Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shit or get off the pot and find another job.
People have a right to their religious conscience.
They do not have a right to impose their conscience upon other people.
Especially agents of the government.
She did deny people - same sex as well as straight couples - marriage licenses. She did not allow her deputies to sign, as she could have.People have a right to their religious conscience.
They do not have a right to impose their conscience upon other people.
Especially agents of the government.
No... A "religious conscience" is totally meaningless to grant me as a right. It's akin to saying I have "free speech" as long as I don't vocalize, write or otherwise express it.
Kim Davis is not imposing her conscience on anyone, she is not saying anyone has to follow her conscience or abide by her religion. She is not saying Kentucky can't change it's law. She is not saying the SCOTUS must change it's ruling. She's not standing in the way of gay people getting married anywhere else. She's not even standing in the way of them getting married in her jurisdiction, she just can't sign the authorization for it or authorize others to do so on her behalf.
She did deny people - same sex as well as straight couples - marriage licenses. She did not allow her deputies to sign, as she could have.People have a right to their religious conscience.
They do not have a right to impose their conscience upon other people.
Especially agents of the government.
No... A "religious conscience" is totally meaningless to grant me as a right. It's akin to saying I have "free speech" as long as I don't vocalize, write or otherwise express it.
Kim Davis is not imposing her conscience on anyone, she is not saying anyone has to follow her conscience or abide by her religion. She is not saying Kentucky can't change it's law. She is not saying the SCOTUS must change it's ruling. She's not standing in the way of gay people getting married anywhere else. She's not even standing in the way of them getting married in her jurisdiction, she just can't sign the authorization for it or authorize others to do so on her behalf.
She *did* impose her religious view on those taxpayers who pay her salary.
In doing so, she was brought to court and found in contempt.
The judge offered her an accommodation - let the deputies sign.
That's not good enough for her. Her name is *not* on the certificate, and she's still moaning.
And you know what - the judge told her to not interfere with people being granted licenses - but you can bet yer sweet ass, she's going to.
Watch.
At this point, it's purely opinion by liberal activist judges.This is so simple.
The US-Constitution is THE law of the land, not Kim Davis. Not Mike Huckabee. Not Calgary Cruz.
The SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the law and passing judgement in cases that make it all the way to the SCOTUS.
That's how it works.
If you don't like it, there are banana republics all over the place willing to take in people who cannot understand how a consitutional Republic based on indirect Democracy works.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
They're misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.....not taking into account the framer's intent. The 14th Amendment was only intended to deal with freed slaves, not illegal immigrants or same-sex couples.
There is where this faulty decision can be easily overturned.
At this point, it's purely opinion by liberal activist judges.This is so simple.
The US-Constitution is THE law of the land, not Kim Davis. Not Mike Huckabee. Not Calgary Cruz.
The SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the law and passing judgement in cases that make it all the way to the SCOTUS.
That's how it works.
If you don't like it, there are banana republics all over the place willing to take in people who cannot understand how a consitutional Republic based on indirect Democracy works.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
They're misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.....not taking into account the framer's intent. The 14th Amendment was only intended to deal with freed slaves, not illegal immigrants or same-sex couples.
There is where this faulty decision can be easily overturned.
That is your opinion. Nothing less and nothing more. And you do no sit on the Supreme Court. They do.
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, he or she should resign and work to change the law through regular channels. That is my first instinct with regard to Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses. Charles Cooke made
essentially that argument in National Review. Having read and reflected further on the case, I am starting to wonder if the question is actually much more interesting.
Davis is an elected official. When the people elected her, she had no objection to the law of marriage as it existed. A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court changed the legal definition of marriage in Kentucky—or, at least, asserted its right to do so. (One could argue that the Supreme Court, in fact, only asserted that it is unconstitutional not to allow people of the same sex to marry, but since we have separations of power, it is the duty of the legislatures of our states to change their laws to comply with the court’s demands).
Since the key practical fact is that the law has been changed since Davis was elected, the logical reaction is not simply to resign, but to resign and to campaign for re-election. If the people want to elect someone who disagrees with either the Supreme Court’s power to change the definition of marriage or simply with the new definition of marriage, then she should, with the people’s blessing, continue to follow the law of the land as her district understands it, and be willing to suffer the legal consequences on behalf of her constituents.
Davis views this matter as simply one of her rights of conscience, but it, in fact, implicates many more questions about the rule of law and the democratic process. Were American civil education stronger, that element of the story would getting much more play in the press.
It Would Be Easy to Accommodate Kim Davis
The most interesting analysis of the question is Eugene Volokh’s account. Volokh is one of America’s leading experts on religious liberty, and his account of the case is enlightening and fascinating. Volokh reminds us that religious exemptions to generally applicable laws are common in the United States—from Quakers who refuse to fight, to a “philosophically vegetarian” bus driver who refused to hand out free hamburger coupons. (Note that, in this case, our courts agreed that the word “philosophy” used in this sense means religion—our fundamental moral beliefs, values, or practices.)
Religious exemptions to generally applicable laws are common in the United States.
Moreover, he points out that what Davis wants is an accommodation that would entail nothing more than changing the legal form of marriage licenses in a small way. He points out that she would be content with, in the words of her legal briefs: “Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.”
Volokh argues that she might actually win such an exemption under Kentucky law, although not federal law. If Davis turns to Kentucky courts and wins such a change, that would conclude the matter. In response to the argument that such an “accommodation” is, in reality, a legislative change that would require an act of the legislature, Volokh finds that Kentucky law already provides for such an accommodation.
