Fuck you, Rowan County (KY) Clerk Kim Davis

[samclem]

Wake me up when either the Federal judge says something or a KY official does something.

[magellan01]

@Procrustus

She’s being jailed or fired for not doing her job. The reason is not important. We can accommodate a lot of religious practices, such as allowing long hair, or certain clothing. Allowing her not to do her job is not the kind of religious accommodation I’d generally support

Agreed. Remove her from office. That’s the answer. I have to believe they the Governor has some special poster he can wield in an emergency. Now if he is unwilling to do so, the problem gets even gnarlier.

[magellan01]

@Fubaya

No one wants her jailed for her religious convictions, they want her jailed for breaking the law.

When following the law means acting against her religious convictions. Nice trick.

[magellan01]

@Princhester

I suppose (to add to my last post) one could play amateur psychologist and suggest that it would probably be a mercy to her to remove her from office because she is currently trapped by her own thoughts (and no doubt her religious backers) into her situation. To that extent you may have a point.

Yes. It would be a gift to everyone.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@magellan01

When following the law means acting against her religious convictions. Nice trick.

Nonsense. She could resign whenever she wants.

[Acsenray]

Someone who has a sincere belief that his or her fellow humans must be denied a right that the law of the land says they hold is not qualified to hold public office. No accommodation need be nor should be made for her beliefs.

[Ludovic]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I have just found out that Kim Davis’s time in jail for contempt has been used as the basis for an erotic novel called Kim Goes To Jail: An Erotic Story.

I’ll bet she didn’t see that coming.

That’s what SHE said!

[magellan01]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Nonsense. She could resign whenever she wants.

So, do X which goes against your religious beliefs or the state will throw you in jail. Like I said, nice trick.

[magellan01]

@Acsenray

Someone who has a sincere belief that his or her fellow humans must be denied a right that the law of the land says they hold is not qualified to hold public office. No accommodation need be nor should be made for her beliefs.

Fine, remove her.

[Princhester]

Your basic disjunct on which we are going around and around in circles magellan01 is between the idea that she is being jailed (which you say is wrong) in circumstances where she can resign (as you admit) which would prevent her going to jail (which would avoid the wrong you are concerned about). It doesn’t matter how much we go over it, you aren’t going to get people to agree with you that this woman is being wronged, when she is being wronged at her option.

[magellan01]

@Princhester

Your basic disjunct on which we are going around and around in circles magellan01 is between the idea that she is being jailed (which you say is wrong) in circumstances where she can resign (as you admit) which would prevent her going to jail (which would avoid the wrong you are concerned about). It doesn’t matter how much we go over it, you aren’t going to get people to agree with you that this woman is being wronged, when she is being wronged at her option.

That’s just the vantage point that people choose to view it from. I understand that. The problem I have is that be doing that the state is forcing someone to act against her religious conviction. OR GO TO JAIL! I don’t think that the state (in the U.S.) should be doing that.

[magellan01]

@Acsenray

Someone who has a sincere belief that his or her fellow humans must be denied a right that the law of the land says they hold is not qualified to hold public office. No accommodation need be nor should be made for her beliefs.

The question is how to not make others suffer for her beliefs, while respecting her religious beliefs. I think the Governor would have some power to take care of an elected official who is derelict in her duties. (Aside: things would get really interesting if he has such a power and refuses to use it.)

[Princhester]

@magellan01

The problem I have is that be doing that the state is forcing someone to act against her religious conviction. OR GO TO JAIL!

I’m sorry are you saying it’s against her religious conviction to resign, or are you just hoping that no one will notice that you have left out the resignation option?

[raventhief]

@magellan01

That’s just the vantage point that people choose to view it from. I understand that. The problem I have is that be doing that the state is forcing someone to act against her religious conviction. OR GO TO JAIL! I don’t think that the state (in the U.S.) should be doing that.

OR NOT ACT AGAINST HER CONVICTIONS but then she also has to stop collecting her nice paycheck.

