CDZ Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

[Boss]

The only argument for Davis' case I found remotely interesting was that she was elected by voters to uphold the law as it was the hour of her taking office, and beyond that her duty and obligation as an elected official is to champion that expression of will at the time of that election. We assume elected officials of the executive to be responsive to changes of law during their term. To question that assumption is an interesting exploration.

I doubt it would end in a vindication for Davis, though. She's grandstanding instead of finding some other line of work in accordance with her personal ethics...which tells me all I need to know about her ethics.

I disagree that she is grandstanding. She is not grandstanding any more than Rosa Parks or MLK. Rosa could have found a more desirable mode of transportation if she didn't like her seat. MLK could have marched across some other bridge where he had permission to be. We can always justify upholding "law of the land" in the face of civil disobedience.

We absolutely have EVERY Constitutional right to protest unjust law, and that is exactly what we now have with this rogue SCOTUS ruling which violates Ms. Davis' right to her religious beliefs. She shouldn't be compelled to have to accommodate that. She shouldn't be forced to give her approval of something she doesn't fundamentally agree with on a religious basis.

 

[RedTeamTex]

I disagree that she is grandstanding. She is not grandstanding any more than Rosa Parks or MLK. Rosa could have found a more desirable mode of transportation if she didn't like her seat. MLK could have marched across some other bridge where he had permission to be. We can always justify upholding "law of the land" in the face of civil disobedience.

We absolutely have EVERY Constitutional right to protest unjust law, and that is exactly what we now have with this rogue SCOTUS ruling which violates Ms. Davis' right to her religious beliefs. She shouldn't be compelled to have to accommodate that. She shouldn't be forced to give her approval of something she doesn't fundamentally agree with on a religious basis.

I won't dis anyone's claim to civil disobedience or its potential moral virtues in some circumstances (which is only about 4% as many as most liberals think.) My objection to Davis here is that she's acting as a public official, not a private citizen. I could sympathize with her position if she wasn't needlessly trashing the concept of public service.

If one would try to give her credit for civil disobedience, it's fair to ask if this is how Gandhi, Thoreau, or MLK would have done it? They would have resisted as citizens, not as office holders betraying their oath to uphold the law. Had a law changed requiring them to violate their personal ethics while in office, they would have resigned in protest first. They defied the law as citizens under government---not as agents of the government.

Even if you don't find that distinction very compelling, if we want to give her credit for 'civil disobedience' then she has to acknowledge the fact she's breaking the (Constitutional) law in deference to some moral one. Sure you're right that there's a constitutional right to protest. There can't be a "constitutional" right to break the law as decreed by the High Court. What she's doing is more than First Amendment protest---because she's doing it with her public office that tax payers are funding.

Is she going to change any law? Nope.

Will she make some $ off this little stunt. Just you watch...

Grandstanding.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Another look at all this. what do you all think?

SNIP:

Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law
Kim Davis views her stand as simply one of conscience rights, but it implicates many more questions about the rule of law and the democratic process.

...

By Richard Samuelson
September 10, 2015
.
When a public official cannot enforce the law in good conscience...

...

What Do Kim Davis’s Constituents Think?

ALL of it here:
Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

What do we all think, and what do the constituents think?

The author of the quoted and linked to piece ... lost me with this one: "more and more of the laws under which we live are not legislation passed by our legislatures."

I know of no laws not passed by our legislatures

 

[Boss]

I disagree that she is grandstanding. She is not grandstanding any more than Rosa Parks or MLK. Rosa could have found a more desirable mode of transportation if she didn't like her seat. MLK could have marched across some other bridge where he had permission to be. We can always justify upholding "law of the land" in the face of civil disobedience.

We absolutely have EVERY Constitutional right to protest unjust law, and that is exactly what we now have with this rogue SCOTUS ruling which violates Ms. Davis' right to her religious beliefs. She shouldn't be compelled to have to accommodate that. She shouldn't be forced to give her approval of something she doesn't fundamentally agree with on a religious basis.

