• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

Nice Squirrel said:
ZiprHead said:
A big part of a civil disobedience protest is accepting the punishment for such disobedience.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point? I know I am being punished and I don't care.
Click to expand...

No .... no, that's not the point at all.

The point is to be seen as being willing to accept the punishment, not to actually get put out any by your civil disobedience.

I mean ... holy shit, dude ... the 1960s called - they want their dedication to a cause back. We're in the 21st century now and we prefer our actions to be consequence-free, thank you very much. :realitycheck:
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Nice Squirrel said:
Isn't that the point? I know I am being punished and I don't care.
Click to expand...

No .... no, that's not the point at all.

The point is to be seen as being willing to accept the punishment, not to actually get put out any by your civil disobedience.

I mean ... holy shit, dude ... the 1960s called - they want their dedication to a cause back. We're in the 21st century now and we prefer our actions to be consequence-free, thank you very much. :realitycheck:
Click to expand...
So, you've got Huckabee's campaign headquarters bugged, i take it.
 
ZiprHead said:
Egg-zactly!
Click to expand...
I found some irony in that the idiotic Oath Keepers referenced Henry David Thoreau with regards to Civil Disobedience, in their press release over being rejected by Davis's lawyers to be armed goons to protect Davis from being arrested.
 
maxparrish said:
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."
Click to expand...

1. Davis has told the press she is acting in accordance with her "God's Law". The motivation behind her actions are clearly founded on her personal religious beliefs; there is no ambiguity in that matter. Our Constitution forbids the government from endorsing specific religious beliefs, and Davis is a representative of the government. She cannot use her position as a representative of the state government to endorse her religious beliefs, which is what she is doing by denying gay people marriage licenses in her county. Davis has a right to practice and preach her religious beliefs on her own time and on her own dime, but not when she is acting as a paid representative of the state.

2. Davis' right to free speech and practice of her religion ends where it infringes on the rights of gay people to get married, as they are legally able to do.


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"?).
Click to expand...

Davis is forcing her personal religious values on homosexuals by refusing them the right to marry. She has a right to protest the ruling of the courts with jurisdiction over marriage laws as a private citizen on her own dime and on her own time. She does not have the right to force her personal religious values on other citizens who are legally allowed to be married in her county.

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.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. Davis does not make or interpret constitutional law. She has been lawfully directed by the appropriate court with jurisdiction in the matter to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, and she has refused to follow these directives. Her actions are illegal, and knowingly so.


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

We are NOT speculating. Davis is on record stating that her actions are based on her "God's Law". She has told us that herself.

As usual, your arguments are asinine and have no foundation in reality.
 
Keith&Co. said:
Davis' attorneys turned down the Oath Keepers? They seem purpose-built for that circus...
Click to expand...
They aren't suicidal. They didn't want to create a situation where idiots with guns were going to kill police officers.
 
Malintent said:
I am of the opinion that the cases where a person's job parameters are changed in a way that is deeply disturbing to them (forget "religious", I do not see how a 'test' for "religious" can possibly work), accommodation is a reasonable request. But for the example of a trucker who will only deliver certain items, and not other perfectly legal items, I would not entertain that notion. The job is delivery of random shit. If they have a problem with some shit, then they have no business entering that career.

For the clerk, her job changed. It is reasonable to consider her complaint. It is not reasonable for her to engage in contempt of court and get away with it on 'religious' grounds, though.
Click to expand...


Her job didn't change. The law changed, but that's a part of the job for the clerk, to execute the relevant laws. There could be a law change on what type of paper or formatting the clerk could use. Same difference. And certifying the data on a marriage license is the same task no matter who is standing in front of you.
 
I like how she whined that she was being put in a nearly "impossible situation".

Disobey god or the government.

She left out option 3, since she would never ever consider it

RESIGN!!!

Problem solved.

She left out the operative phrase

"I've been put in a nearly impossible situation - how do I keep my paycheck?"
 
She probably thinks that her god put her in the office, so resigning would be disobeying god as well. Just like the god puts everyone else into political offices (in the U.S., not as much in other places around the world). It is not like people use their free will to vote for who they want to put in there, or anything like that. That would be silly. It would be an instance of their god violating human free will, which we know their god never does. So yeah, this all makes complete sense once you look at it in a more detailed way like she does....or just need to get some more sleep or something...

Brian
 
Last edited:
Tom Sawyer said:
Nice Squirrel said:
Isn't that the point? I know I am being punished and I don't care.
Click to expand...

No .... no, that's not the point at all.

The point is to be seen as being willing to accept the punishment, not to actually get put out any by your civil disobedience.

I mean ... holy shit, dude ... the 1960s called - they want their dedication to a cause back. We're in the 21st century now and we prefer our actions to be consequence-free, thank you very much. :realitycheck:
Click to expand...

Thank you for correcting my error. :lol:
 
She actually started one of her sentences yesterday (Monday) with the words, "I want the world to know..."
Running mate for Trump? She might actually be smarter than Palin, on an Africa-is-a-continent level.
 
ideologyhunter said:
She actually started one of her sentences yesterday (Monday) with the words, "I want the world to know..."
Running mate for Trump? She might actually be smarter than Palin, on an Africa-is-a-continent level.
Click to expand...

But can she see Hell from her front porch?
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, her front porch does look out over Kentucky
Click to expand...

Louisville is a really cool and culturally diverse town. I was there recently and enjoyed their Bourbon, craft beer, multitude of art galleries, music venues, antique architecture, and people.
 
Malintent said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, her front porch does look out over Kentucky
Click to expand...

Louisville is a really cool and culturally diverse town. I was there recently and enjoyed their Bourbon, craft beer, multitude of art galleries, music venues, antique architecture, and people.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was there ten years ago. I was also impressed. I was also startled to see white people, including mature citizens, working at every conceivable level of the service industry (baggage handling, drivers, etc.). I was so used to seeing the stratification of service jobs on the west coast, it was a surprise. Apparently the mantra "the work native-borne (white) Americans won't do" does not apply when you have fewer immigrants to do the work.

Who'da thunk? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom