10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

[Stephanie]

Your saying that we should follow the law based from someone beliefs?
Islam or some Muslims beliefs that according to their god there should be NO female driving a car.
If such person works at DMV beliefs that there should be no female driving a car. Does he or she has the right to deny issuing drivers license?
Also. according to their beliefs women should not expose their face except the eyes. Then refuse to take your DL picture because you are not covering your face.
Are all of those acceptable because of someone's beliefs?

First off, you're so not getting this. See, Davis was a Christian. That's totally different than a Muslim. Muslims can't make us follow Sharia law. That's unconstitutional. But Christians can make us follow Christian dogma. That's freedom of religion.

Get it?

No one can make you follow Christians . but what you all want to do is use this GOVERNMENT and SS to FORCE everyone to follow people they might not agree with their lifestyle. First you had bakers fined and run of business, a pizza parlor received death threats because of people who are homosexual accusing them of discrimination and come to find out there wasn't any, but the damage was already done to them, and now it's come down to watching people be JAILED over the homosexual again claiming discrimination. So it's not the CHRISTIANS doing all that to you people. so you better think this through because you COULD BE NEXT

 

[PaintMyHouse]

10 answers:

Obey the law...
Obey the law...
Obey the law...
Obey the law...
Obey the law...
Obey the law...
Obey the law...
Obey the law...
Obey the law...
And do your fucking job...

 

[sear]

"No one can make you follow Christians ." S #21

They can and do.
"Blue Laws" restrict shopping hours.

I've seen nativity scenes on public land.

And iirc the book oath swearers rest their hand on is the Holy Bible. Presidents get to use their own.

 

[charwin95]

Your saying that we should follow the law based from someone beliefs?
Islam or some Muslims beliefs that according to their god there should be NO female driving a car.
If such person works at DMV beliefs that there should be no female driving a car. Does he or she has the right to deny issuing drivers license?
Also. according to their beliefs women should not expose their face except the eyes. Then refuse to take your DL picture because you are not covering your face.
Are all of those acceptable because of someone's beliefs?

First off, you're so not getting this. See, Davis was a Christian. That's totally different than a Muslim. Muslims can't make us follow Sharia law. That's unconstitutional. But Christians can make us follow Christian dogma. That's freedom of religion.

Get it?

Nope. I'm not sure you understand. A lot of these people are US citizens living and working here in U.S.
As an example. Last week a flight stewardess refuse to serve alcohol because her religious beliefs.

There's a bit of a difference. A stewardess doesn't weild State power. She doesn't act as a gate keeper for state services. A county clerk does.

She refused to do a job she was hired because of her beliefs is no different than Davis.

 

[hazlnut]

Well?

SNIP:
10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

By Joe Rigney

There’s much talk of late about Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She actually stopped issuing all marriage licenses, to avoid the charge of discrimination. She’s now out of jail, although it’s possible she’ll be sent back.

Among those who are sympathetic to her plight and the religious-liberty implications of the case, many (if not most) still think her decision to refuse to issue licenses was wrong.

For example, Russell Moore and Andrew Walker carefully distinguish between private actors (like bakers and florists) and agents of the state. The former should be allowed to refuse participation in a gay wedding, while the latter, when faced with the prospect of violating their sincere religious beliefs, should seek accommodation from the state, and, failing that, should resign. Others who agree with this principle include Eric Teetsel and Rod Dreher (Dreher mentions others in his post).

For all of these commentators, Davis’s refusal to issue the licenses is a radical move that threatens the rule of law and our fundamental constitutional order. Conservatives, they argue, rightly object when government officials refuse to perform their duties (see here and here). Therefore, we ought not join them in similar lawlessness. (Breakpoint has collected a bunch of additional reactions here.)

I respect many of the men making these arguments. Some of them are good friends. But I have some questions about this framing of the issue.

1. Did You Consider if Kim Davis Isn’t the Law Breaker?
Who has violated the rule of law here? Is it Davis or the Supreme Court? If, as many conservatives argue, Obergefell v. Hodges is a legal abomination, and there is no right to same-sex “marriage” in the Constitution, isn’t Davis actually seeking to uphold the constitutional order, the one that we wrote down so we wouldn’t lose it (as opposed to the one that’s rattling around in Anthony Kennedy’s head, which, like all marbles, tends to get lost rather easily)?

2. Is Kim Davis Required to Endorse Lies?
When Davis promised to fulfill her duties, did those duties include “tell lies about the fundamental institutions of society”? If that duty has been added in a blatant power grab by the judiciary, why does she have to go along? Why can’t she continue to fulfill the duties she promised to do (which, I think, incidentally, would mean that she should issue licenses to eligible heterosexual couples)?

