Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[James Brown]

Has Davis stated why gay marriage is a violation of her religion? Is there something in the Bible that orders believers to do whatever they can to prevent homosexuals from getting married?

 

[maxparrish]

...She was not hired. She was elected. She was not required to agree to terms of employment. She took an Oath of Office. That Oath was her pledge to fulfill the duties of her office to the best of her ability, and there is no such thing as an elected official in this country who gets to pick and choose which of his or her official duties he or she will perform. ...She has rights of expression under the first amendment as a citizen. But she does not have the right to violate her Oath of Office as the duly elected and sworn County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. And she does not have the right to require the official actions of the County Clerk's office conform to her religious practices. ....

Ah, I think I see the problem.

You don't see the difference between a citizen acting as a citizen, and a citizen who is also an elected official acting in an official capacity. That or else you don't see a difference between being free to hold and express opinions and being free to act on them by way of wielding government authority over others and forcing them to conform to your religious practices.

Actually, I see the problem. Your rummaging in your mind's attic. You think you have found a box of relevant parts to this discussion, but can't quite assemble them. Here's why:

1) "her being "an official" is superfluous and irrelevant to her right, as an employee, to the first amendment rights of expression and religion."

2) No one has claimed that the first amendment gives her a right to "violate her Oath of Office". Nor is anyone claiming she has a right to "require the official actions of the County Clerk's office conform to her religious practices.". Nor, to my knowledge, has she claimed such "a right to conformity to her religious practice" (or perhaps you meant "conformity to her religious beliefs"?).

3) I see the difference between "a citizen acting as a citizen, and a citizen who is also an elected official (employee)". And said an employee and/or official must exercise any legally required duties. However they need not, and cannot, do things that are unlawful. In her view it is legally (as well as religiously) unlawful to issue licenses to gay couples, but also in her view it was lawful to cease the business of issuing licences. In her view, she was not violating her Oath of Office. She was wrong in some respects, but in my view, only in the her closure of her office to all marriages. The courts disagree...but they are wrong too.

So I suppose you think a state's Governor can order the DMV to no longer issue driver's licenses to women, a County Clerk can require men applying for a marriage license to have beards, and the head of the Department of Fish and Game can refuse to give hunting licenses to people who haven't made a pilgrimage to the Temple of Artemis, because of their first amendment rights.

It depends, but the 'examples' you gave are too open-ended and removed from the current controversy to be of use.

How she became part of the government does not change any of the rights she has as a citizen. But her rights do not include a right to violate her Oath of Office. If she thinks she has that right under the first amendment, that just goes to show how ignorant she is.

She never said that. That line of reasoning came from someone else entirely. Kim Davis plainly stated she would not issue marriage licenses because she was following "God's law". Any other position isn't hers.

We are speculating. Neither of us have quoted the actual legal or moral claims of BOTH herself and her lawyers. My assumption is that their reasoning includes, but is not limited to, the above.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The Muslim flight attendant did seek accommodation and was actually afforded accommodation, which worked for a few months until another employee decided to complain about it. Only then did they fire her. Also, she didn't want to prevent passengers from drinking alcohol at all, she just didn't want to be the one who served it.

The Muslim flight attendant should never have had that accommodation made for her: serving passengers what they want is an integral and essential part of her job. (Similar cases in the UK include Muslim register operators who refuise to scan (or even touch) alcohol and pork products).

However, if she were willing to trade her reduction in duties and the inconvenience she causes by doing something to replace it (e.g. in exchange for not serving alcohol, she has to clean the toilets) and everybody agreed, then she could be accommodated.

She was working for a private company providing a service to paying customers. If the company could work out a way to accommodate her, that is well within their rights to do so. If it puts an undue burden on their other employees or impacts the company's ability to provide services to their customers then it could be a good reason for termination.

 

[maxparrish]

I have seen no evidence supporting your characterization. She and her employees have said they were not issuing marriage licenses to anyone in order to avoid facilitating the sin of homosexual union in marriage. They were refusing to participate, not "imposing" any belief upon others.

Of course that ignores the obvious reality that their "refusal to participate" is religiously based and results in couples being unable to get married in their own county. Moreover, by that logic, there was no imposition on Ms. Davis's "beliefs" by issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Ms. Davis is simply wrong. Her duty as a county clerk is to obey the laws. She refuses to do so. The reasons for her doing so are irrelevant.

And, in order to avoid the legal charge of discrimination, her refusal to issue marriage licenses to all, she is using her religious beliefs to inconvenience all couples seeking to get married in that county by her refusal to issue marriage licenses to all couples while hiding by her alleged religious beliefs.

All in all, Ms. Davis is a narcissistic bigot. Which explains her attraction of a sizable minority in the USA.

