Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, I do.

    She was elected into her job by the people of that county, and worked her job for many many years before gay marriage ever became an issue. If she had been hired and/ or there since the ruling on gay marriage, I would see it differently. But I happen to consider the fact that she was there first, and by popular demand. Existing officials should not be blind-sided like this, an accommodation is warranted, or grandfather them in. Besides, anyone wanting a marriage license could have simply gone to another county, like the heterosexual couples apparently did without malice. Also she is in compliance with the people who voted her into her position.

  • Yes I do

    The woman was working in her own establishment and in her own grounds could deny a customer their desire of making a cake design that she disagrees with. The couple could've swallowed their pride and look somewhere else but instead decided to make her life hell due to her religious beliefs. A low move by them.

  • Yes I do

    I support Kim Davis' action. She stood up to the monster that is hijacking America. She stood up to the courts that want judicial tyranny. Many Americans (just under fifty percent of Americans) don't want to jump on the same-sex bandwagon. And they should not be forced to do so.

  • Yes its free religon in america.

    People have gone agaisnt religon ever since the gay rights act and now there just getting worse they keep calling christians, jewish, mormons and other religons horrible for viewing them like this. Well these people honestly go with the flow and have no idea what there protesting about think about these people are protesting and forcing a poor family out of buisness just for denying a gay couple service is that harsh? And the fact that the court made them pay 50,000 dollars to them for harrasment makes no sense to me. Heres what this is to me A gay couple walk into a christian flower shop knowing that its christian, they ask for flowers for there gay marriage and they are denied but instead of just walking out and going somewhere else they steer the pot and crush the family out of buisness these people need to just go on and if there denied service then just go somewhere else not make a fuss over it. Like with Kim just go to someone else..... Bunch of idiots root for dumb things....

  • An argument can be made

    That the supreme court's decision violated her 1st amendment right to practice her religion freely. When she took the government position, it aligned with her religious beliefs and did not cause her to violate any religiously moral beliefs. But now as a settled in official who probably relies on that income to help support her family, the supreme court drops a bombshell on her saying that her religious beliefs mean squat and that she no longer has the right to practice her religion as previously granted her by the 1st amendment, but rather she has to submit to the will of those that resent her for her beliefs. This is political entrapment...

  • Though there is an oath, believe what you will.

    I do not agree nor do I agree, I believe if you think that what you are doing is right and you are not harming a life then by all means do what you will.

    I am not for gay rights but I do not care if you get married, though I do not want you to be married. As long as it costs me no money then by all means go ahead.

  • She is a true Christian.

    She is defending the Word of God and suffering persecution for Christ, proving her faith. Despite living in a nation that calls itself Christian she has ben treated poorly by most of them. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian should be defending her. She has obeyed God and not man

  • No sensible person does.

    I don't support someone who won't fulfil their legal obligations because of their religious beliefs. If you have a job, you do your job. Pretty simple. If you don't want to do your job, you can quit.

    If you enjoy living in the stone age, by all means, go for it, just don't impose your ideas on everyone else. And PLEASE don't impose your ideas in the legal system.

  • Bigotry should not be supported

    I don't care if she has problems with same-sex couples at all. The problem is that she is trying to impose her beliefs into her jobs which is stupid. She is legally required to do her job that she gets paid to do regardless of her personal or religious beliefs. She deserves the punishment that she got. It's the law and she broke it.

  • No, and no one should support someone who can't fulfill their service to the people as required by law.

    As a county clerk, she is required to follow the law irrespective of her personal beliefs.
    Think about it.
    If you become a doctor, there will be procedures that you must follow by law, though they may conflict with your personal beliefs.
    You agree to this before becoming a doctor.
    As a county clerk, you are serving the people by law.
    Even though you may have to follow some procedure that may conflict with your personal beliefs, you agree to that fact before consenting to such acts. Kim Davis is a bigot...That's it.

  • Her claim that she would be personally endorsing gay marriage is false.

    Rowan County, Kentucky is not populated exclusively by Christians. I contend that Kim Davis has already signed a number of marriage licenses for persons who are not planning a Christian wedding. For example, it is likely that most of the couples married at the Hindu Temple in Morehead, Kentucky, would perform a traditional wedding invoking the fire deity. Since she did not refuse to process those requests, she must (correctly) realize that her actions do not represent her personal endorsement of some other God. I can only deduce that she is pretending to believe that her signature, now, represents her personal endorsement of same-sex marriage.