3. Whatever Happened to Acting Like Lincoln?
Isn’t Davis doing more or less what Robert George recommended in this post-Obergefell First Things symposium (quoted in full, bolding mine)?

How shall we respond to a lawless decision in which the Supreme Court by the barest of majorities usurps authority vested by the Constitution in the people and their elected representatives? By letting Abraham Lincoln be our guide. Faced with the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, Lincoln declared the ruling to be illegitimate and vowed that he would treat it as such. He squarely faced Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s claim to judicial supremacy and firmly rejected it. To accept it, he said, would be for the American people “to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Today we are faced with the same challenge. Like the Great Emancipator, we must reject and resist an egregious act of judicial usurpation. We must, above all, tell the truth: Obergefell v. Hodges is an illegitimate decision. What Stanford Law School Dean John Ely said of Roe v. Wade applies with equal force to Obergefell: ‘It is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.’ What Justice Byron White said of Roe is also true of Obergefell: It is an act of ‘raw judicial power.’ The lawlessness of these decisions is evident in the fact that they lack any foundation or warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution. The justices responsible for these rulings, whatever their good intentions, are substituting their own views of morality and sound public policy for those of the people and their elected representatives. They have set themselves up as superlegislators possessing a kind of plenary power to impose their judgments on the nation. What could be more unconstitutional—more anti-constitutional—than that?

The rule of law is not the rule of lawyers—even lawyers who are judges. Supreme Court justices are not infallible, nor are they immune from the all-too-human temptation to unlawfully seize power that has not been granted to them. Decisions such as Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell amply demonstrate that. In thinking about how to respond to Obergefell, we must bear in mind that it is not only the institution of marriage that is at stake here—it is also the principle of self-government. And so we must make clear to those candidates for high offices who are seeking our votes, that our willingness to support them depends on their willingness to stand, as Abraham Lincoln stood, for the Constitution, and therefore against judicial decisions—about marriage or anything else—that threaten to place us, to quote Jefferson, ‘under the despotism of an oligarchy.’

4. Doesn’t This Response Legitimize Obergefell?

ALL of it here with comments. :
10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

Typical - Steph isn't bright enough to come up with 10 original question for critics of Davis...?

Just a cut-and-paste dimwit with nothing real to say.

 

[Care4all]

Your saying that we should follow the law based from someone beliefs?
Islam or some Muslims beliefs that according to their god there should be NO female driving a car.
If such person works at DMV beliefs that there should be no female driving a car. Does he or she has the right to deny issuing drivers license?
Also. according to their beliefs women should not expose their face except the eyes. Then refuse to take your DL picture because you are not covering your face.
Are all of those acceptable because of someone's beliefs?

First off, you're so not getting this. See, Davis was a Christian. That's totally different than a Muslim. Muslims can't make us follow Sharia law. That's unconstitutional. But Christians can make us follow Christian dogma. That's freedom of religion.

Get it?

Nope. I'm not sure you understand. A lot of these people are US citizens living and working here in U.S.
As an example. Last week a flight stewardess refuse to serve alcohol because her religious beliefs.

There's a bit of a difference. A stewardess doesn't weild State power. She doesn't act as a gate keeper for state services. A county clerk does.

She refused to do a job she was hired because of her beliefs is no different than Davis.

the government has an obligation not to support one religion over another or over no religion due to the first amendment.

Kim's religious objection to issue marriage licenses should be accommodated, and the citizens should also be accommodated by having other employees who do not have religious objections, issue them.

Kim should not be allowed to force her religion on to other citizens, especially in a gvt position, and threaten to fire her employees that are issuing marriage licenses according to the law....at that point, kim is wrong.

 

[Stephanie]

Now you who is supporting this lady being thrown in jail, have become just as Intolerant as those you accused of being against homosexual marriage. Is that really what you want to be?

snip:
Bake Us a Cake, or Else! Read more at: Bake Us a Cake, or Else! | National Review Online

Read more at: Bake Us a Cake, or Else! | National Review Online

by Ryan T. Anderson & Leslie Ford February 18, 2014 4:00 AM

Marriage laws should not treat religious believers as bigots to be purged from the public square. For years now, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live and love how they choose.

But does that freedom require the government to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships? A growing number of incidents show that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage.

Now comes government coercion and discrimination. Laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. These laws add sexual orientation and gender identity (dubbed SOGI) to the list of protected classes such as those grouped by race, sex, and national origin.

Unfortunately, these sexual orientation and gender laws have serious flaws. They frequently fail to protect the civil liberties of Americans, especially our religious liberty. These SOGI laws tend to be vague and overly broad without clear definitions of what conduct can and cannot be penalized.

