Does anyone think Kim Davis is right?

[Harry Hood]

I don't...let me disclose that first.

Kim Davis, if you are unaware is a County Clerk for the US State of Kentucky responsible (elected to) process marriage licenses. She's recently stopped issuing licenses for same sex couples, due to her religious beliefs, despite the US making same sex marriage legal.

Kim Davis believes she's been persecuted for having religious beliefs. She's not. She's being persecuted for imposing her religious beliefs on others when it infringes on the rights of those others.

This is a really simple case. Kim Davis is wrong. She should step down or be reassigned. She can practice whatever religion she want (as devout or half assed as she wants). She can't limit someone else's rights based on her religious beliefs.

Now the Republican Presidential "hopefuls" (i.e., also rans that continue to run and will continue to lose) are supporting her...talk about writing your own death notice for their candidacy. They're proving they don't understand the US Constitution or the US Bill of Rights.

So...do you all agree?

Any of you disagree with me?

I just can't understand how people can believe their religion is more important than someone else's rights. It's akin to a Jewish President abolishing Christian holidays because of "their religious beliefs".

[Possum577]

Breaking News! http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html

I guess the judge let her go but she must not refuse marriage licenses anymore.

From the report: Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who was jailed in contempt of court for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, plans to return to work this week, attorney Mat Staver told reporters. With Staver's arm around her, Davis cried as she stood outside the jail Tuesday after a judge ordered her release. Asked by a reporter whether her stay in jail was worth it, Davis smiled and nodded.

"I can guarantee you, knowing Kim, she loves God, she loves people, she loves her work, and she will not betray any of those three," Staver said. "She'll do her job good. She'll serve the people...and she'll also be loyal to God, and she's not going to violate her conscience."

[BCEmporium]

We've a law, agree or disagree, it's the law.
A clerk is meant to operate within the law and doesn't have any power to change, avoid or ignore it, leave alone claim "God's law".
So, no, she isn't right.

[mdgreasyjohn]

she is wrong and the rep hopefuls are to support her  her job is follow the law not break it

[Vod]

It will be interesting to see her first day of work.  I'm sure gay couples will be lining up. 

How is she going to do her job without violating her conscience?  Has she become an atheist? 

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I, personally, would have quit if I had the job that Kim Davis did and felt so strongly like she does on this issue. I also think she shouldn't have said the oath if she wasn't willing to go through with it, so she shouldn't have had the job in the first place. But since then, I've seen some hypocritical behavior on the parts of the state so I do support her.

She said she would issue the marriage licenses as long as her name wasn't attached to them, as a "stamp of approval" (my words).

"The Kentucky conflict has become the marquee battle, as Davis, an Apostolic Christian, has asked for special accommodations so that she does not have to put her name on a marriage license between two people of the same sex, which she said would violate her faith....“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience,” she wrote. “It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision.”" (link)

So, her only problem with this was that her name would be attached. And they would not let her do it without her name. When they said someone else would issue the license, she asked would my name still be on it? and they said yes. So she said no.

NOW, After Kim Davis is jailed, clerk's office issues marriage license to gay couple.

So, one has to wonder if they're putting her name on the licenses they're giving out. If they are using her name without permission, shouldn't that be illegal? If they aren't, they're just doing what she originally said she would do, give out licenses without her name on them.

[Vod]

So, one has to wonder if they're putting her name on the licenses they're giving out. If they are using her name without permission, shouldn't that be illegal? If they aren't, they're just doing what she originally said she would do, give out licenses without her name on them.

Her name was not on the licenses they were giving out.  However, the city lawyers said they were just as valid.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

So, one has to wonder if they're putting her name on the licenses they're giving out. If they are using her name without permission, shouldn't that be illegal? If they aren't, they're just doing what she originally said she would do, give out licenses without her name on them.

Her name was not on the licenses they were giving out.  However, the city lawyers said they were just as valid.

If that's ok, then I wonder why they didn't just let her do that when that's what she wanted to do......

This whole mess could have been avoided completely.

[Vod]

So, one has to wonder if they're putting her name on the licenses they're giving out. If they are using her name without permission, shouldn't that be illegal? If they aren't, they're just doing what she originally said she would do, give out licenses without her name on them.

Her name was not on the licenses they were giving out.  However, the city lawyers said they were just as valid.

If that's ok, then I wonder why they didn't just let her do that when that's what she wanted to do......

This whole mess could have been avoided completely.

No, she is the boss, and she ordered her staff not to issue licenses.

Basically, like most religious bums, she wants her money but doesn't want to work for it.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

So, one has to wonder if they're putting her name on the licenses they're giving out. If they are using her name without permission, shouldn't that be illegal? If they aren't, they're just doing what she originally said she would do, give out licenses without her name on them.

Her name was not on the licenses they were giving out.  However, the city lawyers said they were just as valid.

If that's ok, then I wonder why they didn't just let her do that when that's what she wanted to do......

This whole mess could have been avoided completely.

No, she is the boss, and she ordered her staff not to issue licenses.

Basically, like most religious bums, she wants her money but doesn't want to work for it.

Nope, she said she would give out the licenses if her name wasn't on the license. Now they say it's ok that her name isn't on the license. That means it could have been avoided if they would have done that when she asked them to do that.

[cooldgamer]

I don't think she's right, but now that the judge was able to make the other clerks do it... why didn't he do that to begin with?  She can't be fired and won't get impeached for this, but it's just going to make her a bunch of money and give the 'persecuted' Christians something to roll with. 

