Actually, that seems to be exactly what you have been doing. You have been arguing that the Clerk of Rowan County (Kim) doesn't have to do it because of her religious beliefs.
Paul, Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal and Walker Support Kentucky County Clerk
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Actually, that seems to be exactly what you have been doing. You have been arguing that the Clerk of Rowan County (Kim) doesn't have to do it because of her religious beliefs.
Then you should be able to provide a quote where I said the office can continue to deny same sex marriage couples marriage licenses. I've never said that. Why do you think I've said (numerous times) that Kim Davis needs to resign, or be put in jail if she won't let her deputies issue the license? I've said this at least a half a dozen times. However, from the beginning I've questioned whether an accommodation couldn't be arrived at which would protect her free exercise of religion, however, I've NEVER said such an accommodation would/should allow her office to issue no licenses to same sex couples.
BTW, I just heard Kim Davis attorney interviewed by Neil Cavuto and the attorney said the judge offered conditions for her release and nothing has been agreed to, so there's no quid pro quo. Interesting.
FWIW...an 'accommodation' in this case (of a civil servant denying rights to people because of their personal religious beliefs) is a very very bad idea.
Let's say that KY does provide an accommodation. Here has been her chain of grievances:
We cannot have equal legal footing for Rule of Law vs. Personal Beliefs, or we run into a giant legal mess; the legal precedent for accommodating someone in an elected office, who is bound by oath to enforce the laws, is a very troubling one - it literally allows ANYONE to deny a service to another group and use the Religion Card as their excuse. (Sharia Law, anyone!!??)
A far better solution is to remove her from office if she cannot comply, and add a clause to the oath for elected officials, which requires that said official agrees to resign from the elected position under any circumstance that prevents them from performing their legal duties - whether the reason is for personal beliefs, religious beliefs or health reasons (e.g. a stroke).
Accommodating this woman, and now putting the responsibility somewhere else means the issue is bound to come up again, just further up the food chain, or in another venue. Sure, we can probably come up with a convoluted process to eliminate the issue, but that becomes a financial and logistic burden on the government and/or the taxpayers - it's far easier to simply inform elected officials that they must legally step down if they cannot or will not perform their sworn duties, irrespective of their personal or religious beliefs. Otherwise, a local 'majority' has a formula to suppress or discriminate against those within their jurisdiction they do not like or agree with - pull out the 'against my religion' card and you can discriminate against whomever you want...
Let's say that KY does provide an accommodation. Here has been her chain of grievances:
- Can't issue licenses with my signature (her signature is not required on any of the licenses, it is 'initials' which can be filled in by any deputy clerk)
- Can't issue licenses with my name on them (they are now issuing licenses w/o her name on them, and "Rowan County" in place of her name)
- Can't issue licenses in my office, because they are occurring under my legal authority (TBD what happens with this one)
We cannot have equal legal footing for Rule of Law vs. Personal Beliefs, or we run into a giant legal mess; the legal precedent for accommodating someone in an elected office, who is bound by oath to enforce the laws, is a very troubling one - it literally allows ANYONE to deny a service to another group and use the Religion Card as their excuse. (Sharia Law, anyone!!??)
A far better solution is to remove her from office if she cannot comply, and add a clause to the oath for elected officials, which requires that said official agrees to resign from the elected position under any circumstance that prevents them from performing their legal duties - whether the reason is for personal beliefs, religious beliefs or health reasons (e.g. a stroke).
Accommodating this woman, and now putting the responsibility somewhere else means the issue is bound to come up again, just further up the food chain, or in another venue. Sure, we can probably come up with a convoluted process to eliminate the issue, but that becomes a financial and logistic burden on the government and/or the taxpayers - it's far easier to simply inform elected officials that they must legally step down if they cannot or will not perform their sworn duties, irrespective of their personal or religious beliefs. Otherwise, a local 'majority' has a formula to suppress or discriminate against those within their jurisdiction they do not like or agree with - pull out the 'against my religion' card and you can discriminate against whomever you want...
