Should Kim DAvis be jailed again for refusing to follow RULE OF LAW despite her "religious" beliefs knowing she had duties that would not be within her religious realm when she took the oath?

Posted by: chandlerrouse

21 Total Votes

She should be impeached

13 votes


6 votes


2 votes
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
chandlerrouse says2015-09-21T17:25:40.4116470Z
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
TBR says2015-09-21T17:32:41.7133488Z
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.
chandlerrouse says2015-09-21T17:45:20.7459453Z
TBR I totally agree, I hope she doe not set a president.
Forthelulz says2015-09-21T18:23:49.7307480Z
Actually, she's dead wrong and attention-seeking. The deviants she was issuing licenses to would see them married in the eyes of the country, not her church. Piece of cake. Next!
benhos says2015-09-22T02:14:10.7807762Z
@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.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-23T12:53:00.3148980Z
@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.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-23T12:56:01.7030980Z
For her it may have been a religious matter. For all the Kentucky voters, this was still unwanted from a secular position, too.
idoubtit says2015-09-25T01:41:48.1623783Z
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.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-25T19:41:03.8808368Z
Good idea. We should found a country on that principle and call it the United States of America.
idoubtit says2015-09-30T18:59:16.5258283Z
@FBR, LOL, I know. Hey wait, we had that didn't we? What happened to it?
evielovesrocknroll says2015-10-10T19:33:40.6281951Z
"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.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-13T16:25:29.0716022Z
@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.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-13T16:30:32.1932591Z
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.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.