Kim Davis Jailed

Torplexed · 09-05-15, 09:13 PM

I believe Americans do have the right to refuse to perform a service if they feel doing so would violate their religious or political beliefs, their morality etc. They just have to be willing to accept the fact there may be legal consequences for doing so. While I don't agree with this woman's position (I think the law is clear) I don't have a big problem with a county clerk here or there who says, "I'm sorry I can't do this, I resign." But on the other hand, you don't get to collect the wages of sin ($80,000 a year in a rural county) while taking a stand for holiness, which is what she is doing right now.

However, one reason she's not resigning of course is that her position as county clerk has become something of a hereditary office. Her predecessor was her mother and she's got her son waiting in the wings. Louis XVI was similarly situated. It did not work out entirely well for him.

Kptlt. Neuerburg · 09-05-15, 10:05 PM

I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought this up. As I see it while she has the right to practice her religious beliefs at home or in a place of worship, I'm not entirely sure she has the right to do so as a federal employee who has sworn to uphold the law which is this case is that a homosexual marriage is legal in all fifty states and like Torplexed said the law is pretty clear on this. On the other hand if she thought that issuing a marriage license to a gay couple goes against her religion and her beliefs why didn't she resign or at least change her job to something less "offensive" those beliefs?

Also I'm not sure that the issue of gay marriage should of become a political issue unless maybe we put it a national vote like Ireland did, although it would be very unlikely that would of ever happened.

Buddahaid · 09-05-15, 10:29 PM

It's simple really. If her religious beliefs are in conflict with her performing her job she should step down, or let someone else in the office do it.

As it is she should be fired for refusing to do as ordered.

Betonov · 09-06-15, 12:55 AM

She did broke the law while refusing as lawfull service as a civil worker.

BossMark · 09-06-15, 02:34 AM

Who is Kim Davies?

Eichhörnchen · 09-06-15, 02:43 AM

^

Wolferz · 09-06-15, 04:29 AM

Who falsely assumes that her religion gives her the right to judge in the place of her deity.

Kind of like that now jobless judge in Tennessee who thought she had the religious right to decide who can bear the name Messiah.

Mrs Davis, like so many others, needs to resign her elected post and just STFU!

vienna · 09-08-15, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

...However, one reason she's not resigning of course is that her position as county clerk has become something of a hereditary office. Her predecessor was her mother and she's got her son waiting in the wings. Louis XVI was similarly situated. It did not work out entirely well for him.

So, are you suggesting the issue may come to a head?...

<O>

Bubblehead1980 · 09-08-15, 03:19 PM

Free at last, Free at Last!

I find her religious views silly and devoid of facts.However, the big picture issue is the Supreme Court made an illegitimate political populist decision instead of following the constitution.Then a tyrannical federal judge jailed a woman for following her religious convictions., her christian convictions in particular.

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

vienna · 09-08-15, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Free at last, Free at Last!

I find her religious views silly and devoid of facts.However, the big picture issue is the Supreme Court made an illegitimate political populist decision instead of following the constitution.Then a tyrannical federal judge jailed a woman for following her religious convictions., her christian convictions in particular.

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

Specifically, what parts of the Constitution was violated by SCOTUS? What is the "chapter and verse" you can cite to validate the claim of illegitimacy? Please enlighten us with your knowledge of the root Constitutional issues with specific details...

It still boils down to a case of a grandstanding person seeking and finding their 15 minutes of infamy. This person has violated their oath of office and thereby violated the law of their state and is subject to removal. She has also violated a direct court order and is subject to whatever consequences may befall. She is an employee, the "hereditary" nature of her position notwithstanding, and has willfully failed to perform her ascribed duties as set by law, is insubordinate, and continues to be so; any other employer would have fired her out of hand. If she or any of her cohorts wish to really change matters, they should, as somebody once said, win an election and pass a law, within the legal confines of the Constitution and the rendered SCOTUS decisions. All else, is smoke in the wind...

<O>

Platapus · 09-08-15, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

Specifically, what parts of the Constitution was violated by SCOTUS? What is the "chapter and verse" you can cite to validate the claim of illegitimacy? Please enlighten us with your knowledge of the root Constitutional issues with specific details...

Arrg. Why did you respond to him? You are just encouraging him.

u crank · 09-08-15, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.

Wrong thread.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=184647

razark · 09-08-15, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

So, if a person breaks the law for religious reasons, then it's ok?

The good news is that everything that Obama has done has been in the name of his Islamic faith, so you'll stop complaining about it, right?

Eichhörnchen · 09-09-15, 01:18 AM

They just said on the news that she's out again (well... not "out" out... they let her out... you know... she's been released)

Skybird · 09-09-15, 04:03 AM

Both sides did wrong here.

The proper thing would have been to suspend and dismiss her for not fulfilling her mandatory duties as ordered be her employer, the state. The state has a duty to not foster or hinder religious views or practices, the secular status and nature of the state has to be maintained. Defending the freedom for religion does not mean to defend the religion and its claims and demands itself.