What’s Really Happening Is the End of Law Itself
That opens up a whole second set of questions. It is one thing for a religious-freedom law to require accommodations or work-arounds that would, for example, exempt a religious Muslim or Jew from head-covering laws or facial-hair requirements, and another for one law, as if by autopilot, to change the wording of a legal form. But if courts are allowed to, in effect, dictate the content of our legal code rather than, as they traditionally did, simply reject unconstitutional law, that might not be so unreasonable.
More and more of the laws under which we live are not legislation passed by our legislatures.
That Volokh’s interpretation may very well be correct shows us how far the very idea of legislation has been degraded in the United States. After all, more and more of the laws under which we live are not legislation passed by our legislatures. Instead, they are rules created by unelected bureaucrats or, as in this case, unelected judges—and in both cases they usually have jobs for life, making them, in effect, a postmodern form of robe-nobility.
How to fight against such intrusions upon the rights of we, the people? As in all other fights, we need to fight intelligently. Moreover, we also need to do our best to see the full contours of the fight we are in.
What Do Kim Davis’s Constituents Think?
ALL of it here:
Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law
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, he or she should resign and work to change the law through regular channels. That is my first instinct with regard to Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses. Charles Cooke made
essentially that argument in National Review. Having read and reflected further on the case, I am starting to wonder if the question is actually much more interesting.
Davis is an elected official. When the people elected her, she had no objection to the law of marriage as it existed. A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court changed the legal definition of marriage in Kentucky—or, at least, asserted its right to do so. (One could argue that the Supreme Court, in fact, only asserted that it is unconstitutional not to allow people of the same sex to marry, but since we have separations of power, it is the duty of the legislatures of our states to change their laws to comply with the court’s demands).
Since the key practical fact is that the law has been changed since Davis was elected, the logical reaction is not simply to resign, but to resign and to campaign for re-election. If the people want to elect someone who disagrees with either the Supreme Court’s power to change the definition of marriage or simply with the new definition of marriage, then she should, with the people’s blessing, continue to follow the law of the land as her district understands it, and be willing to suffer the legal consequences on behalf of her constituents.
Davis views this matter as simply one of her rights of conscience, but it, in fact, implicates many more questions about the rule of law and the democratic process. Were American civil education stronger, that element of the story would getting much more play in the press.
It Would Be Easy to Accommodate Kim Davis
The most interesting analysis of the question is Eugene Volokh’s account. Volokh is one of America’s leading experts on religious liberty, and his account of the case is enlightening and fascinating. Volokh reminds us that religious exemptions to generally applicable laws are common in the United States—from Quakers who refuse to fight, to a “philosophically vegetarian” bus driver who refused to hand out free hamburger coupons. (Note that, in this case, our courts agreed that the word “philosophy” used in this sense means religion—our fundamental moral beliefs, values, or practices.)
Religious exemptions to generally applicable laws are common in the United States.
Moreover, he points out that what Davis wants is an accommodation that would entail nothing more than changing the legal form of marriage licenses in a small way. He points out that she would be content with, in the words of her legal briefs: “Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.”
Volokh argues that she might actually win such an exemption under Kentucky law, although not federal law. If Davis turns to Kentucky courts and wins such a change, that would conclude the matter. In response to the argument that such an “accommodation” is, in reality, a legislative change that would require an act of the legislature, Volokh finds that Kentucky law already provides for such an accommodation.
What’s Really Happening Is the End of Law Itself
That opens up a whole second set of questions. It is one thing for a religious-freedom law to require accommodations or work-arounds that would, for example, exempt a religious Muslim or Jew from head-covering laws or facial-hair requirements, and another for one law, as if by autopilot, to change the wording of a legal form. But if courts are allowed to, in effect, dictate the content of our legal code rather than, as they traditionally did, simply reject unconstitutional law, that might not be so unreasonable.
More and more of the laws under which we live are not legislation passed by our legislatures.
That Volokh’s interpretation may very well be correct shows us how far the very idea of legislation has been degraded in the United States. After all, more and more of the laws under which we live are not legislation passed by our legislatures. Instead, they are rules created by unelected bureaucrats or, as in this case, unelected judges—and in both cases they usually have jobs for life, making them, in effect, a postmodern form of robe-nobility.
How to fight against such intrusions upon the rights of we, the people? As in all other fights, we need to fight intelligently. Moreover, we also need to do our best to see the full contours of the fight we are in.
What Do Kim Davis’s Constituents Think?
ALL of it here:
Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law
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.
Kim Davis is legislating from the Clerks Office proclaiming her belief system trumps the US Constitution..........
No she is not. She is simply refusing to sign her name to something she fundamentally and religiously doesn't condone. She has every Constitutional right to do so.
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.
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?
...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.
Noone needs permission from the government to get married....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.
Then let's get rid of marriage licenses altogether. I'd be fine with that. I've never understood why you need permission from the government to get married in the first place.
If she was fired b.c. of her religion, or put in jail b.c. of her religion, that would be discrimination.
She was jailed because her religious beliefs would not permit her to authorize gay marriages.
She didn't create that conflict. She didn't create that problem.
It's not up to her to fix the problem or deal with it, or do anything to step out of the way for it.
There are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake, no religious liberty is being 'violated.'It does not matter that this is how YOU think it works. You cannot compel someone to sign their name to something they fundamentally disagree with on a religious basis..
May I suggest then she resign since the Law of The Land allows Gay marriage and she cannot comply...Resign for Jesus ...
It does not matter what the supposed "law of the land" allows. The "law of the land" used to allow black people to be bought and sold as property. Are you saying everyone who disagreed with that law should have resigned or sat down and shut up? ---We don't have to do what you say! This isn't an Atheist Oligarchy.
The 1st Amendment is law of the land too!
She did not "deny" anyone anything.
