Paul, Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal and Walker Support Kentucky County Clerk

[Hawkeyenuts66]

Wait a minute. Why aren't you asking for the illegals to be tossed in jail too? Or why not send the clerk back to where she came from? You seem to be guilty of the same selective hypocrisy you accuse others of. Illegal is illegal plain and simple right? So let's treat them the same.

Or maybe it's not really so plain and simple after all.

If the punishment is imprisonment for entering the country illegally then put them in jail. If it's deportation then deport them.

Is the clerk in this country illegally? If so then deport her. otherwise she needs to face the consequences of her actions.
Why is this hypocrisy? Or do you just have blind hatred for anyone that doesn't share your views?

 

[herecomethehawkeyes]

If no sig required why did you want her in jail? Cause if christian hate

Christian hate would be saying that she should not hold the position and be in jail for being christian.

If most sane people had their way, she would be fired for not doing her job (which happens daily in this country). Why do you think people should not have consequences for not doing their job?. If her views do not align with her employers views, she is free to pursue employment that more closely matches her beliefs.

 

[naturalmwa]

Now davis wants an opt out where she gets neighboring county clerk to sign off problem solved gay activists get license shes not forced to go against god problem solved

The problem has been solved for several days.

 

[naturalmwa]

If the punishment is imprisonment for entering the country illegally then put them in jail. If it's deportation then deport them.

Is the clerk in this country illegally? If so then deport her. otherwise she needs to face the consequences of her actions.
Why is this hypocrisy? Or do you just have blind hatred for anyone that doesn't share your views?

Well if I hated you, it wouldn't be blind. It would probably stem from hating your argument and your reaction to being challenged. What you seem blind to is your own admission here that illegality and justice isn't a plain and simple matter. Which is just one of the reasons why your argument is fairly silly.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

As your own scholar points out:
Title VII does not apply to elected officials, at all.

Also:
"But in any event, if Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, she wouldn’t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty, and decline to issue such licenses at all — denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights."

Your scholar says she loses in Federal Court, and can not be exempted from issuing marriage licenses.

He narrows the question only to whether the State of Kentucky should change its rules to accommodate her, which, to me, is entirely irrelevant in this conversation because (as he already pointed out) she CANNOT exempt herself from issuing Cobstitutionally protected licenses. Therefore she has to do it, and she is refusing. She is wrong.

Care to answer my question re: Obama?

IH, you spent the first half of your message rehashing points I (and the professor) made or conceded. I'm not sure why you bring them up, as if you discovered something new or you think these undercut his case. They don't since they were made up front.

Your last paragraph is incorrect as it's hardly irrelevant, it's the core issue. His argument is she DOESN"T violate constitutional law because the office would still be issuing marriage licenses. Nobody is being harmed, nobody is being denied service, so your constitutional objection falls flat, imo. Nobody is getting discriminated because they ARE getting the license. All it's doing is allowing her to maintain her free exercise of religion, via accommodation, yet still provide same sex couples with a license. He would concur that if her deputies didn't have the authority, or refused to issue same sex marriage licenses then Davis WOULD have to issue them ,resign, or be impreached/jail, etc.

My point for citing this professor was to counter your claim that using RFRA was ludicrous and there's no reasonable legal argument for it. Unlike either of us, this guy is a 1st amendment expert, and a law professor at UCLA. He's not some quack from ACME School of Law. He may be wrong, your interpretation of the law may be correct, but to claim that it's just an absurd legal argument is mistaken.

There's no need to answer your Obama question because it's irrelevant. There's no RFRA claim involving Obama's actions.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

That path has ALWAYS been open to her...from day one. Marriage licenses are routinely signed by deputy clerks in KY. She prohibited her clerks from issuing marriage licenses on HER authority and in violation of the law. No religious argument gives her that right.

Maybe. Her objection to letting the deputies issue the licenses is that her name is on the license. Her legal brief states that she would not have an objection to the deputies issuing the licenses to same sex couples if her name wasn't on the license. IF this claim is true, and IF licenses can be issued without her name on them then she very well may have a valid religious argument because it would be a simple accommodation. If she is lying and won't let anyone issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, even if her name isn't on the license, then I agree, she has no case.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Quit being such a frickin' paranoid dumbass. Has absolutely nothing to do with her supposed Christian beliefs (which she's shown a great deal of hypocrisy about). She's a goddamned elected official refusing to fulfill her duties as she swore an oath to uphold.

You're obviously too stupid to understand this concept, though.

