She can have any private opinion she wants about gay marriage, but as a representative of the state she cannot impose that view on others without violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. As a government employee, Davis is free to exercise her religion, but not when it interferes with the liberty of others under the law of the land.
Davis may indeed qualify for a religious exemption under Kentucky’s RFRA law, but she has refused every exemption extended to her by the court. As of yesterday, Davis is out of jail and has been ordered to not interfere with her deputy clerks in fulfilling their oaths of office. It remains to be seen if she’ll comply.
Say what you want about the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling – it happened. Whether one voiced objection or praise for the ruling, it is the law of the land.
The same has always been true for Supreme Court rulings. Consider Brown v. Board of Education (school integration) or even Roe v. Wade (abortion). They are law. Period
She, at this point, has been nullified. Other employees are issuing the licenses while she hides in her officer. The amount of coverage given to her has been a net-gain for Christians, and I am happy with her just fading to obscurity.
@Breandanh Yes, we all have freedom of religion. However, Davis is an elected government official, meaning she has to follow the law no matter her beliefs. If she doesn't want to do it, she could've just resigned. She's gone too far. At this point, it's not about her beliefs, but about her bigotry and her stubbornness.
@Forthelulz Yes but ironically the people of Kentucky didnt want that either. So to say that people wanted them to be married in the eyes of the state over the eyes of the church is incorrect. They didnt even want gay marriage in the legal/government sense, let alone in the religious sense.
The government is supposed to represent the people. Since it's impossible to please everyone, then majority must rule. The majority in Kentucky did not agree with gay marriage. The majority of the people in that county did not agree with gay marriage. Yet it was forced on them by a federal government that did not represent them. This is precisely why the federal government shouldn't be involved in this topic. It should be up to the individual states, or better yet, individual counties. This way, the majority of people are represented, regardless of location.
"Kim Davis refuses to issue a marriage license to gay couples, because it's against her religious beliefs." Then, Step Down & Look For Another Job! That's like taking the job as a stripper & saying she can't strip, because it's against her religious beliefs.
@evielovesrocknroll - using your example ... The place wasn't a strip club before she was hired! Oh wouldn't the media have a field day if a woman was fired from her job for refusing to get naked in front of people after a sudden change in the direction of the company by upper management? They still have positions in the strip club for those types ... Serving drinks and working the door. It might be different, yes, if that was the expectation of her when she first took the job. I dont think its any responsibility of hers, or mine, or anyone elses to suddenly have to go against their conscience on the job after the fact because someone higher up says to. Whos wrong when a soldier gets told to gun down women and children in Vietnam and the soldier refuses? I guess you were one of the ones siding with the government on those types of calls too then, right? Im sure it wasnt any of our soldiers expectation that intentionally gunning down civilians is part of the job.
Just imagine really ... Hooters or Winghouse having a board meeting and deciding that the waitresses in all their restaurants are going to be topless from here on out. Fire all the ones with a conscience that already work there? Force them out? Whos the one that gets nailed on that decision? Bet there'd be a massive lawsuit protecting those workers from being discharged of that.