Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[skepticalbip]

I don't know about that. Her goal was to get herself martyred for her beliefs and she went ahead and got herself martyred for her beliefs.

Her supporters don't see her as a tragic figure who serves as an object lesson for what not to do, they see her more as a Nelson Mandela for Christians who was willing to go to jail rather than compromise on a moral issue. When you add in the amount of money she's going to get from the rightwing talkshow and conference circuits, this was a tremendously successful action on her part which others are more likely to try and emulate as opposed to avoid.

Will she actually be interesting enough to make money?

Absolutely, to many. Modern society is hooked on following the mundane daily lives of almost anyone who has their names mentioned in the media. She, at least, has done something controversial as opposed to many who's lives are followed just because others are following them. How much money have the Kardasians made from their following?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was not her fault at all that the nature of her job changed. her approach should have been to seek a pass on that duty and have it assigned to someone else.

Except she doesn't care about that. She is trying to make a religious stand against the hedonism of the geyz.

As another note, her job isn't to arbitrarily decide who can and can't get a marriage license. She didn't have a choice before the SCOTUS ruling. There are laws and regulations that dictate the requirements of obtaining a marriage license. The only change was a restriction against gays was lifted.

She seems to think that she has a choice. She didn't give gays a license before the SCOTUS ruling not because she didn't want to, but because it was against the law. She doesn't have a choice, she never had a choice.

 

[ksen]

Hahaha, Calvinism wins again!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Will she actually be interesting enough to make money?

I predict a reality show.
Set up mostly like Lee Strobels' books, where she introduces some Christain who's had their rights truncated, lost a job for teaching Creationism Science, or questioning evolution, lost a position for not bowing under to the Gay Agenda, any of the several topics currently sending our once-proud nation 'straight to Hell.'

Andnot getting the other side so much as getting a tasty and self-serving summary of the other side's position in the matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From the article I read, it looks like she is out because the county was processing marriage licenses for gays (it should be noted that there is no such thing as a "gay marriage license"). She gets out and claims vindication, she'll always fight the good fight, and her idiot shepherds and sheep all love it.

Melissa McCarthy can play her when they make the film about this insanity in 2031.

 

[RavenSky]

Bunning's release order carries the stipulation that Davis will not interfere with the deputy clerks and instructs counsel for the deputy clerks to report on her adherence or lack thereof every two weeks.

I have read that she has already said she will violate those terms, and that this will open her to a contempt citation for a relatively long (12-18 months) period that cannot be shortened.

I expect her to be back in jail be the end of the month.

Yep.

I very nearly barfed when I saw they played "Eye of the Tiger" at the press event following her release.

 

[skepticalbip]

Bunning's release order carries the stipulation that Davis will not interfere with the deputy clerks and instructs counsel for the deputy clerks to report on her adherence or lack thereof every two weeks.

I have read that she has already said she will violate those terms, and that this will open her to a contempt citation for a relatively long (12-18 months) period that cannot be shortened.

I expect her to be back in jail be the end of the month.

Yep.

I very nearly barfed when I saw they played "Eye of the Tiger" at the press event following her release.

Well, at least one line of that song applies: "So many times it happens too fast You trade your passion for glory"

 

[maxparrish]

It was not her fault at all that the nature of her job changed. her approach should have been to seek a pass on that duty and have it assigned to someone else.

Except she doesn't care about that. She is trying to make a religious stand against the hedonism of the geyz.

As another note, her job isn't to arbitrarily decide who can and can't get a marriage license. She didn't have a choice before the SCOTUS ruling. There are laws and regulations that dictate the requirements of obtaining a marriage license. The only change was a restriction against gays was lifted.

She seems to think that she has a choice. She didn't give gays a license before the SCOTUS ruling not because she didn't want to, but because it was against the law. She doesn't have a choice, she never had a choice.

She always had a limited choice, but if you oppose the state you pay a price. Her actions, like all principled based civil disobedience, challenges the legitimacy of the state's actions through passive resistance. In this case, she is challenging the Supreme Court's lawlessness with her own. Which is why she has become a martyr among many of those who agree.