  • Her claim that she would be personally endorsing gay marriage is false.

    Rowan County, Kentucky is not populated exclusively by Christians. I contend that Kim Davis has already signed a number of marriage licenses for persons who are not planning a Christian wedding. For example, it is likely that most of the couples married at the Hindu Temple in Morehead, Kentucky, would perform a traditional wedding invoking the fire deity. Since she did not refuse to process those requests, she must (correctly) realize that her actions do not represent her personal endorsement of some other God. I can only deduce that she is pretending to believe that her signature, now, represents her personal endorsement of same-sex marriage.

  • It's Not Up To Her to Decide

    Having a controversial religious belief is fine. But she works for the government. The government had ruled that same sex marriage was legal and were entitled to the same rights as other couples. If this ruling had made her so upset, she should have stepped down from her position. She should have been fired on the spot the very first time she disobeyed her duty and denied a same sex marriage license. If she really is this passionate about this particular issue, there are other ways she can voice her opinion that do not interfere with the rights of other Americans. Religious freedom means you have the right to believe whatever you want, however it does not give you the right to take away the rights of others who hold a different opinion or live a different lifestyle.

  • She works for the State.

    The headlines basically sums everything up. Her job is one administered by the State, and the State must follow the rulings passed on by the Supreme Court. Think about it this way, if it help any: imagine it is 1967 and the Supreme Court just allowed interracial marriages to take place in every state. At that point in time, it was believed to be wrong by many people. Could you imagine being declined by a woman who works for the State (which must abide by the Supreme Court ruling) to get married with your racially different partner? It sounds ridiculous nowadays, as it's mainly accepted. This is the exact same problem, just different circumstances of sexes which wish to get married. This is a federal issue, not a religious one, and should not be made out to be such a thing. Her religious rights are NOT being infringed upon. This is a strictly federal issue.

  • In my view.

    If you are elected to a STATE position, your religious conviction only goes as far as you. You can't use God's authority as an excuse in secular nation to not give marriage licenses to people who are eligible for one. In her case, she is a hypocrite for marrying 4 times, and having authority over men. Plus, she is a theocratic women, and I don't support that idea.

  • It's a federal job.

    It was a federal job. They couldn't fire her, so she could only resign. The moment she heard that homosexual marriages were allowed, she should have stepped down (and the Government enabled her that option, but she refused.) It was right for the Government to do so. Even more, it's a government job. There is a distinction between Church and State. One's religious beliefs cannot be used in federal jobs. Regardless of how long she worked there, she cannot force her religious ideology on anyone, no matter what it is. If it conflicts with your religion, don't do it.

  • No, anymore than I support the other oath breakers in government

    I support her right to exercise her religious conscience, but her ability to do so ends when it impacts her lawful obligation to obey her oath of office which includes following the law of the land.

    There's much to be troubled by the recent Supreme Court ruling, but until it's reversed it is (like it or not) the law of the land.

    If you cannot execute the duties you took an oath to perform because you object to a particular law, then you're free to resign and go about your business. Until then, she either sucks it up or at least gets out of the way of her other clerks performing the job. And no, she doesn't get to have her name removed from the marriage licenses because as county clerk her name is required to be on them whether or not she personally executes the license.

    That being said, it's too bad that all those screaming for the woman's head didn't scream just as loud when Obama refused to obey his oath of office, refused to execute lawful duties, ignored laws or effectively rewrote them on the fly, etc.?

    How about screaming about all the mayors and city councils of sanctuary cities who refuse to execute per their oaths to uphold the law?

    You want to lock up some meaningless functionary in Kentucky over gay marriage licenses, but allow the chief executive of the US to run amok lawlessly in contravention of his oath of office and violation of enumerated powers? Ask which is more damaging to the country as a whole - if you think it's the little goof in KY, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

    The hypocrisy of liberals should automatically invalidate any argument they make - unfortunately there are too many sheepel willing to gobble up the BS spoon fed them from the MSM propaganda ministry


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.