I won't dis anyone's claim to civil disobedience or its potential moral virtues in some circumstances (which is only about 4% as many as most liberals think.) My objection to Davis here is that she's acting as a public official, not a private citizen. I could sympathize with her position if she wasn't needlessly trashing the concept of public service.

If one would try to give her credit for civil disobedience, it's fair to ask if this is how Gandhi, Thoreau, or MLK would have done it? They would have resisted as citizens, not as office holders betraying their oath to uphold the law. Had a law changed requiring them to violate their personal ethics while in office, they would have resigned in protest first. They defied the law as citizens under government---not as agents of the government.

Even if you don't find that distinction very compelling, if we want to give her credit for 'civil disobedience' then she has to acknowledge the fact she's breaking the (Constitutional) law in deference to some moral one. Sure you're right that there's a constitutional right to protest. There can't be a "constitutional" right to break the law as decreed by the High Court. What she's doing is more than First Amendment protest---because she's doing it with her public office that tax payers are funding.

Is she going to change any law? Nope.

Will she make some $ off this little stunt. Just you watch...

Grandstanding.

Some people also claimed MLK was "in it for the money" as well as Rosa Parks, as I recall.

Why should Davis have to give up her job to uphold her religious faith? NOTHING in the Constitution says you give up your Constitutional rights when you serve the public. And the way I see it, she is not "breaking" any law, she is refusing to sign her name to something which contradicts her religious beliefs, which she has every right to do. The SCOTUS should have considered this before they made a law from whole cloth and interpreted it into the Constitution.

I understand this is a difficult point for people to get if they are supporters of gay marriage. They want so badly to stake claim to victory and declare this matter settled but it's not settled. There is nothing in the Constitution granting the right for you to legitimize your sexual behavior through marriage. We don't allow that for any other sexual lifestyle. Now that SCOTUS has issued this ruling, we have a conflict that cannot stand. They've legalized something that is viewed as morally wrong by most religious believers. Something they cannot and will not support or condone.

So in order for you to view this in context, you need to imagine a scenario where SCOTUS has ruled something Constitutional which you fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis... I have no idea what that is... Do liberals even HAVE morals anymore? Surely, you can think of something that you'd find morally reprehensible and unable to support in good conscience because of your beliefs. The fact that it's "law of the land" is totally irrelevant with regard to what we MUST condone!

What is so MIND BLOWING is that I have to point this out to LIBERALS! The very people who have made a career out of being defiant and confronting authority when authority gets it wrong. The SCOTUS had absolutely NO business ruling on this case! NONE! The States were handling this one by one. Society has resisted the radical legalization of same sex marriage and this is an activist liberal SCOTUS who FORCED this on people who are not going to accept it... not only are they not going to accept it, they don't have to accept it and you'll never make them accept it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

False assumptions based on national myths: "One of the main reasons the American Revolution did not descend into the kind of anarchy that the French Revolution produced is the Americans always worked within existing legal forms, and acted on behalf of rights already possessed and through existing institutions."

The colonists under the guise of 'Liberty' used intimidation and more. The Sons of Liberty used thuggery and broke laws to intimidate others into silence.

The newly formed states under the extra-legal Continental Congress disarmed fellow colonists and confiscated the lands of fellow colonist and in some instances, of family members. It was a true civil war, not a war between states.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I disagree that she is grandstanding. She is not grandstanding any more than Rosa Parks or MLK. Rosa could have found a more desirable mode of transportation if she didn't like her seat. MLK could have marched across some other bridge where he had permission to be. We can always justify upholding "law of the land" in the face of civil disobedience.

We absolutely have EVERY Constitutional right to protest unjust law, and that is exactly what we now have with this rogue SCOTUS ruling which violates Ms. Davis' right to her religious beliefs. She shouldn't be compelled to have to accommodate that. She shouldn't be forced to give her approval of something she doesn't fundamentally agree with on a religious basis.