Why do you ignore her refusal to step down and let someone else do the job?

[Muffin]

@magellan01

But she has a religious objection to it, and does’;t want to resign, then want. Do you make any accommodation to prevent someone from being forced to act in a way confer to their religious convictions? I think she should resign, but barring that what can be done? What should be done?

I suppose crucifying her just like her JAYSYS was crucified would work, but would probably be a bit noisy what with all the politicians speechifying, so that brings us back to tossing her in the can for contempt, or putting the office into receivership.

[simster]

@magellan01

How about her right to act in accordance with her religious conscience? I find it odd how easily that is dispensed with. Religious accommodation is a balancing act. Ideally, I’d say, just allow someone else to sign the documents. If that is unworkable, remove her from office. Put her in jail in an attempt to knuckle under and act in a way that is counter to her religious beliefs, no. When you want to do that, you’re grandstanding to make a point even more than she is. And the state should not do that, to should tread lightly around religious accommodation.

Removing her from office takes time - but her refusal to follow the law is impacting individuals freedoms now - surely you know that.

Since the judge cannot ‘remove her from office’ - he did the next best thing, and that was to remove her as a ‘barrier’ to the other clerks doing their sworn duty.

Which is something she could have done as well - she could have ‘stepped aside’ in the office and let teh deputies issue licenses - which was an option she was given by Bunning -that she refused to do.

So - her being jailed is her own doing. She’s not being told to forgoe her religious convictions - she’s being told to stop violating the law and the rights of others - as a duly elected official, thats what she swore to uphold - the rights of all, not just the ones she agrees with.

And, I’m not grandstanding- I’m repeating whats a;ready been ruled by SCOTUS.

[magellan01]

Some people need to read more carefully. I have not ignored her ability to resign. I’ve stated repeatedly that that is what I think she should do. And the question is not if the courts CAN jail her, it’s whether they should. And I say no. The flaw is as much in the system as it is with her. She shouldn’t be put in jail because the laws were inadequately written. And again, people need to remember why people founded this country.

[Alan_Smithee]

@magellan01

No, I have not been leaving that out. And while you might be okay using the power of the state to force someone to act contrary to her religious convictions, I’m not. [shrug] I found it odd how people just ignore the reasons for the founding of the country.

I would strongly object to forcing to act contrary to her religious beliefs (if issuing marriage licenses is against her religious beliefs - it’s not carte blanche to commit murder, obviously). I have no problem forcing her to resign. You yourself said your want her removed from office. What do you think would happen if she kept showing up at the office anyway and pretending top be the clerk? Because of the vagaries of Kentucky law, she can’t be fired directly, but that just gives her more freedom: it’s entirely in her hands and she can still choose to do her job of she has a change of heart. Or she can stop showing up at work and tender her resignation. Or she can go to jail.

Let me ask you, if the judge didn’t give her the choice of capitulating, and simply ordered her to resign (or go to jail) would you still object? On what basis?

[Princhester]

@magellan01

Some people need to read more carefully. I have not ignored her ability to resign.

You have substantively though. You pay lip service to the resignation option but aren’t actually acknowledging how that makes the penalty “imposed” on Davis optional and consequently inoffensive.

[Inner_Stickler]

@magellan01

But she has a religious objection to it, and does’;t want to resign, then want. Do you make any accommodation to prevent someone from being forced to act in a way confer to their religious convictions? I think she should resign, but barring that what can be done? What should be done?

Nothing. I don’t give a fig for her religious convictions. If she wants to come up with a logical reason, or an empirical reason or even a philosophical reason why she should be allowed not to do her job, then I’d at least listen to it. But as long as she maintains that god says it, I ignore her reasons as irrelevant. And I can do that because I’m neither her judge, jury nor executioner.

As to what the state should do? Jail sounds good enough to me. When Kentucky starts jailing more than Kim Davis for failing to do their jobs, we’ll talk about poorly written laws, as opposed to pigheaded people.

(If I had one wish, it would be that the 1st amendment read from and not of.)