CDZ Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

[Damaged Eagle]

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*****

You might have something with that. The more I think about it, I think she should do that.

I think it would force the issue back into the prevue of the legislators very quickly.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Boss]

This is no different than any number of incorrect rulings SCOTUS has made over the years... Plessy, Dred Scott, Korematsu... It may take an act of congress or perhaps even a constitutional amendment to undo what has been done. I personally believe we should render "marriage" benign from a government standpoint... in other words, government shouldn't dictate what anyone defines as "marriage" whether it is gay or traditional. I think that is the only remedy that satisfies all parties to some extent and allows us to live with the result.

As for Davis, I stand with her... not because I am a religious nut who wants to impose my views (or hers) on society, but because I don't feel like she should have to abandon her religion in order to carry out her job, or be forced to resign her job in order to maintain her religious beliefs. When Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali and refused to participate in the draft because it violated his Muslim faith... I didn't agree with him but I recognize his fundamental right to do what he did. When protesters burn the American flag... I don't condone the activity but I respect their right to freedom of expression.

Again... I find it ironic that I am the Conservative arguing FOR the right of civil disobedience in the wake of authority overreach. Isn't this supposed to be the other way around? Where is the ACLU?

 

[Stephanie]

This is no different than any number of incorrect rulings SCOTUS has made over the years... Plessy, Dred Scott, Korematsu... It may take an act of congress or perhaps even a constitutional amendment to undo what has been done. I personally believe we should render "marriage" benign from a government standpoint... in other words, government shouldn't dictate what anyone defines as "marriage" whether it is gay or traditional. I think that is the only remedy that satisfies all parties to some extent and allows us to live with the result.

As for Davis, I stand with her... not because I am a religious nut who wants to impose my views (or hers) on society, but because I don't feel like she should have to abandon her religion in order to carry out her job, or be forced to resign her job in order to maintain her religious beliefs. When Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali and refused to participate in the draft because it violated his Muslim faith... I didn't agree with him but I recognize his fundamental right to do what he did. When protesters burn the American flag... I don't condone the activity but I respect their right to freedom of expression.

Again... I find it ironic that I am the Conservative arguing FOR the right of civil disobedience in the wake of authority overreach. Isn't this supposed to be the other way around? Where is the ACLU?

That's how I see it and feel about it. Plus they hunted this woman down just so they could create all this hate. Well they did a good job. More people are beginning to hate homosexuals because of this, the baker, the pizza and on it goes. That's too bad but they're bringing it on themselves

 

[G.T.]

She is not being forced to have that job, so that job forcing her to issue licenses is not a Violation of her Constitutional rights. She can leave at any moment she no longer wants to uphold the duties of her position, and Constitutional Rights arent even at play here. Shes not a slave, she took the job on her own volition and can leave with same.

Pretty simple. People fail to understand where Roghts are ACTUALLY being Violated because they dont understand the nature of voluntary employment.


I cant get a job at a grocery store, then they decide later to sell bacon.....and I object based on some Religion...... and they cant fire me. Thats not how the first Amendment works. They can say fine, see ya. And no violation occurred. Your rights stop where infringing on others' starts, and she is infringing on the Legal Right to a Marriage license while HER rights are not violated one bit. She can quit.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

 

[Boss]

She is not being forced to have that job, so that job forcing her to issue licenses is not a Violation of her Constitutional rights.

No one is forced to have any job in America. What does that have to do with her Constitutional rights? Are Constitutional rights endowed by your employer now?

 

[G.T.]

She is not being forced to have that job, so that job forcing her to issue licenses is not a Violation of her Constitutional rights.

No one is forced to have any job in America. What does that have to do with her Constitutional rights? Are Constitutional rights endowed by your employer now?

You just inadvertantly admitted my post went WAY over your head. Wow.

 

[Boss]

...she is infringing on the Legal Right to a Marriage license...

You have no legal right to a marriage license, if you did, someone wouldn't need to issue one.

 

[G.T.]

You can say "fuck you" to your boss and they cant fire you cuz.....1st amendment free speech rights?

No, and them firing you is not a violation of your rights.


Same thing here. Disallowing her objection to her duties based on the 1st Amendment doesnt hold water same as it doesnt when you cant telm your boss fuck you without getting fired.

Its soo0o0o simple. Or, maybe not so simple for some. But it SHOULD BE. Youd think.

 

[G.T.]

This is just more posturing and flailing by the continuously irrelevant anti gay marriage crowd. The final kicking and screaming on an issue the clear majority is past.

Boo hoo.

Her rights are not being violated, thats completely absurd.

 

[Boss]

I cant get a job at a grocery store, then they decide later to sell bacon.....and I object based on some Religion...... and they cant fire me. Thats not how the first Amendment works.