[saddampbuh]

be ye doers of the word not hearers only, its not enough to say you disagree with something and still go along with it, christians have always been persecuted for their beliefs

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I don't think she's right, but now that the judge was able to make the other clerks do it... why didn't he do that to begin with?  She can't be fired and won't get impeached for this, but it's just going to make her a bunch of money and give the 'persecuted' Christians something to roll with. 

It was never about the other clerks. I don't know how I can make this more clear.

She said she would give out the licenses, IF they didn't have her name on it. She asked for that to be done, and it wasn't. That is what is so wrong about this situation. She said she would do her job if they would let her give out the licenses without her name on it because it was against her religion to have her name on it. Now they're giving out licenses without her name on it. Why didn't they do that when she asked them to? She wanted to do her job. Now that they gave in and let her do it without her name, they look like hypocrites.

IF they had allowed her to give out licenses without her name on it, the clerks wouldn't have ever been told not to give out licenses.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

We've a law, agree or disagree, it's the law.
A clerk is meant to operate within the law and doesn't have any power to change, avoid or ignore it, leave alone claim "God's law".
So, no, she isn't right.

KIM DAVIS BROKE NO LAW! Rock Solid Proof! Carl Gallups

The Supreme Court can't make laws.

[Lethn]

The simple fact is she is not a staff member in a church and was a staff member of the U.S federal government, who had decided that gay marriage was now legal, she went against that. On my personal beliefs I think anybody who tries to actively block gay marriage are turdbags, if you want to be a homophobe in your own private companies and organisations fine, but in public? No, this is just another in the long list of groups that keep trying to subvert laws designed to protect equality for their own ends.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

The simple fact is she is not a staff member in a church and was a staff member of the U.S federal government, who had decided that gay marriage was now legal, she went against that. On my personal beliefs I think anybody who tries to actively block gay marriage are turdbags, if you want to be a homophobe in your own private companies and organisations fine, but in public? No, this is just another in the long list of groups that keep trying to subvert laws designed to protect equality for their own ends.

She was willing to give them licenses. Her problem was with her name being on it, and that's been solved. The question is why wouldn't they let her give them out without her name when she originally asked?

[Possum577]

be ye doers of the word not hearers only, its not enough to say you disagree with something and still go along with it, christians have always been persecuted for their beliefs

The error is that she believes that she's being persecuted for her beliefs...she's not.

She's being persecuted for refusing the rights of others and imposing her religious beliefs on others - that's the crime.

The 1st Amendment of the US Bill of Rights states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That's the answer. The laws provided to everyone aren't done so to provide priority or preference to a religion.

Further, Kim Davis is a hypocrite. She's willing to accept her paycheck, even though her job goes against her religious beliefs. If she had real conviction she'd turn the salary and job away in protest of the law and in support of her religion...but she doesn't demonstrate that conviction (unless it's convenient for her, i.e., not doing the job but still getting paid.)

It's not enough for Kim Davis to say she disagrees with something, she had to step in the away of lawful citizens and force the local county office to change their practices for her - such selfish behavior.

[Swordsoffreedom]

I don't...let me disclose that first.

Any of you disagree with me?

I just can't understand how people can believe their religion is more important than someone else's rights. It's akin to a Jewish President abolishing Christian holidays because of "their religious beliefs".

I disagree, this is as much right to practice a viewpoint that is different from Gay America, the right to Gay marriage forces a belief on someone that violates their personal rights the same could be said of the LGBT community forcing its views on religion by making it mandatory to provide marriage accommodations over common-law relationships.

The Supreme Court ruled on this however at the time she took the job that rule was not in the books it would have been added after she had been employed, in addition this was not settled using plebiscite or popular vote but through the use of the Supreme Court and as a result will still remain a hotbed issue for years to come.

If the LGBT community has a right to be heard so do faith communities who are also part of America and a broad brush is being put on Christian bashing in particular for their viewpoint who is persecuting who is becoming far less clear.

[Vod]

She wanted to do her job. Now that they gave in and let her do it without her name, they look like hypocrites.

I don't think you understand what a hypocrite is.   

They look tolerant and willing to budge to me.  As long as gay people are allowed to be married - that's all we care about.  Equal rights.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

She wanted to do her job. Now that they gave in and let her do it without her name, they look like hypocrites.

I don't think you understand what a hypocrite is.   

They look tolerant and willing to budge to me.  As long as gay people are allowed to be married - that's all we care about.  Equal rights.

1) Kim doesn't want to have her name on the licenses
2) Kim asks for her name to not be on the licenses, so she can give them out. (she wanted to give them out)
3) She gets told she can't give out licenses without her name
4) She goes to jail because she won't give out licenses as long as her name is attached to them
5) They decide to give out licenses without her name attached to them

Why did they not let her give out licenses without her name at point #2 ?

That is hypocritical. They would not let her give out licenses without her name, then they decide to do it.

The officials were hypocritical.

hypocritical = of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess

They said they would not let licenses go out without her name attached, and so she had to go to jail for contempt of court when she wouldn't, then they decide, ok we can now.

They had a belief or virtue that licenses could not go out without her name on them, so much so that she got sent to jail because she wouldn't. But when they realized they needed to give out licenses, they didn't really care enough about her name being on it, so they decided they would let them go out without her name.

They could have stopped this whole mess from happening, if at point #2 they had said, ok, you can give out licenses without your name on them.