There are several possible motives for her, and her staff's, actions. Among them:

1) They are opposed to homosexual marriage and are intentionally and knowingly violating the law to use their government office for the primary purpose of preventing others from "violating God's law".

2) The are opposed to homosexual marriage and they are intentionally and knowingly refusing (under the law) to participate (facilitate) by 'processing' gay marriages for the primary purpose of preventing THEMSELVES from violating God's law.

If those were the only two choices, I believe the second motive is more likely.

 

[ZiprHead]

2) No one has claimed that the first amendment gives her a right to "violate her Oath of Office". Nor is anyone claiming she has a right to "require the official actions of the County Clerk's office conform to her religious practices.".

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

2) No one has claimed that the first amendment gives her a right to "violate her Oath of Office". Nor is anyone claiming she has a right to "require the official actions of the County Clerk's office conform to her religious practices.".

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

Ya, how is she doing anything other than that? I don't see how any defence of her actions doesn't implicitly or explicitly make the claim that she does have the right to do that.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course that ignores the obvious reality that their "refusal to participate" is religiously based and results in couples being unable to get married in their own county. Moreover, by that logic, there was no imposition on Ms. Davis's "beliefs" by issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Ms. Davis is simply wrong. Her duty as a county clerk is to obey the laws. She refuses to do so. The reasons for her doing so are irrelevant.

And, in order to avoid the legal charge of discrimination, her refusal to issue marriage licenses to all, she is using her religious beliefs to inconvenience all couples seeking to get married in that county by her refusal to issue marriage licenses to all couples while hiding by her alleged religious beliefs.

All in all, Ms. Davis is a narcissistic bigot. Which explains her attraction of a sizable minority in the USA.

There are several possible motives for her, and her staff's, actions. Among them:

1) They are opposed to homosexual marriage and are intentionally and knowingly violating the law to use their government office for the primary purpose of preventing others from "violating God's law".

2) The are opposed to homosexual marriage and they are intentionally and knowingly refusing (under the law) to participate (facilitate) by 'processing' gay marriages for the primary purpose of preventing THEMSELVES from violating God's law.

If those were the only two choices, I believe the second motive is more likely.

So you agree that she is a narcissistic bigot.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Maxparrish said in one post:

She believes she is following the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Constitution, and Kentucky law. In current Kentucky law, marriage is only between a man and a woman AND certifying a same sex marriage is punishable.

And then in the next post he said:

She and her employees have said they were not issuing marriage licenses to anyone in order to avoid facilitating the sin of homosexual union in marriage.

So, which was it? Was she not doing her job because she was simply following Kentucky law, or was it because she decided that her religious opinion trumped those of others? Which did she actually say she was doing? Because if it's the latter, then it's a red herring to bring up the technical language of the Kentucky law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course that ignores the obvious reality that their "refusal to participate" is religiously based and results in couples being unable to get married in their own county. Moreover, by that logic, there was no imposition on Ms. Davis's "beliefs" by issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Ms. Davis is simply wrong. Her duty as a county clerk is to obey the laws. She refuses to do so. The reasons for her doing so are irrelevant.

And, in order to avoid the legal charge of discrimination, her refusal to issue marriage licenses to all, she is using her religious beliefs to inconvenience all couples seeking to get married in that county by her refusal to issue marriage licenses to all couples while hiding by her alleged religious beliefs.

All in all, Ms. Davis is a narcissistic bigot. Which explains her attraction of a sizable minority in the USA.

There are several possible motives for her, and her staff's, actions. Among them:

1) They are opposed to homosexual marriage and are intentionally and knowingly violating the law to use their government office for the primary purpose of preventing others from "violating God's law".

2) The are opposed to homosexual marriage and they are intentionally and knowingly refusing (under the law) to participate (facilitate) by 'processing' gay marriages for the primary purpose of preventing THEMSELVES from violating God's law.

If those were the only two choices, I believe the second motive is more likely.

Seeing that we are already all fallen and almost everything we do is sinful, I hard a time thinking that this "one law" is that big of a theological hurdle.

 

[arkirk]

There are several possible motives for her, and her staff's, actions. Among them:

1) They are opposed to homosexual marriage and are intentionally and knowingly violating the law to use their government office for the primary purpose of preventing others from "violating God's law".

2) The are opposed to homosexual marriage and they are intentionally and knowingly refusing (under the law) to participate (facilitate) by 'processing' gay marriages for the primary purpose of preventing THEMSELVES from violating God's law.

If those were the only two choices, I believe the second motive is more likely.

Seeing that we are already all fallen and almost everything we do is sinful, I hard a time thinking that this "one law" is that big of a theological hurdle.