I don't think it's fair to call her a hypocrite. She became a Christian in 2011, after all her divorces, etc. You can't say her actions pre-2011 were hypocritical to Christian values, since she wasn't a Christian at that time.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You democrats are a strange breed. When one of your own suddenly decides to be godly and ethical you make up stoies about abductions and laws which dont exist then you suddenly become hitler and start jailing people, no wonder hitlery cant get traction

Seriously, are you drinking heavily? Your posts are near incomprehensible.

 

[Joes Place]

A local minister in KY sums the issue up perfectly:

A local Presbyterian pastor, Josh Akers, said Davis had a right to believe that same-sex couples shouldn't wed. "What we don't support is her right to impose that belief on others through the power of her office."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...avis-asks-court-block-governors-order-n422961

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I don't think it's fair to call her a hypocrite. She became a Christian in 2011, after all her divorces, etc. You can't say her actions pre-2011 were hypocritical to Christian values, since she wasn't a Christian at that time.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

She remarried her second husband after being married to another man. She is currently in violation of Biblical teachings concerning marriage. Her marriage is "detestable in the eyes of the Lord"'

So...yeah...she's a hypocrite.

 

[mstp1992]

I wsh you would be done but sadly your employer obama pays you to respond

You're just a fuching asshole. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're stupid, you're mentally ill, you need professional help.

 

[mstp1992]

I don't think it's fair to call her a hypocrite. She became a Christian in 2011, after all her divorces, etc. You can't say her actions pre-2011 were hypocritical to Christian values, since she wasn't a Christian at that time.

Yep , she's a hypocrite. She's judging others for actions she deems inappropriate, if not anti-Christian. Why shouldn't her actions be judged as well?

 

[theIowaHawk]

IH, you spent the first half of your message rehashing points I (and the professor) made or conceded. I'm not sure why you bring them up, as if you discovered something new or you think these undercut his case. They don't since they were made up front.

Your last paragraph is incorrect as it's hardly irrelevant, it's the core issue. His argument is she DOESN"T violate constitutional law because the office would still be issuing marriage licenses. Nobody is being harmed, nobody is being denied service, so your constitutional objection falls flat, imo. Nobody is getting discriminated because they ARE getting the license. All it's doing is allowing her to maintain her free exercise of religion, via accommodation, yet still provide same sex couples with a license. He would concur that if her deputies didn't have the authority, or refused to issue same sex marriage licenses then Davis WOULD have to issue them ,resign, or be impreached/jail, etc.

My point for citing this professor was to counter your claim that using RFRA was ludicrous and there's no reasonable legal argument for it. Unlike either of us, this guy is a 1st amendment expert, and a law professor at UCLA. He's not some quack from ACME School of Law. He may be wrong, your interpretation of the law may be correct, but to claim that it's just an absurd legal argument is mistaken.

There's no need to answer your Obama question because it's irrelevant. There's no RFRA claim involving Obama's actions.

I rehashed it for people reading these, lest they fall prey to your inaccurate restatement of the issues.

He is NOT saying she is exempt, that is the large point of his article. She cannot violate these people's Cinstitutioonal right to marriage...which is why he says she loses in Federal Court. THAT is the point.

The remainder of his article is saying that she can seek redress from the KY STATE court to allow her an accommodation, without which she is clearly violating the Constitution.

I figured you could see the difference between those, now I'm not so sure.

If KY granted her an accommodation, than somebody would be issuing licenses and there would be no violation of the Constitution. Until such time she loses. That is his point.

Not surprised you refuse to answer the Obama question, you can see where it is going, and it won't be in your favor.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yep , she's a hypocrite. She's judging others for actions she deems inappropriate, if not anti-Christian. Why shouldn't her actions be judged as well?

I disagree. We can't go down the road of questioning or criticizing her religious beliefs. (We being the government/Courts). That is the most dangerous road of all.

Certainly public opinion can ridicule and laugh at her, but it doesn't mean she is a hypocrite.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

She remarried her second husband after being married to another man. She is currently in violation of Biblical teachings concerning marriage. Her marriage is "detestable in the eyes of the Lord"'

So...yeah...she's a hypocrite.

Who says her religious beliefs require her to follow that passage?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Sanctiary city fficials and sherrif. Dang sure do no enforce laws required of them in austin and theu brag about it

Did you ever post all of those articles that proved TX law enforcement refused to charge illegals with crimes?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Who says her religious beliefs require her to follow that passage?

I'll assume that's the sarcasm font.

 

[theIowaHawk]

It is not.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It is not.

So it's your considered opinion that in enforcing her interpretation of Biblical marriage, she's free to ignore passages in the Bible that speak directly to marriage and she's NOT a hypocrite.

You should have gone with the sarcasm. Now you just look dumb.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I rehashed it for people reading these, lest they fall prey to your inaccurate restatement of the issues.

He is NOT saying she is exempt, that is the large point of his article. She cannot violate these people's Cinstitutioonal right to marriage...which is why he says she loses in Federal Court. THAT is the point.

The remainder of his article is saying that she can seek redress from the KY STATE court to allow her an accommodation, without which she is clearly violating the Constitution.

I figured you could see the difference between those, now I'm not so sure.

If KY granted her an accommodation, than somebody would be issuing licenses and there would be no violation of the Constitution. Until such time she loses. That is his point.

Not surprised you refuse to answer the Obama question, you can see where it is going, and it won't be in your favor.

LOL. I didn't say anything inaccurate, the only one who's doing that has been you have consistently misstated my position. In summarizing, I said exactly what you said in your 2nd paragraph, but you had to rehash it to give the appearance I claimed the opposite. That's weak on your part, you're better than that IowaHawk. Go back and read my original post in this thread, and I specifically talk about accommodation. You said RFRA doesn't apply and yet now it looks like a Ky RFRA could apply. The only point I've had wrong (and I acknowledged this in the thread above) that it's the Ky RFRA, not federal RFRA, which would apply. Also, you fail to mention that I didn't think she had a valid argument to violate the same sex couples constitutional right to marry. In fact, if you were honest, you'd acknowledge I think she should have resigned, and by not allowing the deputies to issue the license the judge was correct to sentence her to jail.

The highlighted is hilarious. This is exactly what I said in the previous post. Either you are deliberately misrepresenting my position or you have your mind made up and you're not even bothering to read what I've written. Here's what I said in the previous post.

"All it's doing is allowing her to maintain her free exercise of religion, via accommodation, yet still provide same sex couples with a license. He would concur that if her deputies didn't have the authority, or refused to issue same sex marriage licenses then Davis WOULD have to issue them ,resign, or be impreached/jail, etc."

The Obama question is irrelevant to the discussion and a distraction from the core issue. You're trying to pull the look at the shiny object. Stay on subject. We are talking about a state RFRA and accommodation.

Here's your quote:
"He narrows the question only to whether the State of Kentucky should change its rules to accommodate her, which, to me, is entirely irrelevant in this conversation because (as he already pointed out) she CANNOT exempt herself from issuing Cobstitutionally protected licenses. Therefore she has to do it, and she is refusing. She is wrong."

This is flat out wrong, or at least it's will be challenged in court. Her office will have to provide licenses, but she 'might' not have to issue them herself, or have her name on the license. Which is EXACTLY what she's been arguing and you've been saying, "no, no, she can't do that".

The good news is you are finally coming around to my original view expressed in this thread about the possibility of working out an accommodation with her. Glad to see you're finally on board.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So it's your considered opinion that in enforcing her interpretation of Biblical marriage, she's free to ignore passages in the Bible that speak directly to marriage and she's NOT a hypocrite.

You should have gone with the sarcasm. Now you just look dumb.

Yes, of course, and it is the only thing that makes sense.

Sects of Christianity have been picking and choosing what to follow, what books belong in the bible, who were the main players, etc. for centuries.

Why isn't she allowed to choose what her beliefs are? What are there, 40 different Christian bibles?

What you have posted does not make her a hypocrite. If you wish to try and convince me, define hypocrite than compare it to what she has done.

This is precisely the concern about religious exemptions, we simply can't question their veracity.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

She remarried her second husband after being married to another man. She is currently in violation of Biblical teachings concerning marriage. Her marriage is "detestable in the eyes of the Lord"'

So...yeah...she's a hypocrite.

LOL. You don't understand the meaning of the word hypocrite. She married her current husband in 2009, she didn't become a Christian until 2011. You can't apply Christian morality to her PRIOR to becoming a Christian. A hypocrite is someone who believes and professes one thing and then act in a contrary way. So, it's incorrect to say she's a Christian hypocrite.

 

[theIowaHawk]

LOL. I didn't say anything inaccurate, the only one who's doing that has been you have consistently misstated my position. In summarizing, I said exactly what you said in your 2nd paragraph, but you had to rehash it to give the appearance I claimed the opposite. That's weak on your part, you're better than that IowaHawk. Go back and read my original post in this thread, and I specifically talk about accommodation. You said RFRA doesn't apply and yet now it looks like a Ky RFRA could apply. The only point I've had wrong (and I acknowledged this in the thread above) that it's the Ky RFRA, not federal RFRA, which would apply. Also, you fail to mention that I didn't think she had a valid argument to violate the same sex couples constitutional right to marry. In fact, if you were honest, you'd acknowledge I think she should have resigned, and by not allowing the deputies to issue the license the judge was correct to sentence her to jail.

The highlighted is hilarious. This is exactly what I said in the previous post. Either you are deliberately misrepresenting my position or you have your mind made up and you're not even bothering to read what I've written. Here's what I said in the previous post.

"All it's doing is allowing her to maintain her free exercise of religion, via accommodation, yet still provide same sex couples with a license. He would concur that if her deputies didn't have the authority, or refused to issue same sex marriage licenses then Davis WOULD have to issue them ,resign, or be impreached/jail, etc."

The Obama question is irrelevant to the discussion and a distraction from the core issue. You're trying to pull the look at the shiny object. Stay on subject. We are talking about a state RFRA and accommodation.

Here's your quote:
"He narrows the question only to whether the State of Kentucky should change its rules to accommodate her, which, to me, is entirely irrelevant in this conversation because (as he already pointed out) she CANNOT exempt herself from issuing Cobstitutionally protected licenses. Therefore she has to do it, and she is refusing. She is wrong."

This is flat out wrong, or at least it's will be challenged in court. Her office will have to provide licenses, but she 'might' not have to issue them herself, or have her name on the license. Which is EXACTLY what she's been arguing and you've been saying, "no, no, she can't do that".

The good news is you are finally coming around to my original view expressed in this thread about the possibility of working out an accommodation with her. Glad to see you're finally on board.

If the bolded is "flat out wrong", why is he (and you) admitting she loses in Federal Court?

Because she can't exempt there in order to violate Constitutional rights...which has been the point all along.

Whether her STATE wants to accommodate her is not at issue, as he admits. He says she has to seek redress separately, in STATE court. And if they do, in fact, accommodate her there will be no issue, because she will no longer be violating peoples' rights.

If you believe what you are posting ask yourself these two questions:

1. How is it the Federal Courg has ordered her to do it, and found her in contempt?

2. Do you believe that Court is simply wrong and violating the Constitution itself?

You are basically arguing this:

A government official can't violate the Constitution. (Duh, you seem to be agreeing with everyone but OiT here). BUT the government could choose to alter her role so that they are no longer violating the Constitution. (Again, duh)

What you are trying to argue, failingly, is that the above two points somehow render her exempt from the Federal Court order, which it doesn't....as your author agrees.

 

[cruhawk]

Not that any of them have any real shot at the nomination anyway. Surprising Santorum has spoken up:

Republican presidential candidates rallied around the Kentucky clerk taken into custody Thursday for not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, declined to heed a U.S. Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage, so on Thursday a federal judge held her in contempt and remanded her to custody.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said the move would set a bad precedent.

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," he said on CNN shortly after the decision. "I think it's a real mistake and even those on the other side of the issue, I think it sets their movement back."

Paul said forcing conservative Christians to issue marriage licensees to same-sex couples is going to backfire.

"What's going to happen is it's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," he said. "I think what's going to happen is that state and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business."

Paul suggested compromises that would allow Davis to refrain from putting her signature on the license. The process could involve a notary public who does not object to the law.

"This is a really the problem when we decide to get involved in a situation that has always through the history of our country been a local issue," he said.

Other presidential candidates weighed in on the news. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said it is now a crime to be a Christian in America.

"Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country. We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny," he said. "I am proud of Kim for standing strong for her beliefs. Who will be next? Pastors? Photographers? Caterers? Florists? This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said Kim Davis is the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in pubic office, they must disregard their religious faith -- or be sent to jail," he said in statement. "Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also defended what he called Davis' religious freedom.

"I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners," he told the Huffington Post. "We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker discussed Davis's decision Thursday on the Laura Ingraham Show.

"In the end, this is the balance that you gotta have to have in America, between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring that the Constitution is upheld," he said. "I read that the Constitution is very clear that people have freedom of religion -- you have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there, it's a fundamental right."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/2016-kim-davis-presidential-candidates-responses/index.html

And your point is......?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

LOL. You don't understand the meaning of the word hypocrite. She married her current husband in 2009, she didn't become a Christian until 2011. You can't apply Christian morality to her PRIOR to becoming a Christian. A hypocrite is someone who believes and professes one thing and then act in a contrary way. So, it's incorrect to say she's a Christian hypocrite.

