So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

[goldfly]

 

[Runnin]

She has been jailed until she changes her view.

She has a right to her view, well, she used to. I wonder if her prison offers classes on cognitive dissonance. If so, she needs to join.

 

[goldfly]

She has a right to her view, well, she used to. I wonder if her prison offers classes on cognitive dissonance. If so, she needs to join.

She still has the right to her view

She doesn't have the right to not do her sworn oath of a job

 

[BedellBrave]

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.

It accepts "vigilantism" all the time. That's not what this is about.

 

[The Tariff King]

Good thing is GoFundMe has decided to not let her use their site.

 

[BedellBrave]

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

And is even dumber than I already thought

From what I've read she views her life of adultery and marital unfaithfulness before her conversion as sinful and very opposed to the institution of marriage. Again, the meme conveniently - and you conveniently left that part out so as to press the idea of hypocrisy.

 

[BedellBrave]

No I don't

You just don't like my answers

Oh, you most certainly do. Some answers you give I like but very few.

 

[BedellBrave]

That isn't what happened in this case. It didn't serve pork when she was elected.

 

[BedellBrave]

She has a right to her view, well, she used to. I wonder if her prison offers classes on cognitive dissonance. If so, she needs to join.

Yes, maybe they'll begin to have mandatory reeducation courses.

 

[BedellBrave]

Good thing is GoFundMe has decided to not let her use their site.

Good. Maybe we can just keep her in jail till she dies.

 

[jpx7]

Would be fun to have her go to a gay hair person and try to get work done. I wonder what would happen if the gay hair dresser refused her service

I think this hypothetical gay hair-dresser should just cut the bigots hair, for what it's worth.

 

[jpx7]

Such venom in your words. Interesting.

I wouldn't cast stones on that point.

 

[jpx7]

Frankly, I don't think the state has any right to exclude the contract rights of two people of whatever sex who want to form a family unit. In other words, I don't think the state should be in the marriage business. I realize that is an extreme stance and there are dangers in that interpretation of this stance is open to polyamory and group marriage, but I believe that would be the exception and not the rule. Again, as long as people aren't coerced into marriage arrangements and there are protections in the dissolution of the marriage contract, the situation likely wouldn't be that much different than it is with the state involved. Churches should be able to recognize marriages as they see fit. A civil contract does not, and should not, require religious recognition of the union.

When it comes to contracts, I'm probably pretty close to where libertarians are. In the absence of government involvement, things probably devolve into a "lawyers full-employment act," but it could eliminate a lot of hoop-jumping and minutiae avoidance.

I waffle on the whole "business right to refuse service" issue. I can see both sides. To me, it largely depends on context. There's a difference between someone providing a necessary service (food, shelter) and a non-essential service (custom cakes). I don't really buy the argument that access for gays equates access for African-Americans during the Civil Rights Era. The Freedom Riders and the lunch counter demonstrations were aimed at a comprehensive system of discrimination that prevented the rights of a race to do something as simple as drinking at a water fountain. As supportive as I am of gay people, discrimination against them, while still insidious, is not as systematic as Jim Crow was to African-Americans.

Two nail-hitting posts.

 

[jpx7]

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.

That assumes the civil magistrate, and those it was elected or appointed to represent, share and/or consent to your views vis-à-vis a/the higher power—which seems a bit blithely optimistic, and at worst pretty damn unfair. I think the Augustinian Cities model (which is whence Luther was ultimately cribbing) is pretty important heterodoxy for political existence—unless one advocates for a homogenous, totalitarian theocracy.

 

[jpx7]

She has been jailed until she changes her view. Let that sink in.

As has been said, she could resign her position—which is not the same thing as "changing her view." Jail for contempt is not a Hobson's choice in the context of her moral dilemma.