Unfortunately, she and her supporters are a too emotional and thick headed to see that their actions are needless and wrong-headed. Christians should have rallied around prior cases of bakers and photographers, yet the ninnies finally choose a stand that cannot be justified.

Right cause, wrong case.

 

[bilby]

Except she doesn't care about that. She is trying to make a religious stand against the hedonism of the geyz.

As another note, her job isn't to arbitrarily decide who can and can't get a marriage license. She didn't have a choice before the SCOTUS ruling. There are laws and regulations that dictate the requirements of obtaining a marriage license. The only change was a restriction against gays was lifted.

She seems to think that she has a choice. She didn't give gays a license before the SCOTUS ruling not because she didn't want to, but because it was against the law. She doesn't have a choice, she never had a choice.

She always had a limited choice, but if you oppose the state you pay a price. Her actions, like all principled based civil disobedience, challenges the legitimacy of the state's actions through passive resistance. In this case, she is challenging the Supreme Court's lawlessness with her own. Which is why she has become a martyr among many of those who agree.

Unfortunately, she and her supporters are a too emotional and thick headed to see that their actions are needless and wrong-headed. Christians should have rallied around prior cases of bakers and photographers, yet the ninnies finally choose a stand that cannot be justified.

Right cause, wrong case.

You can say what you like about the Supreme Court decision, but to assert that it constitutes "lawlessness" is fucking moronic.

The Supreme Court did its job - it interpreted the law, and made a ruling based on that law. Whether or not you agree with their decision, it was exactly as far away from "lawlessness" as it is possible to be without completely abandoning the use of the English language.

 

[skepticalbip]

Except she doesn't care about that. She is trying to make a religious stand against the hedonism of the geyz.

As another note, her job isn't to arbitrarily decide who can and can't get a marriage license. She didn't have a choice before the SCOTUS ruling. There are laws and regulations that dictate the requirements of obtaining a marriage license. The only change was a restriction against gays was lifted.

She seems to think that she has a choice. She didn't give gays a license before the SCOTUS ruling not because she didn't want to, but because it was against the law. She doesn't have a choice, she never had a choice.

She always had a limited choice, but if you oppose the state you pay a price. Her actions, like all principled based civil disobedience, challenges the legitimacy of the state's actions through passive resistance. In this case, she is challenging the Supreme Court's lawlessness with her own. Which is why she has become a martyr among many of those who agree.

Unfortunately, she and her supporters are a too emotional and thick headed to see that their actions are needless and wrong-headed. Christians should have rallied around prior cases of bakers and photographers, yet the ninnies finally choose a stand that cannot be justified.

Right cause, wrong case.

In this case, it is more a matter that she is taking a stance against her employer. It is a damned poor argument that she will take the pay for doing the job but will refuse to do the job on the grounds that it is against her religious beliefs.

You are right that those other cases would have been much better choices of where to take such a stand. Although loosing cases, a much better argument could be made for them. At least the bakers and photographers could argue that they aren't taking the money for services they aren't providing.

 

[bilby]

She always had a limited choice, but if you oppose the state you pay a price. Her actions, like all principled based civil disobedience, challenges the legitimacy of the state's actions through passive resistance. In this case, she is challenging the Supreme Court's lawlessness with her own. Which is why she has become a martyr among many of those who agree.

Unfortunately, she and her supporters are a too emotional and thick headed to see that their actions are needless and wrong-headed. Christians should have rallied around prior cases of bakers and photographers, yet the ninnies finally choose a stand that cannot be justified.

Right cause, wrong case.

In this case, it is more a matter that she is taking a stance against her employer.

You are right that those other cases would have been much better choices of where to take such a stand. Although loosing cases, a much better argument could be made for them.

Yes, in the same way that a much better argument can be made for the existence of Bigfoot than for the historicity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Metaphor]

She always had a limited choice, but if you oppose the state you pay a price.

How romantically you portray her 'resistance'. It is, generally speaking, your moral duty to uphold the law, unless the law is so morally abhorrent that it's your duty to resist it.