No, it isn't. Her current marriage is "detestable in the eyes of the Lord". She is currently involved in a marriage that her God finds loathsome. If she's not a hypocrite, she needs to end the marriage. What if she was involved in a same sex marriage prior to becoming a Christian and wanted to continue THAT relationship while still denying it to others based on her Biblical beliefs? Would you claim that wasn't hypocritical since she became a Christian after the marriage? For that matter, would she refuse a license to a woman who was remarrying a former husband after having been married to another man? If she issues that license - would that be hypocritical?

She's a hypocrite. You might want to look it up as you clearly don't know what it means.

 

[Joes Place]

If the bolded is "flat out wrong", why is he (and you) admitting she loses in Federal Court?

Because she can't exempt there in order to violate Constitutional rights...which has been the point all along.

Whether her STATE wants to accommodate her is not at issue, as he admits. He says she has to seek redress separately, in STATE court. And if they do, in fact, accommodate her there will be no issue, because she will no longer be violating peoples' rights.

If you believe what you are posting ask yourself these two questions:

1. How is it the Federal Courg has ordered her to do it, and found her in contempt?

2. Do you believe that Court is simply wrong and violating the Constitution itself?

You are basically arguing this:

A government official can't violate the Constitution. (Duh, you seem to be agreeing with everyone but OiT here). BUT the government could choose to alter her role so that they are no longer violating the Constitution. (Again, duh)

What you are trying to argue, failingly, is that the above two points somehow render her exempt from the Federal Court order, which it doesn't....as your author agrees.

This is what has already been stated here: State Law is not relevant to her refusal to perform her duties; state RFRA can not and will not trump federal law and federal courts.

The only thing her appeal can do is press the governor to exact an executive order and alter her county's form so her name can be removed, or press the state legislature into an expensive special session to do the same. Both are probably longshots, as they will pose significant burdens on the state to complete quickly, and they'd probably have to do it statewide for consistency and to avoid copycat issues. The more people twist the current laws to accommodate her, the more they lay a framework for the next copycat protest by a civil employee - KY would be smart to ensure whatever actions they take that they do not set that precedent.

They could also appeal to a neighboring county to take on the responsibility, but who pays for that?

It is more likely they would just remove her from office and appoint an interim clerk to execute her responsibilities.

Her oath of office as a civil servant trumps her religious beliefs here, because allowing her to use her status and her office as a way to impose her religious beliefs on others is a clear violation of the Constitution. If she had an ounce of integrity and honor, she'd just resign her position and stop wasting all the money and resources on this nonsense.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

If the bolded is "flat out wrong", why is he (and you) admitting she loses in Federal Court?

Because she can't exempt there in order to violate Constitutional rights...which has been the point all along.

Whether her STATE wants to accommodate her is not at issue, as he admits. He says she has to seek redress separately, in STATE court. And if they do, in fact, accommodate her there will be no issue, because she will no longer be violating peoples' rights.

If you believe what you are posting ask yourself these two questions:

1. How is it the Federal Courg has ordered her to do it, and found her in contempt?

2. Do you believe that Court is simply wrong and violating the Constitution itself?

You are basically arguing this:

A government official can't violate the Constitution. (Duh, you seem to be agreeing with everyone but OiT here). BUT the government could choose to alter her role so that they are no longer violating the Constitution. (Again, duh)

What you are trying to argue, failingly, is that the above two points somehow render her exempt from the Federal Court order, which it doesn't....as your author agrees.

'BUT the government could choose to alter her role so that they are no longer violating the Constitution. (Again, duh)

LOL. If it was a "duh" point then why have you been arguing the opposite for most of thread? You were claiming Kim Davis must issue the licenses.

The highlighted. Wrong, where have I argued that in my most recent posts? You've totally misrepresented my position and my argument. It's not worth arguing it with you any longer, you seem to just be making strawmen arguments. From my original post I've been arguing accommodation, you've been arguing SHE has to issue the license. However, while her office has to provide the licenses, she doesn't have to issue them, she doesn't have her name on the marriage licenses (well, at least that's the legal argument).

You are arguing with yourself. Maybe you want to score points against yourself, I don't know. Most of the comments in your recent posts have been laughable. You rehashed points that were from the article I pasted in. The most pertinent points (the ones you amusingly rehashed as if they were your ideas) were directly from the section of the article "I" pasted into my response. Holy cow, Iowa, it's like I say the world is round, and you counter, "I can't believe you are claiming the world is flat. Everyone knows the world is round, and it's incredible you think otherwise". We've entered into bizarro world.