I fully support her right—as a private citizen—to hold her opposing view, even though I disagree with that view; I also generally don't like jailing non-violent offenders, whether they're holding onto drugs or protest-signs or principles. But she knew the conditions of her office and the consequences of refusing those, so at least she shouldn't claim surprise or outrage at the outcome.

Perhaps a separate peace can be arrived at, like that to which you allude, citing the North Carolina example—though it seems like if you're going to permit selective refusal to discharge duties, you're also going to have to ensure there is always someone on-hand who will accede to discharging said duty in place of the refusing party (or risk failing to uphold equal-access protections).

 

[Julio3000]

As has been said, she could resign her position—which is not the same thing as "changing her view." Jail for contempt is not a Hobson's choice in the context of her moral dilemma.

I fully support her right—as a private citizen—to hold her opposing view, even though I disagree with that view; I also generally don't like jailing non-violent offenders, whether they're holding onto drugs or protest-signs or principles. But she knew the conditions of her office and the consequences of refusing those, so at least she shouldn't claim surprise or outrage at the outcome.

Perhaps a separate peace can be arrived at, like that to which you allude, citing the North Carolina example—though it seems like if you're going to permit selective refusal to discharge duties, you're also going to have to ensure there is always someone on-hand who will accede to discharging said duty in place of the refusing party (or risk failing to uphold equal-access protections).

Yeah, this is pretty much where I come down on it.

BB, I find your pleas for sympathy about her imprisonment unconvincing. She essentially forced the judge's hand. She has an open option which she has refused to exercise. She can, and should, resign.

 

[BedellBrave]

I wouldn't cast stones on that point.

No I probably shouldn't. I do think though that when our words get filled with anger, it is good to ask exactly why that is.

 

[BedellBrave]

Btw, I think Mrs. Davis is a heretic. So my "defense" of her isn't due to our being on the same religious/theological team. I would hope I'd be suggesting the same things for an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim clerk who was doing the same thing (well other than her not allowing others in her office to sign the licenses).

 

[BedellBrave]

That assumes the civil magistrate, and those it was elected or appointed to represent, share and/or consent to your views vis-à-vis a/the higher power—which seems a bit blithely optimistic, and at worst pretty damn unfair. I think the Augustinian Cities model (which is whence Luther was ultimately cribbing) is pretty important heterodoxy for political existence—unless one advocates for a homogenous, totalitarian theocracy.

It really doesn't. The magistrate owes allegiance no matter his theological views. As for all your scary words, well they are just that. A conscientious and humble magistrate can of his/her/their own accord recognize there is something/someone higher than their own authority to which they should be mindful.

Btw, you don't have to tell me about the origins of Lutheran or Calvinist theories. I kind of get that and have an idea of where Augustine got his views as well. ;-)

 

[BedellBrave]

1. As has been said, she could resign her position—which is not the same thing as "changing her view." Jail for contempt is not a Hobson's choice in the context of her moral dilemma.

2. I fully support her right—as a private citizen—to hold her opposing view, even though I disagree with that view; I also generally don't like jailing non-violent offenders, whether they're holding onto drugs or protest-signs or principles. But she knew the conditions of her office and the consequences of refusing those, so at least she shouldn't claim surprise or outrage at the outcome.

3. Perhaps a separate peace can be arrived at, like that to which you allude, citing the North Carolina example—though it seems like if you're going to permit selective refusal to discharge duties, you're also going to have to ensure there is always someone on-hand who will accede to discharging said duty in place of the refusing party (or risk failing to uphold equal-access protections).

1. As, a matter of fact, I even said though I do recognize why a lesser magistrate who had made an oath to uphold the law before it was radically gutted, would want to give a critique from within and force the higher magistrate's hand. I actually think there can be something good in doing so - like mayors who make their cities sanctuary cities and refuse to allow the enforcement of immigration law. Don't you think the latter can be a noble step?

2. She doesn't. Right?

3. That's the nature of the NC approach. I think those who won't allow for that approach are more interested in punishing those who hold contrary views.