Bad analogy. The store can do whatever the store wants. The anti-bacon employee is not a party to that. The more proper analogy would be... Said store decides to promote it's new bacon sales by having all their employees publicly eat bacon to convey how delicious it is. They cannot compel the anti-bacon person to consume bacon against their religious views. If the person refuses, they cannot fire them on the basis they refused. THAT is how the 1st Amendment works.

 

[Boss]

You can say "fuck you" to your boss and they cant fire you cuz.....1st amendment free speech rights?

I never said anything remotely close to this.

 

[G.T.]

I cant get a job at a grocery store, then they decide later to sell bacon.....and I object based on some Religion...... and they cant fire me. Thats not how the first Amendment works.

Bad analogy. The store can do whatever the store wants. The anti-bacon employee is not a party to that. The more proper analogy would be... Said store decides to promote it's new bacon sales by having all their employees publicly eat bacon to convey how delicious it is. They cannot compel the anti-bacon person to consume bacon against their religious views. If the person refuses, they cannot fire them on the basis they refused. THAT is how the 1st Amendment works.

No THATS a bad analogy. Cuz shes not HERSELF getting gay married.

Derp derp derp

 

[Boss]

This is just more posturing and flailing by the continuously irrelevant anti gay marriage crowd. The final kicking and screaming on an issue the clear majority is past.

Boo hoo.

Her rights are not being violated, thats completely absurd.

No her rights are not being violated, she refused to allow you violate them and you put her in jail.

 

[Boss]

I cant get a job at a grocery store, then they decide later to sell bacon.....and I object based on some Religion...... and they cant fire me. Thats not how the first Amendment works.

Bad analogy. The store can do whatever the store wants. The anti-bacon employee is not a party to that. The more proper analogy would be... Said store decides to promote it's new bacon sales by having all their employees publicly eat bacon to convey how delicious it is. They cannot compel the anti-bacon person to consume bacon against their religious views. If the person refuses, they cannot fire them on the basis they refused. THAT is how the 1st Amendment works.

No THATS a bad analogy. Cuz shes not HERSELF getting gay married.

Derp derp derp

She's not getting traditionally married either.

 

[G.T.]

This is just more posturing and flailing by the continuously irrelevant anti gay marriage crowd. The final kicking and screaming on an issue the clear majority is past.

Boo hoo.

Her rights are not being violated, thats completely absurd.

No her rights are not being violated, she refused to allow you violate them and you put her in jail.

Yea no. You dont personally get to flippantly decide what Laws you like and dont.

You earn that voice with the vote, or being voted in yourself.

Shy of that, youre just another big mouth with an irrelevant opinion thats being stepped over like a giant avoiding tripping on a toddler.

 

[Boss]

No THATS a bad analogy. Cuz shes not HERSELF getting gay married.

Okay... the store also can't compel her to serve the bacon, dress like a pig, participate in any way with the campaign she has moral objections to on a religious basis. She has the 1st Amendment Constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of her religion.

 

[G.T.]

I cant get a job at a grocery store, then they decide later to sell bacon.....and I object based on some Religion...... and they cant fire me. Thats not how the first Amendment works.

Bad analogy. The store can do whatever the store wants. The anti-bacon employee is not a party to that. The more proper analogy would be... Said store decides to promote it's new bacon sales by having all their employees publicly eat bacon to convey how delicious it is. They cannot compel the anti-bacon person to consume bacon against their religious views. If the person refuses, they cannot fire them on the basis they refused. THAT is how the 1st Amendment works.

No THATS a bad analogy. Cuz shes not HERSELF getting gay married.

Derp derp derp

She's not getting traditionally married either.

Kay dude it went over your head.

Making your analogy forcing them to EAT the bacon is akin to forcing her to BE gay married. Not just sell the bacon, not just sell the licenses. Your analogy interpretations are about as concise as your inability to respond to a post without dishonestly chopping it up, omitting parts, and responding to only parts you feel you have a clever quip about.

Transparent. Stop flailing over your bigotry. Gays are married in 2015 in the eyes of the law. Too bad, so sad for you....... it is written and theres not much youre gunna do about it but flail on the internet.

 

[Boss]

Yea no. You dont personally get to flippantly decide what Laws you like and dont.

Of course I do... we all do! That is what makes America so great... we CAN do that.

 

[G.T.]

No THATS a bad analogy. Cuz shes not HERSELF getting gay married.

Okay... the store also can't compel her to serve the bacon, dress like a pig, participate in any way with the campaign she has moral objections to on a religious basis. She has the 1st Amendment Constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of her religion.

No, same as she cant say fuck you to her boss without fear of repurcussion based on the 1st amendment.