CDZ Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

[Dante]

The only reason her rights have not been violated is because she refused to let them be.

Rosa Parks and MLK also "violated the law" ....not impressed.

What?

What right was going to be violated? and how? How was some unnamed right going to be violated?

 

[Boss]

What right was going to be violated? and how? How was some unnamed right going to be violated?

Her freedom of religion.
By forcing her to endorse something contradicting her religion.
It's a named right. A fundamental right. One of the very first and foremost rights.

 

[Dante]

Boss

What right was going to be violated? and how? How was some unnamed right going to be violated?

Her freedom of religion.
By forcing her to endorse something contradicting her religion.
It's a named right. A fundamental right. One of the very first and foremost rights.

Who is being forced to personally endorse gay marriages?

She is free to 'practice' her religion as she wants, but she is not free or protected in forcing her religious views on the people she has sworn to serve.

her arguments are

 

[Boss]

Who is being forced to personally endorse gay marriages?

Well.. SHE is if she is required to sign her name to a document which authorizes it.

Don't know how clearer that could be, to be honest.

 

[Dante]

Who is being forced to personally endorse gay marriages?

Well.. SHE is if she is required to sign her name to a document which authorizes it.

Don't know how clearer that could be, to be honest.

Any document she signs recognizes her as representing the state, not herself. Elected and appointed officials have always signed onto things they personally had objections to.

You can conflate things all you want. This is like the gay wedding cakes. silly as well as gay

 

[Boss]

She is free to 'practice' her religion as she wants..

Well, no she is not... Not if she is being required to endorse something contradicting her religion.

 

[Boss]

Any document she signs recognizes her as representing the state, not herself. Elected and appointed officials have always signed onto things they personally had objections to.

Uhm no... her signature indicates her approval or endorsement. I can't answer for what other people have done, that has nothing to do with Ms. Davis' Constitutional rights. Yes she could have signed on to something she didn't condone, I am sure other people have. Rosa Parks could have taken another seat, as other black people had.

 

[bodecea]

Kim Davis has every Constitutional right to refuse issuing gay marriage licenses in her name. It doesn't matter that she is an agent of the government sworn to uphold the government's laws. This is not any different than if the SCOTUS ruled it "legal" to burn churches and she was being obliged to issue permits for it. Or if a superior officer ordered a subordinate to execute prisoners to avoid having to deal with them as POWs. This is a conflict between the morals and ethics of Davis and what "the law" says according to SCOTUS. Davis did not cause that conflict she is merely a victim of it's circumstances. The SCOTUS caused this conflict with a lawless ruling they had no business making. This is what happens when you have a rogue activist Court legislating from the bench.

Kim Davis has every right to walk away from her $80K a year job if the requirements of the job go against her deeply held religious beliefs.

 

[Dante]

She is free to 'practice' her religion as she wants..

Well, no she is not... Not if she is being required to endorse something contradicting her religion.

She is not asked for a personal endorsement. It is in her capacity as an official.

example of reality: One can respect an office but not the person holding the office.

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

 

[bodecea]

But she should take another post

She shouldn't have to do any damn thing, she didn't create this situation.

She most certainly did. Particularly by admitting on camera that she was not following the state of Kentucky's authority but "god's authority." Sorry Kim, that may work in church, but not in government offices.

 

[Dante]

Any document she signs recognizes her as representing the state, not herself. Elected and appointed officials have always signed onto things they personally had objections to.

Uhm no... her signature indicates her approval or endorsement. I can't answer for what other people have done, that has nothing to do with Ms. Davis' Constitutional rights. Yes she could have signed on to something she didn't condone, I am sure other people have. Rosa Parks could have taken another seat, as other black people had.

"her signature indicates her approval or endorsement." Only in her capacity as an official. She is NOT the Christian Clerk of the County.

No one elected her to be the Christian Clerk. It is a civil position.

Rosa Parks? Miss Parks' lawsuit was about her as a class being denied rights. Miss Davis is an elected official

 

[bodecea]

She is free to 'practice' her religion as she wants..

Well, no she is not... Not if she is being required to endorse something contradicting her religion.

She is not asked for a personal endorsement. It is in her capacity as an official.

example of reality: One can respect an office but not the person holding the office.

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

Well put.

 

[Boss]

Kim Davis has every Constitutional right to refuse issuing gay marriage licenses in her name. It doesn't matter that she is an agent of the government sworn to uphold the government's laws. This is not any different than if the SCOTUS ruled it "legal" to burn churches and she was being obliged to issue permits for it. Or if a superior officer ordered a subordinate to execute prisoners to avoid having to deal with them as POWs. This is a conflict between the morals and ethics of Davis and what "the law" says according to SCOTUS. Davis did not cause that conflict she is merely a victim of it's circumstances. The SCOTUS caused this conflict with a lawless ruling they had no business making. This is what happens when you have a rogue activist Court legislating from the bench.

Kim Davis has every right to walk away from her $80K a year job if the requirements of the job go against her deeply held religious beliefs.

No, that is religious discrimination.

 

[Boss]

She is not asked for a personal endorsement.

Yes, that is exactly what your signature on any document means.

 

[Boss]

Miss Davis is an elected official

Doesn't matter what she is, she doesn't give up her Constitutional rights.

 

[bodecea]

she was voted in

as was Adolph Hitler.......

actually you are incorrect on that

No, he is quite correct. True, in 1932, the NSDAP did not get a plurality in the German popular vote, but that's not how their system works. It's a coalition formula to get, with two or more parties together, to 48.6% of the popular vote, which is considered absolute majority in Germany. So, actually, yes, although I find it quite distasteful, Hitler's NSDAP was duly elected in the 1932 parliamentary elections and his party was one of the two which formed the winning coalition. And in the next parliamentary election, the NSDAP came in around 98%. Sad, but true.

German electoral politics of then and also of now did not / do not work like our electoral politics.

you know hitler seized control as well as everyone else ( or at least you should know it)

stop with your stupid games

Hitler was elected and asked to form a government. He did and never let go.

 

[Dante]

She is not asked for a personal endorsement.

Yes, that is exactly what your signature on any document means.

Not in a position as a public official.

Public officials that looked askew at what was called 'race mixing' were not endorsing mixed marriages ...

now pay attention: They are/were certifying the marriages, not endorsing them

 

[Dante]

Miss Davis is an elected official

Doesn't matter what she is, she doesn't give up her Constitutional rights.

She doesn't have to. She has to certify marriages, not endorse them

 

[bodecea]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

She ordered the clerks not to comply, therefore dictating her ideas on religion to others, which would violate the clerks freedom to choose what actions they would take...

Right... She is the authority in charge... giving them permission is the same as her condoning it... she doesn't condone it and will not condone it in her name, directly or indirectly.

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

 

[bodecea]

Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........

She ordered the clerks not to comply, therefore dictating her ideas on religion to others, which would violate the clerks freedom to choose what actions they would take...

Right... She is the authority in charge... giving them permission is the same as her condoning it... she doesn't condone it and will not condone it in her name, directly or indirectly.

Which means that she is very likely going to go back to jail, this time for a considerably longer time span.

Could get interesting.

You are jailing someone because they have a religious belief that prohibits them from condoning what SCOTUS says is the law. The 1st Amendment is clear on what her rights are to religious freedom.

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.