB said, gov't officials, elected or otherwise, act in defiance of the law daily. I don't think throwing her in jail is the right play here.
 
Runnin said:
The point is the religion card shouldn't be a panacea for citizens to use whenever they don't want to do something.

2. As I've said, jail time should've been avoided. Couldn't she have been forced into a leave of absence, even paid, until her term was up?
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I'd go further - I think that the NC route is best. Maybe KY can follow suit.
 
BedellBrave said:
She has been jailed until she changes her view. Let that sink in.
Click to expand...

I personally think it's more like she has been jailed until she changes her strategy. And the government has the right to do that since it set the parameters which she agreed to when she took office. I'm personally very suspect of her motivations, but I think those are irrelevant. The main issue here is how far should government accept vigilantism? And in the end that's what this is.
 
BedellBrave said:
Maybe you should. You see her life and views changed. The meme is intended to point out hypocrisy on her part, yet it conveniently leaves out that she's different now.
Click to expand...

Then she hasn't learned a damn thing from her past

And is even dumber than I already thought
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top