I won't dis anyone's claim to civil disobedience or its potential moral virtues in some circumstances (which is only about 4% as many as most liberals think.) My objection to Davis here is that she's acting as a public official, not a private citizen. I could sympathize with her position if she wasn't needlessly trashing the concept of public service.

If one would try to give her credit for civil disobedience, it's fair to ask if this is how Gandhi, Thoreau, or MLK would have done it? They would have resisted as citizens, not as office holders betraying their oath to uphold the law. Had a law changed requiring them to violate their personal ethics while in office, they would have resigned in protest first. They defied the law as citizens under government---not as agents of the government.

Even if you don't find that distinction very compelling, if we want to give her credit for 'civil disobedience' then she has to acknowledge the fact she's breaking the (Constitutional) law in deference to some moral one. Sure you're right that there's a constitutional right to protest. There can't be a "constitutional" right to break the law as decreed by the High Court. What she's doing is more than First Amendment protest---because she's doing it with her public office that tax payers are funding.

Is she going to change any law? Nope.

Will she make some $ off this little stunt. Just you watch...

Grandstanding.

Some people also claimed MLK was "in it for the money" as well as Rosa Parks, as I recall.

Why should Davis have to give up her job to uphold her religious faith? NOTHING in the Constitution says you give up your Constitutional rights when you serve the public. And the way I see it, she is not "breaking" any law, she is refusing to sign her name to something which contradicts her religious beliefs, which she has every right to do. The SCOTUS should have considered this before they made a law from whole cloth and interpreted it into the Constitution.

I understand this is a difficult point for people to get if they are supporters of gay marriage. They want so badly to stake claim to victory and declare this matter settled but it's not settled. There is nothing in the Constitution granting the right for you to legitimize your sexual behavior through marriage. We don't allow that for any other sexual lifestyle. Now that SCOTUS has issued this ruling, we have a conflict that cannot stand. They've legalized something that is viewed as morally wrong by most religious believers. Something they cannot and will not support or condone.

So in order for you to view this in context, you need to imagine a scenario where SCOTUS has ruled something Constitutional which you fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis... I have no idea what that is... Do liberals even HAVE morals anymore? Surely, you can think of something that you'd find morally reprehensible and unable to support in good conscience because of your beliefs. The fact that it's "law of the land" is totally irrelevant with regard to what we MUST condone!

What is so MIND BLOWING is that I have to point this out to LIBERALS! The very people who have made a career out of being defiant and confronting authority when authority gets it wrong. The SCOTUS had absolutely NO business ruling on this case! NONE! The States were handling this one by one. Society has resisted the radical legalization of same sex marriage and this is an activist liberal SCOTUS who FORCED this on people who are not going to accept it... not only are they not going to accept it, they don't have to accept it and you'll never make them accept it.

So much of what you have written can be debunked by any 7th grade student with a minimal understanding of civics.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I disagree that she is grandstanding. She is not grandstanding any more than Rosa Parks or MLK. Rosa could have found a more desirable mode of transportation if she didn't like her seat. MLK could have marched across some other bridge where he had permission to be. We can always justify upholding "law of the land" in the face of civil disobedience.

Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. were protesting discrimination and bigotry against an entire class of people.

The bigoted Christian woman is in a state job. A single dipshat pushing bigotry under the guise of religious beliefs

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"It would helpful to remember here that Davis is not being “punished” for her beliefs. Davis was found in contempt for refusing to abide by a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She is being appropriately dealt with for not doing the taxpayer-funded job the citizens of Rowan County elected her to do, for not upholding the Constitution she took an oath to abide by. I know that lots of Christians are used to cherry picking their Bible verses to make their points, but you’re not allowed to be quite so selective with the Constitution. Certainly not if you’re someone whose job involves issuing marriage licenses."​

l know people will keep arguing around the periphery of the real truths...

