CDZ Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

[Boss]

She is equating herself with the office. It's why she was held in contempt of court

No. She was held in contempt of court because she failed to obey the court. She was being asked to do something in conflict with her freedom of religion. She doesn't have to do that and you can't make her do that. You can throw her in jail. You can fine her. You can persecute her. You can have her removed from office. You can also change your laws so that people like Ms. Davis aren't put in this position. There are many solutions to this problem but you're never going to force her to endorse something she doesn't condone.

If you people think you can use strong arm tactics to force Christians to accept gay marriage, you're in for a very rude awakening. I've said this all along... it's ultimately a losing battle. You'll be lucky if they don't adopt a Constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. The best approach to achieving what you want is to work together for a solution that everyone can live with. Removing government from endorsing "marriage" at all, and replacing that with some kind of civil union contract, would have been a better alternative. But no one wanted to hear of that, you're committed to go down swinging and so you shall.

 

[Boss]

So you admit that Kim Davis was committing religious tyranny on her employees by making them follow her interpretation of "god's authority".

I admitted no such a thing. Don't know where you get this from. It's typical of lefties though... you're always "interpreting" things that aren't there.

 

[Boss]

No, the judge jailed a government official who refused to do her job after she appealed his decision all the way up to the Supreme Court and was denied. She had her day in court and lost every single round.

I'm sorry, do you have a link to Ms. Davis' SCOTUS case?

 

[bodecea]

If I was Ms Davis I'd hold firm until the county decides to fire me....

Then I'd be back in court so fast with a massive $$$ lawsuit against the county for persecution of my religious beliefs that the county wouldn't know what hit them and I wouldn't have to work for the rest of my life.

*****SMILE*****

So, despite all the court rulings against her, you think she'd have a case? Oh....and she can't be fired....she can be impeached tho.

 

[bodecea]

Davis is a public official, her office and salary are paid for with taxpayer money, and it has an absolute monopoly on the services it provides.

This isn't a cake shop or a florist. There is nowhere else for people to go, AND this is a legal matter.

This is the wrong fight, and playing the martyr will only work to a point.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter or did SCOTUS make it one?

I understand the argument that she is an official of government and sworn to uphold duties as such, but... like I said earlier, it is no different than if the SCOTUS ruled any number of unethical or immoral things to be legal. For example, what if SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional to steal from wealthy people... you just need a license issued by the County Clerk? Would Kim Davis be obligated to put her name on such authorization? What if SCOTUS ruled it was okay to kill black people? You just need a hunting licence issued and signed by Kim Davis... does her official capacity require her to put her name on such authorizations? Can we throw her in jail for refusing to cooperate?

I wholeheartedly REJECT this notion that we have to accept things as "law of the land" and move on! That is EXACTLY what they told the abolitionists! It's EXACTLY what they told MLK! ---NO! We do NOT have to accept it and move along! We have EVERY right to be civilly disobedient! We are NOT going to be forced by rogue courts to sign our names to things we fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis. Not today, not tomorrow, not EVER!

I mean it's a legal matter that people need a license in order to get married.

Civil disobedience is great, but when a public officer does it, it gets more complicated.
.

Did Kim Davis make it a legal matter for gays to marry?

It's not complicated by her being a public officer, if anything it is even more important. Do you think public officers are obligated to uphold the law even when the law contradicts their moral principles? When Hitler ordered Jews be incinerated, the officers had the obligation (in your mind) to carry out those orders even thought they knew they were wrong?

What a ridiculous example, this really illuminates the intellectual capacity of right wingers. She is a public officer, she has a duty to uphold scotus decisions, it's her damn job, to give out marriage licenses. Police officers usually uphold the law, you need to tell me what moral principle ruins this? The lady purposefully wants to deny licenses, she knew about this weeks in advance, she's a freaking moron, and you want to compare nazi germany to a bigoted women in the south? LOL.

It's her job to approve licenses at her discretion...and she was elected based on her constituents' trust in her judgement.

Incorrect. It's her job to approve licenses based on state law. She can't pick and choose at her own discretion, religious or otherwise.

 

[bodecea]

No, the judge jailed a government official who refused to do her job after she appealed his decision all the way up to the Supreme Court and was denied. She had her day in court and lost every single round.

I'm sorry, do you have a link to Ms. Davis' SCOTUS case?

Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Gay Clerk Kim Davis’ Emergency Application

 

[Boss]

So, despite all the court rulings against her...

The number of court cases or rulings against someone or something is not a measure of whether something is right, wrong or Constitutional. People were found in contempt and jailed back in the 1850s for refusing to return slaves to their owners. MLK spent the night in a Birmingham jail for protesting without a permit. We fought a Revolution over refusing to abide by the British courts and rule of law imposed by the King.

 

[bodecea]

I habe a hard time believing grown folks cant tell the difference between religious discrimination (mistreatment BASED on your religion), and requiring ALL employees to perform what the job entails.

I mean, you have to be being dissonant or......REALLY that bad at thinking. Or doshonest. Its a tough call.

Since when did "discrimination" become synonymous with perceived "mistreatment" in this country? It did not "mistreat" Rosa Parks to require her to sit in a different seat. It didn't "mistreat" blacks to give them "separate but equal" facilities. Denying women and blacks the vote wasn't mistreatment.... we can go on and on.

What you have is a bigoted viewpoint that no one can penetrate. You can't see beyond your zeal to see gay marriage legitimized. That is the only "rights" you seem to be able to comprehend. It's a problem because we can't seem to communicate with zealots and bigots very well. You don't seem to realize there are OTHER constitutional rights at stake. They are not going to be trampled.

I think people are waking up to how they are being Trampled. first the cakes and now having a woman thrown in jail over a Piece of paper because two woman homosexuals couldn't go to another place down the street for a damn license . they said it was: humiliating. well they are humiliating and stirring up people to see THEY COULD be the one getting trampled on next. .

The next county office was down the street? And if you live in a county and pay taxes in that county....wouldn't any reasonable person expect to get proper government services in that county?

 

[Boss]

Incorrect. It's her job to approve licenses based on state law.

Doesn't matter what her job is or what it's based on. She doesn't have to give up her Constitutional rights.

 

[G.T.]

Not a single poster, talking head or her employer...that ive seen...asked her to give up any right.

 

[Boss]

No, the judge jailed a government official who refused to do her job after she appealed his decision all the way up to the Supreme Court and was denied. She had her day in court and lost every single round.

I'm sorry, do you have a link to Ms. Davis' SCOTUS case?

Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Gay Clerk Kim Davis’ Emergency Application

Sorry you don't understand how courts work.. this was not a case. SCOTUS declined to hear it.

 

[bodecea]

If I was Ms Davis I'd hold firm until the county decides to fire me....

Then I'd be back in court so fast with a massive $$$ lawsuit against the county for persecution of my religious beliefs that the county wouldn't know what hit them and I wouldn't have to work for the rest of my life.

You'd lose

And hopefully pay all court costs.

 

[bodecea]

So you admit that Kim Davis was committing religious tyranny on her employees by making them follow her interpretation of "god's authority".

I admitted no such a thing. Don't know where you get this from. It's typical of lefties though... you're always "interpreting" things that aren't there.

So you don't know that she actually did say on camera that she was acting on "god's authority" instead of the authority of the state of Kentucky. That is religious tyranny.

 

[bodecea]

Incorrect. It's her job to approve licenses based on state law.

Doesn't matter what her job is or what it's based on. She doesn't have to give up her Constitutional rights.

There is where you are wrong...it most certainly does matter if she is acting in a government capacity...and misusing her power as a government official to foist her own personal interpretation of religion onto others in her office and those she is supposed to be serving. It matters a great deal, because the Bill of Rights etc. are there to protect us from the government overstepping its bounds. As County Clerk, Kim Davis is the government to those people.

 

[bodecea]

No, the judge jailed a government official who refused to do her job after she appealed his decision all the way up to the Supreme Court and was denied. She had her day in court and lost every single round.

I'm sorry, do you have a link to Ms. Davis' SCOTUS case?

Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Gay Clerk Kim Davis’ Emergency Application

Sorry you don't understand how courts work.. this was not a case. SCOTUS declined to hear it.

That's right....and what does it mean when a higher court declines to hear a case? Any guesses?

 

[Boss]

So you admit that Kim Davis was committing religious tyranny on her employees by making them follow her interpretation of "god's authority".

I admitted no such a thing. Don't know where you get this from. It's typical of lefties though... you're always "interpreting" things that aren't there.

So you don't know that she actually did say on camera that she was acting on "god's authority" instead of the authority of the state of Kentucky. That is religious tyranny.

I don't care what she said or whether it was on camera or not. But she has every Constitutional right to act on god's authority and according to the 1st Amendment, that right cannot be denied. Religious tyranny would be the government forcing you to live by religious law, which means homosexuality would be banned entirely and would never be the basis for acquiring any kind of license.

 

[Boss]

No, the judge jailed a government official who refused to do her job after she appealed his decision all the way up to the Supreme Court and was denied. She had her day in court and lost every single round.

I'm sorry, do you have a link to Ms. Davis' SCOTUS case?

Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Gay Clerk Kim Davis’ Emergency Application

Sorry you don't understand how courts work.. this was not a case. SCOTUS declined to hear it.

That's right....and what does it mean when a higher court declines to hear a case? Any guesses?

It means there wasn't a case because the court declined to hear the case.

 

[Boss]

There is where you are wrong...it most certainly does matter if she is acting in a government capacity.

No it doesn't. There is nothing in the Constitution about abandoning her rights in order to work for government. You do not surrender your rights to work for government. Sorry!

 

[bodecea]

So you admit that Kim Davis was committing religious tyranny on her employees by making them follow her interpretation of "god's authority".

I admitted no such a thing. Don't know where you get this from. It's typical of lefties though... you're always "interpreting" things that aren't there.

So you don't know that she actually did say on camera that she was acting on "god's authority" instead of the authority of the state of Kentucky. That is religious tyranny.

I don't care what she said or whether it was on camera or not. But she has every Constitutional right to act on god's authority and according to the 1st Amendment, that right cannot be denied. Religious tyranny would be the government forcing you to live by religious law, which means homosexuality would be banned entirely and would never be the basis for acquiring any kind of license.

You should care, because it shows her clear INTENT to go against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution....taking away the protections of the 1st not only from those she was elected to serve, but also those in her employ.

 

[Boss]

...to foist her own personal interpretation of religion onto others...

That's your characterization of what she did and not what she actually did.

She has to adhere to her religious convictions. That is her Constitutional right regardless of where she works or what job she does. It's not her fault the SCOTUS made a bad ruling which forced her to have to chose between contradicting her religious beliefs or following the law. She chose to not abandon her religious beliefs and she has every right to do that.