The definitions can be entirely subjective: Boise and other cities in Idaho now prohibit even indirect acts that make another person feel he is being “treated as not welcome.” And increasingly these local SOGI laws have criminal penalties, unlike the landmark Civil Rights Law of 1964.

Under the newer laws, family businesses — especially photographers, bakers, florists, and others involved in the wedding industry — have been hauled into court because they declined to provide services for a same-sex ceremony that they viewed as a violation of their religious beliefs. Yes, Americans must be free to live and love how they choose, but we should not use government to penalize those who think and act differently.

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. All Americans should remain free in the public square to act in accordance with their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.

all of it here:
Bake Us a Cake, or Else! | National Review Online

Read more at: Bake Us a Cake, or Else! | National Review Online

 

[Care4all]

stephanie, an exception for those who conscientiously object has been given to her, but kim has CHOSEN to not accept it.

When she chose to force her religion on to her employees by threatening to fire them if they did their job, and on to the citizens, it was no longer her personal religious objection, it was infringing on the rights of others.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I think that there are retroactive issues here, for lack of a better term that I can come up with.

When she got the job gay marriage was illegal. While she's working there, it changes into something shes forced to do. Now, I would support her losing her job, but I absolutely do not agree with her being incarcerated without bond for a civil violation. Jail is for criminals, she didn't violate a law. If she violated a law, what was she arrested for? Contempt? Of civil court? If someone in Judge Judys courtroom tells her to get bent, they go to jail? No. Even thought it's a TV show, its the same concept.

It's basically known as bait and switch. If you're a cop on the beat and one day they make it MANDATORY for you search any black man on the street that you see and a cop refuses, should he be held in contempt? No, he took the job when this wasn't a law. He's violating a direct court order. But he knows this court order is wrong on his beliefs of racial equality and refuses to "shut up and do his job" as one liberal on here put it. Should he be arrested for not patting down every black guy out past dark? It's the same thing.

I admire her for sticking to her religious beliefs. It's about time someone around here does. God bless her and God bless America because we sure the hell need it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think that there are retroactive issues here, for lack of a better term that I can come up with.

When she got the job gay marriage was illegal. While she's working there, it changes into something shes forced to do. Now, I would support her losing her job, but I absolutely do not agree with her being incarcerated without bond for a civil violation. Jail is for criminals, she didn't violate a law. If she violated a law, what was she arrested for? Contempt? Of civil court? If someone in Judge Judys courtroom tells her to get bent, they go to jail? No. Even thought it's a TV show, its the same concept.

It's basically known as bait and switch. If you're a cop on the beat and one day they make it MANDATORY for you search any black man on the street that you see and a cop refuses, should he be held in contempt? No, he took the job when this wasn't a law. He's violating a direct court order. But he knows this court order is wrong on his beliefs of racial equality and refuses to "shut up and do his job" as one liberal on here put it. Should he be arrested for not patting down every black guy out past dark? It's the same thing.

I admire her for sticking to her religious beliefs. It's about time someone around here does. God bless her and God bless America because we sure the hell need it.

Luke 16:13
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

Jesus said one or the other? You and Kim had best choose eh, or be found ignoing the teachings of your Lord...

 

[Care4all]

I think that there are retroactive issues here, for lack of a better term that I can come up with.

When she got the job gay marriage was illegal. While she's working there, it changes into something shes forced to do. Now, I would support her losing her job, but I absolutely do not agree with her being incarcerated without bond for a civil violation. Jail is for criminals, she didn't violate a law. If she violated a law, what was she arrested for? Contempt? Of civil court? If someone in Judge Judys courtroom tells her to get bent, they go to jail? No. Even thought it's a TV show, its the same concept.

It's basically known as bait and switch. If you're a cop on the beat and one day they make it MANDATORY for you search any black man on the street that you see and a cop refuses, should he be held in contempt? No, he took the job when this wasn't a law. He's violating a direct court order. But he knows this court order is wrong on his beliefs of racial equality and refuses to "shut up and do his job" as one liberal on here put it. Should he be arrested for not patting down every black guy out past dark? It's the same thing.

I admire her for sticking to her religious beliefs. It's about time someone around here does. God bless her and God bless America because we sure the hell need it.

in REAL life, you go to jail for contempt of court, there is nothing at all unusual about it....

it would have been unusual if she had not been put in jail for it.

jail is not prison, they are separate entities, with different purposes...

 

[bodecea]

The Supreme Court did not rule that there was a right to same-sex marriage. They ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar same sex couples from marrying, when you allow opposite sex couples to marry.

Simply put....but is it simple enough for Stephanie?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think that there are retroactive issues here, for lack of a better term that I can come up with.

