She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. [Kim] Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.That's very interesting, but, from a legal standpoint, the scope of Davis's entitlement to relief from substantial burdens on her religion depends on her sincere belief in the religion not on whether she has committed sins within the terms of her religion or whether we think her beliefs are coherent.
Davis has described her desire to strictly adhere to the Bible in stark terms and thus far has shown no sign of bending to court orders on same-sex marriage. She said Tuesday she fears going to hell for violating "a central teaching" of the Bible if she complies with the orders.
In any case, Christians tend to believe that they are forgiven for their sins and to try to go forward without committing new sins, so is this evidence of the "selective application of the Bible to her life"?
It does make Davis a more ridiculous or contemptible person, for those who are inclined to think of her that way. To my mind, it's better simply to see her as someone who cannot hold onto the government job she wants unless she's willing to deal with the public in a manner consistent with our rights.
पोस्ट्स
१२१ टिप्पण्या:
Tryin' to make sense out a shit hillbillies do? Good luck with that.
The easiest solution for her, yes, is to quit. That's true for anyone who can't do their job.
I wonder if there is a relationship between her multiple marriages and her love of drama queendom.
She is just another crazy right wing hillbilly. Now better known as the GOP's base.
Sanctuary City
She was elected as a democrat. But regardless it seems utterly contemptible for the federal judge order her to issue marriage certificates when she has a religious objection and therefore chose not to issue any licenses with her name on it. I hope she is held in contempt and thrown in prison because this would be a slamdunk victory for Christians regarding the excesses of the federal government. What a backlash!
If she were a Muslim everyone would be talking about reasonable accomadations need to be made.
MayBee
Good one.
She has no legal basis for this (in)action, and will ultimately have to issue the licenses or be removed from office.
Whatever her matrimonial behavior has no impact on the legal case as Althouse has instructed on many occasions that claiming a religious exception is not based on some impartial evaluation of a person's faith, but rather on that person's sincerely expressed belief.
So non-believers pointing fingers and calling hypocrisy does not invalidate her argument.
Unknown wrote:
If she were a Muslim everyone would be talking about reasonable accomadations need to be made.
Exactly.
I saw the gay couple that is pushing the issue with her interviewed last night. They said that they only wanted a marriage license. This untrue, they will not be happy unless she is made to issue them a marriage license, or is fired.
Why can't her employer accommodate her by authorizing someone else in the office to issue such licenses? How many could there be? It couldn't be a burden. Someone else might have to issue one license every week or two or three.
Once written, twice...the clerk is a democrat.
First, her very own religion tells her she was born a sinner in a fallen world. So..whether her divorces were due to bad judgement or inability to keep her commitment, they're entirely consistent in its inconsistency...as long as she seeks forgiveness.
Secondly, her current level of proclaimed religious conviction may be a recent development.
"it's better simply to see her as someone who cannot hold onto the government job she wants"
Yeah..maybe open a bakery.
It raises questions of the hypocrisy of those on the left who have supported selective non-enforcement of laws they don't agree with.
from the same article
"Staver says “it’s not really relevant, it’s something that happened in her past” and that her conversion to Christianity about four years ago wiped her slate clean. “It’s something that’s not relevant to the issue at hand,” he says. “She was 180 degrees changed.”"
To my mind, it's better simply to see her as someone who cannot hold onto the government job she wants unless she's willing to deal with the public in a manner consistent with our rights.
Me too. And I am opposed to gay marriage, but as long as it is the law, she is obliged to issue gay couples marriage licences, or resign. There is no right to a government job.
Gay lives matter. But her heterosexual privilege is 4 marriages ahead of them.
We on the Right cannot condemn sanctuary cities while supporting this clerk. Of course it is also hypocrisy for the Left to support sanctuary cities while attacking this clerk. But then we are back to the Left having no standards.......
Impeachment is the legal course, not jail.
For the private sphere, freedom of association ought to rule, not only for gays but also for blacks, provided it's in a competitive market. It shouldn't depend on religious freedom, but the supreme court decided that wrong way back in the 60s and needs to fix that to avoid having a seed producing constant irritation and conflict in the law.
The county clerk's office is a monopoly market. She doesn't get freedom of association.
Change the name to civil union, notice, and even her objection falls away. Gays get civil unions, straights get marriage, and everybody's happy except a few anti-fornicators.
Once you fuck up the law with a bad supreme court decision, you produce conflict for eternity afterwards that shouldn't be there at all.
But then we are back to the Left having no standards.......
"Make them live by their own rules" - Alinsky
But we have different rules of our "own"....
They have standards and rules alright.
Suppose a federal court ruled (and the Supreme court upheld the ruling) that all law professors at State funded universities must include a discussion of at least five minutes on the subject of "What Would Jesus Do about the relevant legal issue?" in any lecture in which a past supreme court decision was mentioned.
Law Professor A. believes that the ruling is "wrong" (unconstitutional) and also that it requires bad pedagogy -- teaching methods that do not effectively teach. Because it is bad pedagogy (in the opinion of Prof. A), Prof. A might also believe that it would be immoral to follow the ruling.