Her actions, like all principled based civil disobedience, challenges the legitimacy of the state's actions through passive resistance.

Her resistance was not passive. She was on the State's dime, on the State's property obstructing the State's wishes, and finally breaking the law when she defied court orders.

In this case, she is challenging the Supreme Court's lawlessness with her own. Which is why she has become a martyr among many of those who agree.

Unfortunately, she and her supporters are a too emotional and thick headed to see that their actions are needless and wrong-headed. Christians should have rallied around prior cases of bakers and photographers, yet the ninnies finally choose a stand that cannot be justified.

Right cause, wrong case.

What's right about her cause? There's nothing right about a civil servant refusing to lawfully carry out her duties.

 

[skepticalbip]

In this case, it is more a matter that she is taking a stance against her employer.

You are right that those other cases would have been much better choices of where to take such a stand. Although loosing cases, a much better argument could be made for them.

Yes, in the same way that a much better argument can be made for the existence of Bigfoot than for the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Hey, I've got an autographed Polaroid snapshot of Jesus. I'll be glad to sell you a scanned copy if you ever want to prove to doubters that he was an actual historical figure.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What's right about her cause? There's nothing right about a civil servant refusing to lawfully carry out her duties.

She thinks she's John fucking Brown, even though she likely never heard of him. I'm just glad she's so interested in making sure my sex organs are properly attended.

 

[maxparrish]

She always had a limited choice, but if you oppose the state you pay a price. Her actions, like all principled based civil disobedience, challenges the legitimacy of the state's actions through passive resistance. In this case, she is challenging the Supreme Court's lawlessness with her own. Which is why she has become a martyr among many of those who agree.

Unfortunately, she and her supporters are a too emotional and thick headed to see that their actions are needless and wrong-headed. Christians should have rallied around prior cases of bakers and photographers, yet the ninnies finally choose a stand that cannot be justified.

Right cause, wrong case.

You can say what you like about the Supreme Court decision, but to assert that it constitutes "lawlessness" is fucking moronic.

The Supreme Court did its job - it interpreted the law, and made a ruling based on that law. Whether or not you agree with their decision, it was exactly as far away from "lawlessness" as it is possible to be without completely abandoning the use of the English language.

Actually, the chowder headed lunacy is anyone's belief that the SC did its job - unless pulling laughable rationalizations from the cosmic ass is its "job". It was not "interpreted" by any method of greater or rational merit than that used by necromancers and crystal gazers. Indeed, it was the complete abandonment of the meaning in the words of the English language that facilitated it's drivelly poetics.

Its not that one could not make a plausible legal argument for gay marriage, but that opinion was not it. It was an embarrassment.

 

[maxparrish]

How romantically you portray her 'resistance'. It is, generally speaking, your moral duty to uphold the law, unless the law is so morally abhorrent that it's your duty to resist it.

It's a statement of fact, the import of which seems to disturb you. You might reflect on why the stark "you obey or else" power of the state invokes those feelings.

Her actions, like all principled based civil disobedience, challenges the legitimacy of the state's actions through passive resistance.

Her resistance was not passive. She was on the State's dime, on the State's property obstructing the State's wishes, and finally breaking the law when she defied court orders.

All of which is irrelevant given that inactions are passive. She (and her staff) declined to act, refusing to process marriage applications. Their "obstruction" did not even rise to the level of chaining themselves to the xerox machine or throwing themselves across rail-road tracks. And the fact that she continued to decline to act, even when under a court order does not change the passive nature of her resistance.

Here is the definition: a "nonviolent opposition to authority, especially a refusal to cooperate with legal requirements." and "A technique of demonstrating opposition to a government's activities simply by not cooperating with them.".

What's right about her cause? There's nothing right about a civil servant refusing to lawfully carry out her duties.

I am assuming one of her causes is that Christians should not be compelled to do sinful things, that they should have a free choice in participation. She is correct, however her "choice" is in whether or not she wants a job doing "sin". If she does not, she should not be a County Clerk..."sinning" is part of the job duties.

 

[Metaphor]

It's a statement of fact, the import of which seems to disturb you. You might reflect on why the stark "you obey or else" power of the state invokes those feelings.