What's actually kind of funny about this discussion is you've been the most outspoken critic of RFRA. You don't like the federal RFRA but you hate the state ones, as you think they are unnecessary, and covered under the federal one. Actually you think the federal one should be done away with. Here we have a textbook example of why they are needed. In this example, Davis would have been required to violate her free exercise of religion, and the federal RFRA wouldn't have helped. Possibly, thanks to RFRA, a women's religious liberty is protected and same sex couples are not going to have their right infringed upon. Win/win. I know you don't like those, but this is a good thing. I remember you screaming bloody murder about the Indiana RFRA because you said religious liberties are already covered by the 1st amendment or federal RFRA. As the article points out (various examples), this isn't true and the states need to pass RFRA laws to protect religious freedom.

So, if nothing else this case has shown that your argument against the federal and state RFRA laws was a bunch of hot air. The GOP should continue to push for these laws in every state.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

No, it isn't. Her current marriage is "detestable in the eyes of the Lord". She is currently involved in a marriage that her God finds loathsome. If she's not a hypocrite, she needs to end the marriage. What if she was involved in a same sex marriage prior to becoming a Christian and wanted to continue THAT relationship while still denying it to others based on her Biblical beliefs? Would you claim that wasn't hypocritical since she became a Christian after the marriage? For that matter, would she refuse a license to a woman who was remarrying a former husband after having been married to another man? If she issues that license - would that be hypocritical?

She's a hypocrite. You might want to look it up as you clearly don't know what it means.

Huh? Seriously, is this your best argument? I don't know what her religious beliefs are. "She is currently involved in a marriage that her God finds loathsome." Care to document that from the church she belongs to? You are ranting nonsense. It's difficult to even understand what you are saying.

"Hypocrite:
noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

How is she a hypocrite under this definition? She might say her past life of divorces was a sinful life, but that doesn't make her a hypocrite because she wasn't pretending to have "religious beliefs" against divorce, etc. You say for her not to be a hypocrite and a good Christian she should divorce her current husband. LOL. Nice logic.

Good grief, you can disagree with her belief on gay marriage but you are making an irrational argument going down the hypocrisy road.

 

[theIowaHawk]

'BUT the government could choose to alter her role so that they are no longer violating the Constitution. (Again, duh)

LOL. If it was a "duh" point then why have you been arguing the opposite for most of thread? You were claiming Kim Davis must issue the licenses.

The highlighted. Wrong, where have I argued that in my most recent posts? You've totally misrepresented my position and my argument. It's not worth arguing it with you any longer, you seem to just be making strawmen arguments. From my original post I've been arguing accommodation, you've been arguing SHE has to issue the license. However, while her office has to provide the licenses, she doesn't have to issue them, she doesn't have her name on the marriage licenses (well, at least that's the legal argument).

You are arguing with yourself. Maybe you want to score points against yourself, I don't know. Most of the comments in your recent posts have been laughable. You rehashed points that were from the article I pasted in. The most pertinent points (the ones you amusingly rehashed as if they were your ideas) were directly from the section of the article "I" pasted into my response. Holy cow, Iowa, it's like I say the world is round, and you counter, "I can't believe you are claiming the world is flat. Everyone knows the world is round, and it's incredible you think otherwise". We've entered into bizarro world.

What's actually kind of funny about this discussion is you've been the most outspoken critic of RFRA. You don't like the federal RFRA but you hate the state ones, as you think they are unnecessary, and covered under the federal one. Actually you think the federal one should be done away with. Here we have a textbook example of why they are needed. In this example, Davis would have been required to violate her free exercise of religion, and the federal RFRA wouldn't have helped. Possibly, thanks to RFRA, a women's religious liberty is protected and same sex couples are not going to have their right infringed upon. Win/win. I know you don't like those, but this is a good thing. I remember you screaming bloody murder about the Indiana RFRA because you said religious liberties are already covered by the 1st amendment or federal RFRA. As the article points out (various examples), this isn't true and the states need to pass RFRA laws to protect religious freedom.

So, if nothing else this case has shown that your argument against the federal and state RFRA laws was a bunch of hot air. The GOP should continue to push for these laws in every state.

Oh goodness. You posted all of that to say I was right and to change what you were arguing all along.

She, her office, whomever issues licenses in Rowan County KY MUST issue marriage licenses pursuant to the Federal Constitition and Federal Court order.

You've been arguing the opposite. Posting 8 more paragraphs of nonsense doesn't change that.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Since you want to discuss irrelevant RFRAs (again) so badly, KY's statute still isn't any kind of necessity. She could request the exact same redress from State court without it, and she would still lose. I don't know KY law, nor do I need to. If the State court is willing to protect and accommodate her they don't need RFRA to do so, their religious freedom section along with precedent is more than sufficient.