Now let's look at this from Davis's eyes:


Actually that is not Davis with the wings. It is supposed to be an angel and the god-like character with the book is St. Matthew taking notes on what God wants. But it is close enough in appearance to what Davis is using to justify her breaking the law and violating her oath of office. The truth be told....it is totally insane.

 

[maxparrish]

2) No one has claimed that the first amendment gives her a right to "violate her Oath of Office". Nor is anyone claiming she has a right to "require the official actions of the County Clerk's office conform to her religious practices.".

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

Folks seem to be stuck on the difference between conduct and effect.

Suppose under a new Constitutional 'discovery', it is found that juvenile offenders older than 8 years old can be executed for homicide. And then suppose some prison official and his assistant executioners refuse to sign the paperwork to execute some ten year olds . They will not participate in, or endorse via their signature, what they believe to be cruel and immoral punishment; but will not resist others from doing so.

Now imagine that some capital punishment cheerleaders shout out "hey they are imposing their beliefs and practices on others". Should we view it that way? Nope.

Folks are always getting their backs up about someone of differing moral views "imposing their beliefs (or practices) on others". As a figure of speech, I have often wondered what the hell that is supposed to mean. How are the words "impose" and "belief" actually defined? So let's find out:

Google Returned this for impose (verb): to "force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place" (or alternatively to "take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment").

Google Returned this for belief: "an acceptance that a statement is true" (or, alternatively, "trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something").

So apparently some of the posters claim that Ms. Davis (et. al.) are "forcing" couples "to accept, put in place, and have a commitment" to their religious beliefs or practices.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. It is as daffy as someone claiming that (in my example) the prison official and his assistants are "imposing their belief" on others who want to fry an offending child.

It's a useless figure of speech, and long overdue for retirement.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

Folks seem to be stuck on what she is "doing" (her motives and conduct) vs. what "effect" it is having.

What she is doing: Not fulfilling the oath she swore to God to.

It's effect: restricting civil rights of other people

Suppose under a new Constitutional 'discovery', it is found that juvenile offenders older than 8 years old can be executed for homocide. And then suppose some prison official and his assistant executioners refuse to sign the paperwork to execute them . They will not participate in, or endorse via their signature, what they believe to be cruel and immoral punishment; but will not resist others from doing so.

Interesting parallel. I mean it is ridiculous and absurd and not even remotely related to the subject at hand which was a SCOTUS act to expand Civil Rights, not contract them.

 

[arkirk]

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

Folks seem to be stuck on the difference between conduct and effect.

Suppose under a new Constitutional 'discovery', it is found that juvenile offenders older than 8 years old can be executed for homicide. And then suppose some prison official and his assistant executioners refuse to sign the paperwork to execute some ten year olds . They will not participate in, or endorse via their signature, what they believe to be cruel and immoral punishment; but will not resist others from doing so.

Now imagine that some capital punishment cheerleaders shout out "hey they are imposing their beliefs and practices on others". Should we view it that way? Nope.

Folks are always getting their backs up about someone of differing moral views "imposing their beliefs (or practices) on others". As a figure of speech, I have often wondered what the hell that is supposed to mean. How are the words "impose" and "belief" actually defined? So let's find out:

Google Returned this for impose (verb): to "force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place" (or alternatively to "take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment").

Google Returned this for belief: "an acceptance that a statement is true" (or, alternatively, "trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something").

So apparently some of the posters claim that Ms. Davis (et. al.) are "forcing" couples "to accept, put in place, and have a commitment" to their religious beliefs or practices.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. It is as daffy as someone claiming that (in my example) the prison official and his assistants are "imposing their belief" on others who want to fry an offending child.

It's a useless figure of speech, and long overdue for retirement.

The bitch has a job and refuses to do it. So she should resign. Your death penalty idea is not in the same ballpark. I clearly see the megalomaniac clerk for what she is...a fanatic trying to enlist the common man for the uncommon purpose of screwing over gays....her only purpose here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

Folks seem to be stuck on the difference between conduct and effect.

Suppose under a new Constitutional 'discovery', it is found that juvenile offenders older than 8 years old can be executed for homicide. And then suppose some prison official and his assistant executioners refuse to sign the paperwork to execute some ten year olds . They will not participate in, or endorse via their signature, what they believe to be cruel and immoral punishment; but will not resist others from doing so.

Now imagine that some capital punishment cheerleaders shout out "hey they are imposing their beliefs and practices on others". Should we view it that way? Nope.

Why on earth not? This is exactly what they'd be doing.

Whether they'd be right or wrong to be doing it is another question, but it's clearly what they're doing. There is a law in effect that they're supposed to enact and they're refusing to do so. This is using their position of authority to impose their own beliefs and practices on others.

