Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

HisServant

New member
So she should resign if she can't do the job.

And thwart the will of the people that voted her in?.... did she run on an anti-gay marriage platform?

An appointed judge jailing an elected official due to something their branch of government unilaterally did... where is the separation of powers?

If anything, she should be permitted to serve out her term and then not apply for reelection... if she does, she is a hypocrite.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
And thwart the will of the people that voted her in?.... did she run on an anti-gay marriage platform?
The majority can't vote a minority into second class citizenship.
And
She's a County Clerk, I imagine she ran on a platform of putting papers where they belong. If she wanted to make laws she should have run for a legislative body.

An appointed judge jailing an elected official due to something their branch of government unilaterally did... where is the separation of powers?
Working as they're supposed to in this case.
If anything, she should be permitted to serve out her term and then not apply for reelection... if she does, she is a hypocrite.
Which opens the County up to Civil Rights action.
 

republicanchick

New member
our first modern day martyr

God bless her

for sure.

the PC crowd is ticked off b/c she had as much .. uh... maleness? or what have u.. as those bullies -- those who always have to force Christians to accept them (the same sex perverts)

They are unsure themselves of their "sexual identity" or they wouldn't have to force acceptance of it on others...

(either that or they just simply bullies... )



___

 

HisServant

New member
The majority can't vote a minority into second class citizenship.
And
She's a County Clerk, I imagine she ran on a platform of putting papers where they belong. If she wanted to make laws she should have run for a legislative body.


Working as they're supposed to in this case.

Which opens the County up to Civil Rights action.

Which is why our system has become so messed up... the founders never envisioned 'instant' democracy... they specifically wrote the constitution so that change would be slow.

I believe they would be horrified by the decrees we get from the supremes.. they are like our Kings now.. they can strike down anything from any branch of government with impunity.
 

journey

New member
I don't think that the clerk has a case that can be won. It appears that she only has two choices: do the job or resign. The court order should have been enough of a hint to cause her to choose from the only options she had. By the way, I don't believe in gay marriage, and I would have resigned.
 

SamuelJ

BANNED
Banned
I don't get it guys. If she had a problem with what her employer asked her to do, she could've quit. She didn't. That's on her.

Muslim women at some places of work cannot wear burkas due to a dress code. Wearing it is something that they believe is vital to their faith. Do you guys think that all employers should allow anyone to wear a burka?
 

musterion

Well-known member
I believe in religious liberty, but this is a civil job she has, and the law is the law, and she should either have issued the licenses or left her post.

I don't think that the clerk has a case that can be won. It appears that she only has two choices: do the job or resign. The court order should have been enough of a hint to cause her to choose from the only options she had. By the way, I don't believe in gay marriage, and I would have resigned.


Agreed. No one "owns" a job short of a private entrepreneur who started his/her own business (Obama the Idiot's "You didn't build that" notwithstanding).
 

Sitamun

New member
Thomas Massie, the US Representative in Davis' district, pointed out that she had a job and the job description suddenly and abruptly changed. She was elected expecting to only have to issue licenses for opposite-sex couples but the Supreme Court said that she had to now give licenses to same-sex couples.

Except that it really wasn't sudden or abrupt. Granted I don't know off hand when she was elected to the post, lets assume that it was before the supreme court ruling. So now onto the fact that it was a Supreme Court ruling. That means the legal battle was going on for awhile. We knew the court was going to hear the case, then they heard the case, then they had MONTHS to all think on it and render their judgements. At the least she knew for MONTHS, if not a year or longer that the Supreme Court Judgement could happen. It's not like she went home from work one day with zero knowledge that anything like this could happen to the next day, boom, gay marriage.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I don't get it guys. If she had a problem with what her employer asked her to do, she could've quit. She didn't. That's on her.

Muslim women at some places of work cannot wear burkas due to a dress code. Wearing it is something that they believe is vital to their faith. Do you guys think that all employers should allow anyone to wear a burka?

That's a fair point. All I can say is, you're going to see two things happen within the next couple years:

1. Restrictions such as those on Muslim tater sacks will quietly pass away and will no longer be an issue. Open displays of crosses, on the other hand, may still be considered offensive.

2. At some point, a Muslim civil servant will refuse some appointed duty on the grounds it violates Islam. Such a story will be barely reported and quickly quashed when nothing comes of it. There will be NO public firing and/or jailing in such a case.
 

SamuelJ

BANNED
Banned
2. At some point, a Muslim civil servant will refuse some appointed duty on the grounds it violates Islam. Such a story will be barely reported and quickly quashed when nothing comes of it. There will be NO public firing and/or jailing in such a case.

I disagree with you there. As in the burka example I mentioned, I imagine the law will be upheld and the man/woman causing a stir will be told that they don't have to work there if they don't want to comply.

If the law didn't side with women being allowed to wear burkas where there is a dress code, I doubt they'd side with a Muslim clerk who refused to perform civil duties
 

musterion

Well-known member
I disagree with you there. As in the burka example I mentioned, I imagine the law will be upheld and the man/woman causing a stir will be told that they don't have to work there if they don't want to comply.

If the law didn't side with women being allowed to wear burkas where there is a dress code, I doubt they'd side with a Muslim clerk who refused to perform civil duties

I'm almost always willing to be proved wrong. This is one of those times.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Thomas Massie, the US Representative in Davis' district, pointed out that she had a job and the job description suddenly and abruptly changed. She was elected expecting to only have to issue licenses for opposite-sex couples but the Supreme Court said that she had to now give licenses to same-sex couples.

And. He. Is. Full. Of. It.!
 

GFR7

New member
Davis' mugshot:


11918961_10156023419270615_5427524954147740854_n.jpg
 
Top