No, Christians, you’re not being “persecuted” — and Kim Davis is not a martyr - Salon.com

 

[koshergrl]

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.

That conflict can easily be resolved....Resign the Position of Clerk.....she has a Right to Religious freedom but not to occupy a Government position in order to enforce Religious Doctrine...its not complicated....

No sir.. She should not have to resign because of her religious beliefs. You cannot discriminate based on religion. Sorry.... can't do it. She has every right to maintain her job and doesn't have any obligation to resign. She is not enforcing religious doctrine. She is being required to condone something her faith doesn't allow her to condone.

AND she can be easily and reasonably accommodated, with no harm done to ANYBODY.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Some people also claimed MLK was "in it for the money" as well as Rosa Parks, as I recall.

Why should Davis have to give up her job to uphold her religious faith? NOTHING in the Constitution says you give up your Constitutional rights when you serve the public. And the way I see it, she is not "breaking" any law, she is refusing to sign her name to something which contradicts her religious beliefs, which she has every right to do. The SCOTUS should have considered this before they made a law from whole cloth and interpreted it into the Constitution.

I understand this is a difficult point for people to get if they are supporters of gay marriage. They want so badly to stake claim to victory and declare this matter settled but it's not settled. There is nothing in the Constitution granting the right for you to legitimize your sexual behavior through marriage. We don't allow that for any other sexual lifestyle. Now that SCOTUS has issued this ruling, we have a conflict that cannot stand. They've legalized something that is viewed as morally wrong by most religious believers. Something they cannot and will not support or condone.

So in order for you to view this in context, you need to imagine a scenario where SCOTUS has ruled something Constitutional which you fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis... I have no idea what that is... Do liberals even HAVE morals anymore? Surely, you can think of something that you'd find morally reprehensible and unable to support in good conscience because of your beliefs. The fact that it's "law of the land" is totally irrelevant with regard to what we MUST condone!

What is so MIND BLOWING is that I have to point this out to LIBERALS! The very people who have made a career out of being defiant and confronting authority when authority gets it wrong. The SCOTUS had absolutely NO business ruling on this case! NONE! The States were handling this one by one. Society has resisted the radical legalization of same sex marriage and this is an activist liberal SCOTUS who FORCED this on people who are not going to accept it... not only are they not going to accept it, they don't have to accept it and you'll never make them accept it.

I like your reasoning Boss, and I concede MLK had plenty of skeptics impugning his motives when he deserved better. Whether Davis lives up to his standard remains to be seen.

For the record, I'm no big proponent of gay marriage, or the recent SC decision. (While I do have a gay sister, I eat at Chick-fil-A without losing a minute's sleep.) I think the High Court should have ultimately removed marriage status from legal reference & favor (or disfavor, in the case of marriage tax penalty.) Different religious persuasions could then each define marriage however the heck they want. Short of that, I agree with the dissenting opinion of Justice Roberts: this issue was being distilled perfectly fine on a state-by-state level without the High Court cauterizing that slow social process short. Kennedy missed the boat on this one.

Where we disagree is over the fact it's Davis' JOB to sign off on legal marriage license applications. She does have a legal obligation to execute the job functions she sought out by running for the office. If I suffer an injury and can't play linebacker for my team anymore, I step aside to let someone else step in for the team. If I have a religious conversion and can't in good conscious practice surgery anymore, I resign--I don't continue to call myself a doctor, show up to the operating table expecting to get paid, and then try to obstruct the surgery that the patient or his/her legal guardian agreed with the hospital to undergo. If an event changes my ability to uphold my obligations as an employee, I should quit. No public service oath says 'uphold only the laws I morally approve of.' She's undermining her own moral argument by betraying her oath to uphold the law by doing her job. If she wanted her moral convictions to have any weight in the public eye for the purpose of civic discourse, she should have resigned.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I agree with the dissenting opinion of Justice Roberts: this issue was being distilled perfectly fine on a state-by-state level without the High Court cauterizing that slow social process short. Kennedy missed the boat on this one.