Sometimes that's a good thing to do and sometimes that's a bad thing to do, depending on one's perspective on the issues involved in each case, but it's what they're doing.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

Folks seem to be stuck on what she is "doing" (her motives and conduct) vs. what "effect" it is having.

This would be the matter for the courts system. They do not have jurisdiction over a person's thoughts. Only their actions.

Suppose under a new Constitutional 'discovery', it is found that juvenile offenders older than 8 years old can be executed for homocide. And then suppose some prison official and his assistant executioners refuse to sign the paperwork to execute them . They will not participate in, or endorse via their signature, what they believe to be cruel and immoral punishment; but will not resist others from doing so.

You apparently do not understand how our court system work. The prison system cannot impose a sentence greater than what they are directed to by the courts.

Folks are always getting their backs up about someone of differing moral views "imposing their beliefs (or practices) on others". As a figure of speech, I have often wondered what the hell that is supposed to mean. How are the words "impose" and "belief" actually defined?

They are denying services to individuals they are required to give based upon their religious beliefs. Period.

Google:"cognitive dissonance".

 

[maxparrish]

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

Ya, how is she doing anything other than that? I don't see how any defence of her actions doesn't implicitly or explicitly make the claim that she does have the right to do that.

The "effect" of her action is not the actual "doing". A person who refuses to fight in war is not "making the military conform to his religious actions"...even if that it the net effect of his/her refusal to participate.

 

[laughing dog]

If it is not obvious by now, max is flailing away in his attempts to defend ignorance and bigotry against gay marriage. Blowing smoke about "effect" and "doing" obscures the real issue: Ms. Davis is refusing to obey the law of land in the performance of her duties. His arguments would defend her right to refuse to issue marriage certificates because her interpretation that God's Law prohibits interracial or interfaith or inter-eyecolor marriage. Which should make it clear how utterly pathetic and ridiculous those arguments are.

The fact that her narcissism and bigotry causes harm to gay couples wishing to marry in their own county (as is their right) simply gives pleasure to the defenders of Ms. Davis. The fact that her narcissism and bigotry cause harm to heterosexual couples wishing to marry in their county (as is their right) seems to be of no consequence. Apparently catering to bigotry is more important than supporting heterosexual marriage.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ya, how is she doing anything other than that? I don't see how any defence of her actions doesn't implicitly or explicitly make the claim that she does have the right to do that.

The "effect" of her action is not the actual "doing". A person who refuses to fight in war is not "making the military conform to his religious actions"...even if that it the net effect of his/her refusal to participate.

You do know that a marriage confers a number of legal benefits? And by denying couples the right to be married she is also denying them legal benefits?

 

[Ford]

Seems to me that's exactly what she's doing.

Folks seem to be stuck on the difference between conduct and effect.

And you seem to be unable to grasp the facts of the case against this woman.

When the Supreme Court decided that the government could not refuse same sex couples the right to be married, she decided that her office (the government of Rowan County) not only could, but would refuse same sex couples marriage licenses.

Not only that, but she ordered her clerks to refuse licenses to anyone, essentially throwing a temper tantrum backed by the full authority of her County Seat government. When the federal court with jurisdiction over her county ordered her to carry out the duties of her office, she basically told the judge "fuck you."


Boom! Contempt of court. I doubt even you could argue that she was not in contempt...but I wouldn't be surprised if you tried.

As to the larger issue, it is worth remembering that our government operates under the principle that it's powers are derived from the consent of the governed. Kim Davis does not have any inherent authority herself. She is granted authority by the voters of the county, and that authority is bound by both the state and the federal constitution. Davis asserted to herself authority she did not have - namely, the authority to defy the law of the land - and acted as if her own personal religious beliefs somehow granted her that power. As a matter of law, she is clearly, unambiguously in the wrong.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, how is she doing anything other than that? I don't see how any defence of her actions doesn't implicitly or explicitly make the claim that she does have the right to do that.

The "effect" of her action is not the actual "doing". A person who refuses to fight in war is not "making the military conform to his religious actions"...even if that it the net effect of his/her refusal to participate.

Well, it depends. If that person is the army's quartermaster and his response to the supply requests is "Fuck you, you're not getting any bullets or gas. Good luck walking to the battlefield and then trying to beat people to death with your rifle butts" then what he is doing is stopping the troops from joining the battle. It's not simply the "effect" of his action, or whatever odd parsing you're using, he has a goal of stopping the troops from joining the battle and he is taking an action which does that.

It's the same with Davis. She wants to stop gay people from getting married in her jurisdiction and is taking action which she hopes does that. It's not some sort of unintended consequence or whatever the hell you're trying to get at (I'm not really sure what that is).