No, it appears he simply ordered her not to interfere. Based on her past comments, I don't know how she can not interfere.
Correct. Nothing was 'agreed to', because the judge has essentially stated she cannot interfere with the process, and she'd be back in court if she does. He has exercised admirable patience in this case, so if she defies his order it'll be interesting to see if he continues to do so.
I think she has to interfere....otherwise she would THEN be hypocritical. I'm pulling for her now.
Are you kidding? OF COURSE, SHE'S NOT A HYPOCRITE WITHIN HER VIEWS. No hypocrite is. That's kinda what makes them hypocrites.
You know, I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you are unaware of what's been happening here, either educate yourself or drop out. Here's what you get:
"I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience."
Now...what did God have to say about her marriage? And don't hide behind the "she didn't say what part of God's definition she meant". She didn't limit it.
You're trying waaaaaay too hard here. If YOU don't want to consider her a hypocrite using YOUR "views/beliefs", fine and dandy. But by your own metric, you can't disagree when other people consider her exactly that. In fact, absent some absolutely definitive empirical evidence, you can't make a judgment about anyone or anything.
Even if you do reach some kind of conclusion and someone disagrees with you...sorry. You can't consider them "wrong"...you have no standing to correct them. You don't know the "views/beliefs" upon which they base their opinion - there can always be something they didn't say. Even your "objective standards" are open to interpretation. It's nonsensical but those are your "views/beliefs" as you have clearly stated them.
Whoa! Jump the gun much? That wouldn't make her a hypocrite. She has stated that her problem is her name appearing on the document. If they reach an accommodation that allows a license without her name attached, she's no hypocrite if she allows licenses to be issued by her deputies.
Here's your homework: “She has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well”, said her attorney.
See how that works?
But I'm with Joe...allowing her this accommodation doesn't solve the problem. What happens if all the deputies were to cite a religious objection?
No. That is precisely where you go off track.
Hypocrites are hypocrites within their own views.
"Don't hit people" and then you hit someone is hypocritical.
"Don't have sex outside of marriage" and then having sex outside of marriage is hypocritical.
The difference is that YOU are ascribing specific beliefs to her. In order to show she is a hypocrite you actually have to show that she believes those beliefs............not just that YOU say she has those beliefs.
But this isn't talking about an accommodation. She already believed that deputies signing them violate her beliefs. She has stated that. Therefore if she allows it now, without any accommodation, it would be hypocritical.
Exactly, she didn't limit it. She didn't say which God, whose God, what part of God's message.
That could be using any of these Bibles, each with differing interpretations (some big, some small):
1. New International Version
2. King James Version
3. New Living Translation
4. New King James Version
5. English Standard Version
6. Holman Christian Standard Bible
7. New American Standard Bible
8. Common English Bible
9. Reina Valera 1960
10. The Message
Or it could be her own cut/paste version like Jefferson.
...only they've stopped putting her name on the documents, and now she's morphed the issue into 'they are still being issued under my authority' and that this still poses a 'belief' problem for her.
She (and her lawyers) are also attempting to claim those licenses are 'invalid' - i.e. her 'beliefs' are going to trump Rule of Law.
This issue has never been about her name being on anything - it's about denying rights to people who do not share her religious views, but are now legally entitled to marriage rights. There simply is no religious 'accomodation' to be made when the result is denying basic rights to some people and discriminating against them.
What if we had a local populace of Muslims, who ended up running the local DMV and denying driver's licenses to all women, because that was against their 'beliefs'? Do we need to 'accommodate' those beliefs, or do we just say 'See Ya, you cannot work here if you cannot distribute licenses regardless of applicant gender'?
Well not morphed, it is pretty clear that this was her opinion all along, which is why she wouldn't let deputies do it. I'm not sure if it was her rhetoric or the public's that alleged she just wanted someone else to sign it.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/law...lt-marriage-licenses-after-release-from-jail/
If she is, in fact, so religiously opposed to SSM, why is she willing to cede her duties at all? Why would she be willing to step aside and allow it to be done without her name/title/authority? Shouldn't she be insisting on standing in their way?