Not Roberts' best day. HE retreated into conservative prejudices and principles rather than the enlightened principles he is usually known for. But then again, the same sex marriage thing has a terrible grip on many people's psyche

that said, Kim Davis is nothing but a bigot dresses in the robes of religious faith

she's also a lonely, fat woman seeking an identity

 

[Boss]

Where we disagree is over the fact it's Davis' JOB to sign off on legal marriage license applications. She does have a legal obligation to execute the job functions she sought out by running for the office.

This is where I think you are wrong. She cannot be compelled by her job to abandon her religious convictions. If the execution of her job violates her Constitutional rights, she shouldn't be obligated to do it... doesn't matter who she works for, who elected her or didn't elect her or what the "law of the land" is. We are not compelled to follow ANY law that violates our Constitutional rights.

 

[RedTeamTex]

This is where I think you are wrong. She cannot be compelled by her job to abandon her religious convictions. If the execution of her job violates her Constitutional rights, she shouldn't be obligated to do it... doesn't matter who she works for, who elected her or didn't elect her or what the "law of the land" is. We are not compelled to follow ANY law that violates our Constitutional rights.

There's lots of government jobs that require you to perform regardless of religious convictions...military personal give up their rights in order to assume legally binding obligations to do harrowing deeds without the opportunity to morally object to much. Public service on the white collar side is no different, legally speaking. CIA spooks give up their first amendments rights...they're legally culpable for revealing secrets. (Those defenses have been attempted and their cases were so open-and-shut it didn't even take the Supreme Court to decide them.) If Hillary Clinton declared a religious conviction of being "transparent and truthful" as the reason she didn't do her work on secure government servers, does that exonerate her legally? Constitutional rights we enjoy as private citizens don't excuse us from the legal obligations we willingly assume as public servants. We can and do contractually sacrifice any number of rights when we take those jobs. In this context, Davis did.

When you say "she shouldn't be obligated to do it," you may be right because of 'morality,' but not 'constitutionality.'

 

[Boss]

This is where I think you are wrong. She cannot be compelled by her job to abandon her religious convictions. If the execution of her job violates her Constitutional rights, she shouldn't be obligated to do it... doesn't matter who she works for, who elected her or didn't elect her or what the "law of the land" is. We are not compelled to follow ANY law that violates our Constitutional rights.

There's lots of government jobs that require you to perform regardless of religious convictions...military personal give up their rights in order to assume legally binding obligations to do harrowing deeds without the opportunity to morally object to much. Public service on the white collar side is no different, legally speaking. CIA spooks give up their first amendments rights...they're legally culpable for revealing secrets. (Those defenses have been attempted and their cases were so open-and-shut it didn't even take the Supreme Court to decide them.) If Hillary Clinton declared a religious conviction of being "transparent and truthful" as the reason she didn't do her work on secure government servers, does that exonerate her legally? Constitutional rights we enjoy as private citizens don't excuse us from the legal obligations we willingly assume as public servants. We can and do contractually sacrifice any number of rights when we take those jobs. In this context, Davis did.

When you say "she shouldn't be obligated to do it," you may be right because of 'morality,' but not 'constitutionality.'

You are totally missing the point. This is not an argument as to whether or not Davis is "legally" in compliance. She couldn't have been arrested if she were, I think that is understood. The problem is, she cannot abandon her religion in order to do the job she is being demanded to do and she shouldn't be required to. No one agrees to do that... EVER! It is not expected of us, we are not so compelled. You may as well be asking her to shoot babies in the head... it doesn't matter if the court makes it legal to do... it doesn't matter what the law says she is supposed to do... this supersedes what the law says. She cannot be forced to sign her name to something that violates her freedom of religion... does not matter who she works for or what "the law" says... the law is wrong if it says she has to.

"The law" says a soldier has to obey his commanding officer... but if his commanding officer orders him to do something that is a violation of human rights, he is not compelled to follow that order. It does not matter what the consequences of that decision are for the soldier.