BUT, again, none of this matters for this case, because it doesn't exempt her from obeying the Constitution of the U.S....which is what the other KY clerk (and her filings) keeps claiming.

This would be akin to (excepting governmental status) an HR manager saying he religiously believes he must fire all women. The federal courts would stop and penalize such a clear violation. Whether the employer wants to move him to a non-hiring/firing position or not is irrelevant. Moving him would obviously solve the issue...but that doesn't matter, for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[theIowaHawk]

No, it isn't. Her current marriage is "detestable in the eyes of the Lord". She is currently involved in a marriage that her God finds loathsome. If she's not a hypocrite, she needs to end the marriage.

What are you using, from her, to base that on? You can't simply cite Bible passages without knowing her position...otherwise you are questioning her personal religious beliefs based solely on other peoples' beliefs, not her own.

She may be a hypocrite, but you haven't shown it.

 

[Joes Place]

And another voice of religious reason on the issue:

John Kasich, who opposes gay marriage, thinks a Kentucky clerk should issue same-sex marriage licenses despite her religious beliefs.

Even though Davis personally opposes same-sex marriage, she's a government employee, Kasich told ABC's This Week on Sunday.

"She's not running a church. I wouldn't force this on a church, but in terms of her responsibility, I think she has to comply," said Kasich, Ohio governor and a GOP presidential candidate. He doesn't think she should sit in jail, he said, but "I think she should follow the law."
Battles over same-sex marriage might turn young people away from Christianity, said Kasich, a Protestant.
"When we see these kind of battles going on, I get a little bit afraid that it turns people off to the idea of faith in God," he said. "I think we need to talk a lot about the do's, about humility, about helping our neighbor, about the need to live a life bigger than ourselves."
​

Kudos, John Kasich....that certainly sounds A LOT more like something Jesus would say or do, than the majority of what the self-aggrandized Christian Conservatives spout off on these days...

 

[Joes Place]

BTW...here's your pie chart (that you've been unable or unwilling to post), PhantomFlyer:

 

[LifelongHawk]

tarheel's position on religious hypocrisy mimics Westboro Baptist's, coincidence? Assume he wouldn't go the next step and say Davis is responsible for gay marriage, or that Clerk should have denied her adulterous marriage license.

Westboro Baptist@WBCSaysRepent
Kim can't keep living/sleeping with a man not her husband & say she's repented. Any more than "gay Christians" can. https://twitter.com/attitudemag/status/640149018186809344 …

Westboro Baptist@WBCSaysRepent
#KimDavis & her "Christian" ilk have contributed as much to fag marriage as @HRC @TheAdvocateMag & other militants.

Westboro Baptist@WBCSaysRepent
What if a clerk denied #KimDavis a license for her 2nd/3rd/4th marriage because Christ calls it adultery?

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/godhatesadultery-westboro-baptist-church-turns-on-kim-davis-for-causing-fg-marriage/

Phantom up to usual tricks with non-sequiturs followed by leaping to argue irrelevance: Jefferson says social duties trump natural rights, yeah but he had religious services on federal ground.

Davis is wrong legally, yeah but religious freedom act accommodation could apply in different circumstances.

Give it to him, he is quite good at the tactic, usually has something in reserve regarding non-sequitur. Bottom line is usually wrongheaded (see takeaway from The Brethren on page 1), but sincere and effective with the tactic.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

What are you using, from her, to base that on? You can't simply cite Bible passages without knowing her position...otherwise you are questioning her personal religious beliefs based solely on other peoples' beliefs, not her own.

She may be a hypocrite, but you haven't shown it.

Damn. Let's try this again. SHE is using the Bible to support her position. Are you going to claim that she can cite parts of the Bible to govern marriage and ignore other parts that clearly govern marriage and not be a hypocrite? She can pick and choose, you say? She belongs to the Apostolic faith...by her own admission...so she's either Pentecostal or in the Apostolic Christian Church. Both believe the Bible - the WHOLE Bible - is the inerrant word of God. If she doesn't believe that, she's a hypocrite for belonging to the faith and not adhering to a central tenet. Twist it as much as you want...Kim Davis is a hypocrite.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

tarheel's position on religious hypocrisy mimics Westboro Baptist's, coincidence? Assume he wouldn't go the next step and say Davis is responsible for gay marriage, or that Clerk should have denied her adulterous marriage license.