Invokes what feelings? It is morally good that the State can compel individuals to obey laws. If it could not, none of us would be safe from bodily harm.

All of which is irrelevant given that inactions are passive. She (and her staff) declined to act,

It isn't clear how much voluntarism was available to her staff, though, is it? Either they agreed with her, in which case they are as negligent as she, or they disagreed, and since she forbid them to sign licenses, their own economic livelihood was endangered since she could fire them but she herself could not be fired.

So her resistance was not passive. She may have compelled staff to act against their conscience.

refusing to process marriage applications. Their "obstruction" did not even rise to the level of chaining themselves to the xerox machine or throwing themselves across rail-road tracks. And the fact that she continued to decline to act, even when under a court order does not change the passive nature of her resistance.

It wasn't passive as I've already pointed out, unless you think threatening other staff over whom she has power is 'passive'.

Here is the definition: a "nonviolent opposition to authority, especially a refusal to cooperate with legal requirements." and "A technique of demonstrating opposition to a government's activities simply by not cooperating with them.".

And forbidding her staff to sign the marriage licenses? Was that passive?

I am assuming one of her causes is that Christians should not be compelled to do sinful things, that they should have a free choice in participation. She is correct, however her "choice" is in whether or not she wants a job doing "sin". If she does not, she should not be a County Clerk..."sinning" is part of the job duties.

Since we're in violent agreement on this point, one wonders what all your obstreperous cruciform defence of this woman is all about.

 

[bilby]

You can say what you like about the Supreme Court decision, but to assert that it constitutes "lawlessness" is fucking moronic.

The Supreme Court did its job - it interpreted the law, and made a ruling based on that law. Whether or not you agree with their decision, it was exactly as far away from "lawlessness" as it is possible to be without completely abandoning the use of the English language.

Actually, the chowder headed lunacy is anyone's belief that the SC did its job - unless pulling laughable rationalizations from the cosmic ass is its "job". It was not "interpreted" by any method of greater or rational merit than that used by necromancers and crystal gazers. Indeed, it was the complete abandonment of the meaning in the words of the English language that facilitated it's drivelly poetics.

Its not that one could not make a plausible legal argument for gay marriage, but that opinion was not it. It was an embarrassment.

Your detachment from reality is noted. Further discussion is clearly futile.

 

[laughing dog]

You can say what you like about the Supreme Court decision, but to assert that it constitutes "lawlessness" is fucking moronic.

The Supreme Court did its job - it interpreted the law, and made a ruling based on that law. Whether or not you agree with their decision, it was exactly as far away from "lawlessness" as it is possible to be without completely abandoning the use of the English language.

Actually, the chowder headed lunacy is anyone's belief that the SC did its job - unless pulling laughable rationalizations from the cosmic ass is its "job". It was not "interpreted" by any method of greater or rational merit than that used by necromancers and crystal gazers. Indeed, it was the complete abandonment of the meaning in the words of the English language that facilitated it's drivelly poetics.

Its not that one could not make a plausible legal argument for gay marriage, but that opinion was not it. It was an embarrassment.

The SC did its job - it made its ruling. Regardless of your "reasons" for not liking the ruling, the fact you don't like it doesn't change the reality that their ruling is the law of the land that Ms. Davis swore to uphold.

 

[scombrid]

All of which is irrelevant given that inactions are passive. She (and her staff) declined to act, refusing to process marriage applications.

She actively forbid her staff from acting.

If she does not, she should not be a County Clerk..."sinning" is part of the job duties.

This is what the case is about.

There are lots of things that her job requires that are against some religion or another. It isn't her place to decide which of those is correct. Her job is not her personal religion so she has no 1st Amendment claim here.

Anti-discrimination laws tell me that I cannot discriminate among perspective hires based on religion.

I may not ask someone what they belief or whether they go to church in a job interview.

I am permitted to tell them that the job requires working weekends and then ask them if there are any days during which they cannot work. It matters not why someone cannot work on a day that requires work but I am permitted to not hire somebody if they cannot work on all days on which work may be assigned.