The judge however abused his position by trying to force her to change her religious beliefs according to his own views (may they be secular or else), which also is not acceptable, no matter what he thinks how silly they are. So, sending her to jail to make her change her stand on her religious views, is not acceptable either.

The woman should quit her job in state service if state service and religious coinviction collide in her cinscience. If relgious views make her think she can take it upon herserlf to challen ge the duty of the state to stay and protect secularism, she has to be fired. An official and civil servant can be fired if neglecting his duties or refusing to work.

The big news is small news only. Fire the woman from civil service over her rejection to do her work - and done you are.

09-05-15, 09:13 PM	#1
Torplexed Let's Sink Sumptin' ! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,823 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	I believe Americans do have the right to refuse to perform a service if they feel doing so would violate their religious or political beliefs, their morality etc. They just have to be willing to accept the fact there may be legal consequences for doing so. While I don't agree with this woman's position (I think the law is clear) I don't have a big problem with a county clerk here or there who says, "I'm sorry I can't do this, I resign." But on the other hand, you don't get to collect the wages of sin ($80,000 a year in a rural county) while taking a stand for holiness, which is what she is doing right now. However, one reason she's not resigning of course is that her position as county clerk has become something of a hereditary office. Her predecessor was her mother and she's got her son waiting in the wings. Louis XVI was similarly situated. It did not work out entirely well for him. __________________ --Mobilis in Mobili--

09-05-15, 10:05 PM	#2
Kptlt. Neuerburg Admiral Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 2,282 Downloads: 54 Uploads: 0	I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought this up. As I see it while she has the right to practice her religious beliefs at home or in a place of worship, I'm not entirely sure she has the right to do so as a federal employee who has sworn to uphold the law which is this case is that a homosexual marriage is legal in all fifty states and like Torplexed said the law is pretty clear on this. On the other hand if she thought that issuing a marriage license to a gay couple goes against her religion and her beliefs why didn't she resign or at least change her job to something less "offensive" those beliefs? Also I'm not sure that the issue of gay marriage should of become a political issue unless maybe we put it a national vote like Ireland did, although it would be very unlikely that would of ever happened. __________________ "When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat." - George Carlin Last edited by Kptlt. Neuerburg; 09-05-15 at 10:15 PM.

09-05-15, 10:29 PM	#3
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,337 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	It's simple really. If her religious beliefs are in conflict with her performing her job she should step down, or let someone else in the office do it. As it is she should be fired for refusing to do as ordered. __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

09-06-15, 02:34 AM	#5
BossMark Fleet Admiral Join Date: May 2011 Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire Posts: 15,272 Downloads: 278 Uploads: 0	Who is Kim Davies? __________________ Never trust the Tories look what Thatcher and Major did in the 80s and 90s and look what the wicked witch May is doing now doing now

09-06-15, 02:43 AM	#6
Eichhörnchen Starte das Auto Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: The Fens Posts: 17,499 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	^ __________________

09-06-15, 12:55 AM	#4
Betonov Navy Seal Join Date: May 2009 Location: Slovenia Posts: 8,647 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	She did broke the law while refusing as lawfull service as a civil worker.

09-06-15, 04:29 AM	#7
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	Just another hypocrit... Who falsely assumes that her religion gives her the right to judge in the place of her deity. Kind of like that now jobless judge in Tennessee who thought she had the religious right to decide who can bear the name Messiah. Mrs Davis, like so many others, needs to resign her elected post and just STFU!

09-08-15, 03:19 PM	#9
Bubblehead1980 Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida USA Posts: 7,196 Downloads: 621 Uploads: 44	Free at last, Free at Last! I find her religious views silly and devoid of facts.However, the big picture issue is the Supreme Court made an illegitimate political populist decision instead of following the constitution.Then a tyrannical federal judge jailed a woman for following her religious convictions., her christian convictions in particular. I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600. Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

09-09-15, 01:18 AM	#14
Eichhörnchen Starte das Auto Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: The Fens Posts: 17,499 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	They just said on the news that she's out again (well... not "out" out... they let her out... you know... she's been released) __________________

09-09-15, 04:03 AM	#15
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,810 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Both sides did wrong here. The proper thing would have been to suspend and dismiss her for not fulfilling her mandatory duties as ordered be her employer, the state. The state has a duty to not foster or hinder religious views or practices, the secular status and nature of the state has to be maintained. Defending the freedom for religion does not mean to defend the religion and its claims and demands itself. The judge however abused his position by trying to force her to change her religious beliefs according to his own views (may they be secular or else), which also is not acceptable, no matter what he thinks how silly they are. So, sending her to jail to make her change her stand on her religious views, is not acceptable either. The woman should quit her job in state service if state service and religious coinviction collide in her cinscience. If relgious views make her think she can take it upon herserlf to challen ge the duty of the state to stay and protect secularism, she has to be fired. An official and civil servant can be fired if neglecting his duties or refusing to work. The big news is small news only. Fire the woman from civil service over her rejection to do her work - and done you are. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.