When she got the job gay marriage was illegal. While she's working there, it changes into something shes forced to do. Now, I would support her losing her job, but I absolutely do not agree with her being incarcerated without bond for a civil violation. Jail is for criminals, she didn't violate a law. If she violated a law, what was she arrested for? Contempt? Of civil court? If someone in Judge Judys courtroom tells her to get bent, they go to jail? No. Even thought it's a TV show, its the same concept.

18 USC 401 "Contempt of Court" provides that Federal Judges an use fines or confinement in civil cases when an individual refuses to comply with a court order. Every state in the union that I know of has similar contempt empowerment for State level judges when an individual refuses to comply with a court order.

Divorces occur under civil law if a husband (or wife) hides assets and refuses to provide a correct accounting to the court as part of a divorce - can that person ignore the order of the court? It's a civil matter.

An individual intrudes in the live of another, a Judge issues a court order for no contact and to maintain their distance - can the person ignore the order of the court? It's a civil matter.

Contempt? Of civil court? If someone in Judge Judys courtroom tells her to get bent, they go to jail? No. Even thought it's a TV show, its the same concept.

This shows that you don't understand the difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt. You tell a Judge in Federal court to "get bent" and you ass will be slapped in jail under criminal contempt charges generating a criminal record. Civil contempt for failure to comply with a judicial lawful court order is a coercive option that is open to the Judge.

In this case Ms. Davis was confined under civil contempt for failure to comply with the law as a coercive effort. She was released with the plaintiff's received their licenses and the coercive approach was no longer needed. She was also ordered not to interfere with the issuance of future marriage licenses. Monday we will find out if she attempts to do that again, in which case she will be back before the judge. At this point the choice is hers.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

I think that there are retroactive issues here, for lack of a better term that I can come up with.

When she got the job gay marriage was illegal. While she's working there, it changes into something shes forced to do. Now, I would support her losing her job, but I absolutely do not agree with her being incarcerated without bond for a civil violation. Jail is for criminals, she didn't violate a law. If she violated a law, what was she arrested for? Contempt? Of civil court? If someone in Judge Judys courtroom tells her to get bent, they go to jail? No. Even thought it's a TV show, its the same concept.

It's basically known as bait and switch. If you're a cop on the beat and one day they make it MANDATORY for you search any black man on the street that you see and a cop refuses, should he be held in contempt? No, he took the job when this wasn't a law. He's violating a direct court order. But he knows this court order is wrong on his beliefs of racial equality and refuses to "shut up and do his job" as one liberal on here put it. Should he be arrested for not patting down every black guy out past dark? It's the same thing.

I admire her for sticking to her religious beliefs. It's about time someone around here does. God bless her and God bless America because we sure the hell need it.

So..any laws that pass after a President is elected he/she is not obligated to follow? Any laws struck down as unConstitutional after a President is elected, that President can still enforce those laws?

 

[Wildman]

...the Supreme Court ruling...

"ruling" ?? or making new law, which they are not Constitutionally allowed to do....., RIGHT ????

 

[Stephanie]

stephanie, an exception for those who conscientiously object has been given to her, but kim has CHOSEN to not accept it.

When she chose to force her religion on to her employees by threatening to fire them if they did their job, and on to the citizens, it was no longer her personal religious objection, it was infringing on the rights of others.

where did she threaten to fire them? She couldn't do that even if she wanted to. It seems like everyday there is more nonsense added onto this case to make it all right to treat people who disagrees with homosexual as a crime. and that is a dangerous line we are walking. And it's shameful to see so many of you who I thought were more upstanding people to side with the Jailing of this person all over some piece of paper. I don't know, but this whole thing has turned me off to being asked to be accepting of homosexuals when they aren't going to be accepting of others in the country.

 

[RodISHI]

The judiciary is taking down the rights of the American people one bite at a time.

 

[Care4all]

no, retroactive issues don't cut it...she swore to uphold the law... there are new laws and new regs all the time....

in addition, it is a gvt job that serves ALL the people, she is a public servant...the job is to serve the public, not force the public, to serve her.

also, the case on this was out there in the courts when she ran for office....did she disclose to them that she would refuse to do her job as clerk, if the courts ruled against Kentucky?

and lastly, and a repeat.... an accommodation for her religious objection has been offered to her, she's refusing to take it....from what i have gathered...

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yes but this law goes against her religious beliefs and came out of the blue.

Would you support a Muslim woman being FORCED to remove her headwear in a courtroom if ordered by a judge just because?

 

[bodecea]

The judiciary is taking down the rights of the American people one bite at a time.

Actually, the Judiciary just struck down a law that was withholding equal rights for your fellow citizens. You should be happy for Freedom.....but some people aren't happy unless somewhere someone is treated as "less".