If she is, in fact, so religiously opposed to SSM, why is she willing to cede her duties at all? Why would she be willing to step aside and allow it to be done without her name/title/authority? Shouldn't she be insisting on standing in their way?
The core of the issue.
Can someone impose their personal religious beliefs onto others, and deny someone a Constitutionally protected right?
Our Constitution emphatically says 'no'; separation of Church and State is very clear that government 'cannot favor' one religion over another. Thus, using a religious belief in your role as a civil servant as the excuse against others who have a different religious belief goes against the fundamentals our country was founded on - you are 'favoring' your religion and beliefs over theirs as a government official. (Can Christian police officers voluntarily deny support/service/protection of Muslims or Sikhs or Hindus because they are 'non-believers' on the premise that their duty is only to protect Christians and to serve God?)
Do Republican presidential nominees REALLY want this on their records? Because I don't think too many moderates are 'ok' with this. It'll sure get the party base stirred into a fervor, but it is going to push away most young voters and moderates. (Maybe the Dems are secretly paying Davis to stir this whole thing up and trick the GOP into taking a political position that may end up being colossally short-sighted and stupid...)
WTH? They believe it's wrong to hit to use your example. Then they justify it when they do it by citing their "view/belief" that what they did was an exception and thus allowed. By your standard, they're not a hypocrite if they have that unstated exception. Don't have sex outside of marriage...buuuut....my wife is cold, that girl is hitting on me, etc. etc. etc. See? You don't know their "views/beliefs" so YOU can't call them hypocrites. They most certainly do not consider themselves hypocrites. That's the nature of hypocrisy.
But let's use your own metric: She believes that God defines marriage in the Bible and then engages in a marriage defined by God in the Bible as "detestable", That's hypocritical. I honestly don't give a phuch if she can justify it in her own mind. Hope you finally understand that.
Last edited:
Did you answer which of the various bibles she was using and which specific passages she believes she is required to follow?
You keep pushing your/others beliefs on to her without support.
Hypocrites often know they are hypocritical, you saying otherwise is laughable. You are trying to take the "exceptions" to extremes. A person who says not to do X, and then you invent a very narrow exception is vastly different than understanding and admitting that MILLIONS of Christians have vastly different views on the bible.
Trying to use your logic above, try this: a parent says publicly that people shouldn't physically abuse children.
Does that mean they are hypocritical if they spank their child? Of course not, physical abuse =\= spanking. BUT, to some people it is. People take vastly different views on it. That doesn't mean that they get a punch-the-child-in-the-face exception, because there isn't a reasonable/likely understanding that it wouldn't be abuse.
Hers COULD be hypocrisy, but you haven't shown enough, objectively, to show that it is. Why do you so badly need to label her as such? You can disagree with and ridicule her without mislabeling her.
You are giving him too much credit, his position is even more off the mark. Say a student cheated on a test because they didn't think there was anything wrong with it . Then after getting caught and discussing the matter with the teacher, they came to the realization that cheating is wrong. What tar is saying is if this person goes on to become a teacher it would be hypocritical to ever speak out or punish one of his students for cheating. Nonsense. Our views on issues, even moral matters, can change over our lifetime. It's only hypocritical if you are saying something is wrong for others, while at the same time doing this same thing in your own personal life. If you speak out that doing drugs is wrong, but you yourself are using cocaine, then that is hypocritical.
She wasn't a Christian prior to 2011. She believed her behavior wasn't morally wrong prior to becoming a Christian. What tar is saying is she needs to divorce or leave her current husband for her not to be a hypocrite. In actuality this would probably result in the hypocritical result he's charging her with now. If her Christian belief is divorce is wrong and then goes out an gets a divorce, this would be hypocritical.
This is your best point in the entire discussion. I've wondered why you haven't made it until now.
