Yeah, nice trick ignoring so much in order to make it a “going to jail for religion” argument, but whatever. Can I get a list of laws I am allowed to break on religious grounds?
I’ll give this one more try.
Your view, as I understand it, is that Kim Davis has two choices:
- Violate her religious convictions.
- Go to jail.
My view, and the view of everyone else in this thread, is that Kim Davis has three choices:
- Violate her religious convictions.
- Go to jail.
- Resign.
By definition, if you have a third choice that can legitimately be chosen, you are not being forced to choose between choice one and choice two. There is absolutely no reason, legal, religious or otherwise, that Kim Davis cannot choose to resign. Therefore, she is not being forced to do anything, and she is free to maintain her religious convictions without going to jail.
Her employer requires the abandonment of all religious fucktard talk when she clocks in. If she can’t resolve bullshit over equal rights, she’s not qualified for the job. The only reason she still has one is because the state (which you hate so much) is still paying her for nothing. In my field, you could be fired for even saying gays are unreligious around the fucking water cooler.
Her religious rights begin and end at her being allowed to practice her choice of religion. That shit is moot in the workplace. Let her work for a church, though I doubt the benefits and the $80,000 salary will be offered.
To be accurate, she can’t be fired because she was elected. She has to be removed by the legislature.
Don’t know if a recall is an option.
It isn’t. Kentucky has no recall provisions at any level.
Hey, racist, sexist troll. I see you’re trolling it up with the racist shit in yet another thread eh? No surprise there. As you were.
It begins when she clocks out at the end of the day and it ends when she clocks in at the start of the next day.
She gets it for a full 24hours per day on Saturdays and Sundays plus on Federal Holidays and on vacation.
Her right to act in accordance with her religious conscience is Kim Davis’ right as a private individual.
The Office of Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, has no right to act in accordance with any religious consideration whatsoever.
The Office of Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, is in fact required by the Constitution of the United States to operate with disregard for any particular religious doctrine or principle.
I don’t think that the religious freedom the constitution outlines and protects is restricted to weekends. Perhaps you can show me where it says that.
So, a Jewish person should be forced to work on Jewish holidays? There is no law that I’m aware of that requires a religious person to leave their views at the door. Now, if the law that conflicts with her beliefs had been in place prior to her being sworn in, I think that would have us more in agreement. Bu the fact is that it wasn’t. As I’ve said, I don’t think that means she should be able to block SS marriage licenses, and she should resign. The problem is the state’s. She refuses to do the job that the office requires. Normally that would get anyone fired and we wouldn’t have this problem. The ways things are now, the only way it appears that the problem will go away is to remove her from office. I would think that the Governor would have some emergency powers he can invoke, but I don’t know. But hypothetically, let’s say he has such power, and does not invoke it, what should happen to him?
I don’t know where you get this from. Can you cite the part of the constitution that supports this view?
Let’s say that this is 100% correct, what do you do when the person in office disagrees with you and refuses to do a particular job? Let’s say you put her in jail in order to “sway” her, but she does not bend, then what?
So, you disagree that U.S. citizens should have religious protections. Good for you. Unfortunately for you, they do. And on this point the religious people in this country who believe that are more aligned with the constitution than you. But you being so hostile to religion really makes it easy to simply ignore anything you have to say on the matter.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what he/she’s saying – rather he/she’s saying that if a public employee refuses to resign when they feel their religious convictions prevent them from doing their job (and therefore they are violating the law), and there are no other methods available in the short term to remove them, then it’s appropriate for the judicial branch to sanction her for violating the law. The other option seems to be that she continues to violate the law with no consequences.
Why should she get away with violating the law? If another clerk refuses to issue licenses to gay couples, but just says “I don’t want to and I’m not going to do it” without citing religious beliefs, do you believe they should be handled differently?
1st Amendment
She’s forcing her religion on others through her power as an agent of the state.
And it’s been long established that it’s not just Congress that’s restricted but all levels of government.
We agree on her fitness to hold the office. I just think that the executives of the state need to find a way to remove her from office. If she is either unable or unwilling to perform her duties, remove her.
I don’t think that really applies. But let’s say it does, it would mean that the person holding the office cannot hold that office, and she should be removed. Which I agree with.
As an observer of this discussion, let me politely say that your style of argument is tedious bullshit. You’re being extraordinarily petulant, and responding not to the content of what others are saying, but simply with “you’re denying religious liberties”!
So instead of burying your head in the sand, face the fact they can’t. What now?
Nice try at trying to craft the lie that you are merely a detached observer with no strong opinions about this. Oh, and you might want to acquaint yourself with the definitions of the words you use. “Petulant” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
Yes, but apparently they can’t in the immediate present. Since they can’t, then I think it’s appropriate for the judicial branch to sanction her for violating the law. What is your alternative if the executive branch has to wait for the next legislative session?
After the crushing success of his “gay marriage is bad, m’kay?” argument over the past couple of years, can you blame the guy for being cocky?
[QUOTE=Amendment I to the United States Constitution]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[/QUOTE]
The Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) has applied to all government since Everson v. Board of Education (1947). From that decision:
[QUOTE=Justice Hugo Black writing for the majority]
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
[/QUOTE]
When Kim Davis acts within her position as County Clerk, her actions are Government actions. SHE. IS. THE. GOVERNMENT. Which means: Kim Davis acting with the authority of The Office of Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, is Constitutionally prohibited from actions that “aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another.” When she does so, she is infringing upon the rights of the people of Kentucky as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
It absolutely does apply. And it does not mean that “the person holding the office cannot hold that office”. It means that the person holding that office must conduct the responsibilities of that office according to the law and without any regard to that person’s personal religious beliefs.