So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

I try to be consistent and know that I'm not, but I will say this. If Davis had gone to the higher-ups and said "I really can't issue these licenses due to my religious views. Is there a way we can come up with something that meets with the law, but I'm not directly involved with?" this could have been avoided. Middle-aged mainline Protestant that I am, there are parts of the apostolic tradition that I simply have a difficult time fathoming. It is like she has taken the legitimate Calvinistic profession of faith and figured that if she gets her witness on television, it'll all be for the better.
 
So, I've thought more about this issue personally and this is a tough one for me. I fully support the ability of private businesses to reject demands based on their reasonable personal religious beliefs. With that in mind I continue to not support Davis. Bedell has made some great points and it has given me reason to pause in my thinking, but I think in the end I disagree with her position. And the main reason is that I don't think she has a reasonable religious reason to not sign these secular legal documents. With that in mind I vehemently disagree with the original Supreme Court's decision and I'm saddened that more Americans aren't upset by the court's ruling on this issue.
 
353933CE-F7B9-48E6-8F96-FD3AA033C8EC_zpsje7agzam.jpg
 
50PoundHead said:
I try to be consistent and know that I'm not, but I will say this. If Davis had gone to the higher-ups and said "I really can't issue these licenses due to my religious views. Is there a way we can come up with something that meets with the law, but I'm not directly involved with?" this could have been avoided. Middle-aged mainline Protestant that I am, there are parts of the apostolic tradition that I simply have a difficult time fathoming. It is like she has taken the legitimate Calvinistic profession of faith and figured that if she gets her witness on television, it'll all be for the better.
Click to expand...

Coming from Kentucky myself, there is some rumblings out there she would not even allow her lackeys to issue the license in their name either. This was about her and her disdain for gay marriage. She should have been put in jail for that alone. You give them the license period and if you don't want your name on it, so be it, but you can let another clerk put their names on it, problem solve. But no, you want to be a martyr standing up for the rights of Christians? Christians don't think like that. We let you do what you want, your choice, and if we don't like it and there is another avenue, let it be and let those you think that took your freedom of choice away deal with it.

Resign you hypocritical non Christian acting selfish bitch. You are no Christian me. You want glory, money, fame and other sins you violated as a Christian.

Now if they come to your church and demand to be married on their grounds, this I will stand by you fervently because that is the extent of your freedom in that regard.
 
50PoundHead said:
I try to be consistent and know that I'm not, but I will say this. If Davis had gone to the higher-ups and said "I really can't issue these licenses due to my religious views. Is there a way we can come up with something that meets with the law, but I'm not directly involved with?" this could have been avoided. Middle-aged mainline Protestant that I am, there are parts of the apostolic tradition that I simply have a difficult time fathoming. It is like she has taken the legitimate Calvinistic profession of faith and figured that if she gets her witness on television, it'll all be for the better.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much my take. I think BB has made some important and thought-provoking posts about protecting dissent and the importance of conscience with regard to civil society. Still, even as I didn't applaud her imprisonment, I also felt that she forced the judge's hand by not acting in good faith. If she were truly interested in an accommodation, she could have found one.
 
50PoundHead said:
She was elected before the ruling, but I think she will likely be re-elected.
Click to expand...

Publicity stunt helps but she has no recourse but allow her deputies to issue the license and her being mad that there is nothing she can do about it.

She committed a lot of sins and then want to judge someone else? GTFO. Let it be.
 
50PoundHead said:
She was elected before the ruling, but I think she will likely be re-elected.
Click to expand...

Even so, knowing her and her history -- who voted for her ...
Who votes for a 4 times married, adulterer who bore illegitimate children to be of all things the issuer of licenses.
Musta been the Pro-Life candidate
This whole episode is simply hilarious or pathetic. I go back and forth

My guess is the past weeks just reinforce their support
 
i have no problem with dissent. i love it

if she wants to hold a rally to preach her nonsense in the town square, i support her to do that and if someone denied her a permit, that would anger me

i won't stand with her dissent when it is used to treat someone as not as equal as another though.
 
goldfly said:
i have no problem with dissent. i love it

if she wants to hold a rally to preach her nonsense in the town square, i support her to do that and if someone denied her a permit, that would anger me

i won't stand with her dissent when it is used to treat someone as not as equal as another though.
Click to expand...

I do see this point, as well. I'm a little queasy at the invocation of Dred Scott when what's at issue is some kind of official sanction for otherwise illegal discrimination, not human chattel.
 
50PoundHead said:
I try to be consistent and know that I'm not, but I will say this. If Davis had gone to the higher-ups and said "I really can't issue these licenses due to my religious views. Is there a way we can come up with something that meets with the law, but I'm not directly involved with?" this could have been avoided. Middle-aged mainline Protestant that I am, there are parts of the apostolic tradition that I simply have a difficult time fathoming. It is like she has taken the legitimate Calvinistic profession of faith and figured that if she gets her witness on television, it'll all be for the better.
Click to expand...

Do we know that she didn't?
 
weso1 said:
So, I've thought more about this issue personally and this is a tough one for me. I fully support the ability of private businesses to reject demands based on their reasonable personal religious beliefs. With that in mind I continue to not support Davis. Bedell has made some great points and it has given me reason to pause in my thinking, but I think in the end I disagree with her position. And the main reason is that I don't think she has a reasonable religious reason to not sign these secular legal documents. With that in mind I vehemently disagree with the original Supreme Court's decision and I'm saddened that more Americans aren't upset by the court's ruling on this issue.
Click to expand...

In our legal tradition of handling these accommodation requests, it isn't/hasn't been really the purview of the court to determine the reasonableness of the person's scruple - that's a dangerous place for gov't to go (i.e., becoming the judge of conscience and religious reasoning). Rather, the role is to determine whether it places an undue burden on the employer/agency (i.e., can the request be reasonably accommodated). That answer seems clear in this case to me.
 
goldfly said:
353933CE-F7B9-48E6-8F96-FD3AA033C8EC_zpsje7agzam.jpg
Click to expand...

1. Another meme?
2. It can be argued that she did not break her oath - i.e., it wasn't an absolute oath.
3. We could also argue that within a time period between a SCOTUS ruling and the codification of that ruling on a Federal and here, a State, level, then these issues should be dealt with with more latitude toward conscientious objections that don't demand undue hardship.
4. The interracial argument is a category mistake - a common one.
5. Distinguishing between "civil" and "religious" isn't so black-n-white. Civil laws incorporate and reflect religious views of one stripe or another.
6. I suspect Mr. Takei had no problem with government officials disobeying marriage law before the SCOTUS ruling (i.e., I suspect he's a hypocrite).
 
Julio3000 said:
This is pretty much my take. I think BB has made some important and thought-provoking posts about protecting dissent and the importance of conscience with regard to civil society. Still, even as I didn't applaud her imprisonment, I also felt that she forced the judge's hand by not acting in good faith. If she were truly interested in an accommodation, she could have found one.
Click to expand...

Do you think the accommodation of signing with her title and not her name, which would have fallen within the purview or allowance of Kentucky's RFRA, is onerous?
 
AerchAngel said:
Publicity stunt helps but she has no recourse but allow her deputies to issue the license and her being mad that there is nothing she can do about it.

She committed a lot of sins and then want to judge someone else? GTFO. Let it be.
Click to expand...

1. Her under-deputies don't sign with their names but with her's.
2. She's been trying to do something - the question is, will that accommodation request be granted. Thus far the answer, and it's an unreasonable one imho, is "no."
3. Her past sins are in great part why she hold the view she does now.
4. We all judge others as you are doing now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top