 

[RedTeamTex]

You are totally missing the point. This is not an argument as to whether or not Davis is "legally" in compliance. She couldn't have been arrested if she were, I think that is understood. The problem is, she cannot abandon her religion in order to do the job she is being demanded to do and she shouldn't be required to. No one agrees to do that... EVER! It is not expected of us, we are not so compelled. You may as well be asking her to shoot babies in the head... it doesn't matter if the court makes it legal to do... it doesn't matter what the law says she is supposed to do... this supersedes what the law says. She cannot be forced to sign her name to something that violates her freedom of religion... does not matter who she works for or what "the law" says... the law is wrong if it says she has to.

"The law" says a soldier has to obey his commanding officer... but if his commanding officer orders him to do something that is a violation of human rights, he is not compelled to follow that order. It does not matter what the consequences of that decision are for the soldier.

lol if I'm totally missing the point, it wouldn't be the first time...
I can concede your last post is internally consistent. I can imagine myself in a situation where I can't obey what I perceive is an immoral law.

What threw me is that you said she had a constitutional right to defy the law on religious grounds. The High Court gets to decide what's a constitutional right and when it applies. We have to decide for ourselves what's just. I can respect someone saying Davis is in an unjust situation.

Now we might disagree whether and how well Davis is morally navigating her situation. But then we'd be debating ethics, not the Constitution.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Uhm, no.

It's not how I "think" it works.

It's HOW it works.

Are you brain-damaged, or what?

No, it's NOT how it works. The SCOTUS can't legislate from the bench and fundamentally violate the 1st Amendment rights of Kim Davis. You may think they can... they may think they can... they can't.

Ahhh, but they did not legislate from the bench. That is the crux of this.

They did here in Iowa and in turn violated the Iowa Constitution: Article I, Section 6....

The Constitution of the State of Iowa

Laws uniform. Section 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

....which is based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The argument was that all mature willing companions should be allowed to marry. However not all mature willing companions are allowed to form marriage groups after the courts ruling as they choose. So the courts violated the Iowa Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution with their granting of special privileges to a specific class of citizen. Otherwise if they had a question about, which they did, they should have thrown the issue back to the legislative branch.

Until all mature willing companions are allowed to form marriage groups as they choose this issue is nothing more than discrimination by the judicial system.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.
.

Last time I checked here in Iowa a couple is considered married in the eyes of the law if they stay together for seven years and no marriage license is required.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Stephanie]

I just ran across this and posted in a new thread. It's very long so you'll have to get most of it off the site. If you are interested

SNIP:
10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

• Law

10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

By Joe Rigney





There’s much talk of late about Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She actually stopped issuing all marriage licenses, to avoid the charge of discrimination. She’s now out of jail, although it’s possible she’ll be sent back.

Among those who are sympathetic to her plight and the religious-liberty implications of the case, many (if not most) still think her decision to refuse to issue licenses was wrong.


For example, Russell Moore and Andrew Walker carefully distinguish between private actors (like bakers and florists) and agents of the state. The former should be allowed to refuse participation in a gay wedding, while the latter, when faced with the prospect of violating their sincere religious beliefs, should seek accommodation from the state, and, failing that, should resign. Others who agree with this principle include Eric Teetsel and Rod Dreher (Dreher mentions others in his post).

For all of these commentators, Davis’s refusal to issue the licenses is a radical move that threatens the rule of law and our fundamental constitutional order. Conservatives, they argue, rightly object when government officials refuse to perform their duties (see here and here). Therefore, we ought not join them in similar lawlessness. (Breakpoint has collected a bunch of additional reactions here.)

I respect many of the men making these arguments. Some of them are good friends. But I have some questions about this framing of the issue.

1. Did You Consider if Kim Davis Isn’t the Law Breaker?

all of it here:
10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

 

[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*****

 

[Stephanie]

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.