No, it doesn't. Not even close.

They're condemning her because she's been married four times and had two children out of wedlock. I don't give a rat's ass about that. She's claiming parts of the Bible allow her to prevent others from getting married while ignoring the fact that the same document condemns her for her current relationship. I don't care that she remarried her husband after being married to another man...but SHE can't ignore it and still claim the Bible governs marriage.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Damn. Let's try this again. SHE is using the Bible to support her position. Are you going to claim that she can cite parts of the Bible to govern marriage and ignore other parts that clearly govern marriage and not be a hypocrite? She can pick and choose, you say? She belongs to the Apostolic faith...by her own admission...so she's either Pentecostal or in the Apostolic Christian Church. Both believe the Bible - the WHOLE Bible - is the inerrant word of God. If she doesn't believe that, she's a hypocrite for belonging to the faith and not adhering to a central tenet. Twist it as much as you want...Kim Davis is a hypocrite.

"SHE is using the Bible to support her position."
Link? Also, which Bible is she using, and is she saying that her belief conforms to every aspect of it?

A person isn't required to adhere to any of the Bible, but they can, or they can adhere only to the principles they choose. People do this, literally, every day. We shouldn't be questioning it.

Now, if she says, "I believe in _______________________ passage" and then she acts opposite, it would be hypocrisy.

Ok, she belongs to what she describes as an "Apostolic faith", and she likely attends a specific church, that STILL does not require her to adhere to everything the congregation, or the minister, preaches. Catholics don't have to adhere strictly to the Vatican, nor do they. Mormons didn't have to continue with polygamy, and many didn't.

You are trying to pigeon-hole her to a larger group of Christianity. Her special crazy might be a religion of 1. When we start requiring people to have conforming faiths, it defeats the entire purpose of religious freedom. Same goes for objectively determining which religious beliefs a person follows or not.

Which leads to my larger point I've always pushed: This is why this whole area is so dangerous. We CAN'T objectively determine a person's faith, therefore we must, basically, accept anything they claim. And if we accept everything they claim, then they get carte blanche to exempt themselves as they please. That is why I push for doing everything on a completely objective standard, don't allow religious exemptions at all for public accommodation, for public officials, etc.

"Both believe the Bible - the WHOLE Bible - is the inerrant word of God. If she doesn't believe that, she's a hypocrite for belonging to the faith and not adhering to a central tenet. "

Nothing you have posted supports that principle. There is no such requirement to do as you say.

Now, as a religious person, say, a Christian, you might claim she is hypocritical using your views/beliefs, but you can't necessarily say she is within hers.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Ok, so she is out of jail on an order to not interfere. Based on her past actions and her sincere religious belief, she has to interfere....right?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/2015/09/08/kim-davis-released-jail/71881098/

 

[LifelongHawk]

No, it doesn't. Not even close.

Well, consistent on the point that the Bible condemns her current marriage regardless of purported repentance. Mostly joking, obviously.

Glad she's out, Judge Bunning handled a stupid case about as well as possible. Only winner is Liberty, probably a real boon to their fundraising, and their idiot counsel, who may get other idiotic losing cases to get in the news.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Oh goodness. You posted all of that to say I was right and to change what you were arguing all along.

She, her office, whomever issues licenses in Rowan County KY MUST issue marriage licenses pursuant to the Federal Constitition and Federal Court order.

You've been arguing the opposite. Posting 8 more paragraphs of nonsense doesn't change that.

LOL. You've spent 3 plus pages to argue that the Rowan County Ky clerk's office must issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. HELLO, DUH! NOWHERE have I claimed otherwise. This is why I've said you've been arguing a point nobody is arguing. Please show me a single quote where I've claimed otherwise. You couldn't even correctly characterize what Volokh said. The reason a federal court judge can't carve out an exemption, has nothing to do with a constitutional right of marriage, as you've claimed.

"But in any event, if Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, she wouldn’t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty, and decline to issue such licenses at all — denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, AND requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.

“I think the federal theories in the federal complaint are unpersuasive, and I doubt that a federal judge would be inclined to order state officials to carve out an exemption from state marriage license/certificate law under the state RFRA — in principle, such a decision by a federal judge is possible, but in practice I expect the federal judge would likely leave this to state courts.” But reader Jason Walta points out that a federal judge generally can’t issue an injunction against state officials under state law, see Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman (1984), and getting the exemption recognized would likely take an injunction or a declaratory judgment; so I changed the text to say “that sort of accommodation based on the Kentucky state RFRA is not a remedy that’s likely to be available in federal court.”