What should Prof A do?
1. Shrug and follow the new requirement.
2. Vocally and publicly refuse to follow the requirement in order to draw attention to it.
3. Leave out all references to supreme court cases in order to circumvent the rule without breaking it.
4. Resign.
"MadisonMan said...
The easiest solution for her, yes, is to quit. That's true for anyone who can't do their job."
The DMV and Post Office would be ghost towns.
She has no legal basis for this (in)action, and will ultimately have to issue the licenses or be removed from office.
I have zero doubt that is true, just as I have zero doubt that sanctuary cities like San Francisco will continue to flout the law without legal consequences.
All the same, the sanctuary city argument must be made. As the old man in Legends of the Fall said so many times "Fuck the goverment(sic)"
So here's an ordinary clerk who's no politician, and political activists did instant opposition research (a.k.a. "smear tactics") on her. Sad.
Having said that, a government employee cannot openly defy federal policy. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, and this clerk should be fired.
Having said that, a government employee cannot openly defy federal policy.
So you are all for sending troops into California, a la the civil rights era, to force California to follow the law, or are you a cafeteria states rights advocate?
rhhardin claimed: "the supreme court decided that wrong way back in the 60s"
No, it was Congress.
Congress overwhelmingly passed the Civil Rights Act, which stated that private businesses were now to be considered "public accommodations" which had to serve all the public without discrimination.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the principle of non-discrmination. What they did rule on was that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the right to regulate in such a way, any private business that engages in interstate commerce. And the Supreme Court ruled that any business that might serve customers from out of state was potentially engaging in interstate commerce.
Today, with the Internet of course, every business with a website can potentially engage in interstate commerce, since the website can be viewed by anyone in the nation.
Actually, she is an elected official. Can't be fired.
County clerk is very much an elected position.
"Why can't her employer accommodate her by authorizing someone else in the office to issue such licenses? How many could there be? It couldn't be a burden. Someone else might have to issue one license every week or two or three."
Where is it guaranteed in the Constitution that people can refuse to fulfill their job requirements as they pick and choose according to their religious beliefs or personal convictions and not face consequences, including discharge from their job? If a person of purported religious convictions sees that certain things required of her by her job conflict with her convictions, she should not take the job, or should, in fact, be eager to leave it, so she will not be forced into moral compromise.
Change the name to civil union, notice, and even her objection falls away
That has been the position for most of us who object to gay marriage from the beginning.
The supreme court gets to notice freedom of association and overrule congress.
(Regarding her "sinful" life prior to her religious conversion): “'She was 180 degrees changed.'"
As Dana Carvey's The Church Lady character would say: "How conveeeeeenient!"
County clerk is very much an elected position.
Then she should resign as a matter of honor if she can no longer do the job she was elected to do.
Where is it guaranteed in the Constitution that people can refuse to fulfill their job requirements as they pick and choose according to their religious beliefs or personal convictions and not face consequences, including discharge from their job? - Robert Cook
Great! Another supporter of forcing California cities to follow federal law!
That has been the position for most of us who object to gay marriage from the beginning.
Right, but gays want something else.
Amusement and civil inattention weren't good enough.
"'Change the name to civil union, notice, and even her objection falls away.'
"That has been the position for most of us who object to gay marriage from the beginning."
If you believe "civil unions" are equivalent to "marriage," then why object to gay marriage?
I do not see that the clerk's action is any different from other elected officials declaring their jurisdiction to be "sanctuaries" from various Federal laws regarding immigration, marijuana and other drugs use, etc.
If you believe "civil unions" are equivalent to "marriage," then why object to gay marriage?
Marriage has a religious component. Why do gays who seem to hate religion want a religious imprimatur?
"Great! Another supporter of forcing California cities to follow federal law!"
Okay...where is it written in California law that one can refuse to perform one's job duties without consequence because of one's religious convictions?
Robert Cook said...
"'Change the name to civil union, notice, and even her objection falls away.'
"That has been the position for most of us who object to gay marriage from the beginning."
If you believe "civil unions" are equivalent to "marriage," then why object to gay marriage?
They are not equivalent, but could have the same exact rights.
Those people presumably were elected to declare the "sanctuaries," since they apparently have the backing of their electorates. (Re-election being most obvious.)
"Marriage has a religious component."
Says who? Marriage has existed in many forms in many cultures in many eras. There is no intrinsic religious component to it.
Okay...where is it written in California law that one can refuse to perform one's job duties without consequence because of one's religious convictions? - Robert Cook
So this is to be a greased pig contest then? You said "personal conviction" and they are in fact not following Californian law, just refusing to follow Federal law. But I knew you would know, the way every good liberal does, that "sanctuary cities" are valid exercises of "state's rights" since they strengthen liberalism, whereas opposition to liberal policies are in fact inherently evil and must be beaten down by any means necessary.
That's on account of how "fair minded" you are.
Hagar,
"I do not see that the clerk's action is any different from other elected officials declaring their jurisdiction to be "sanctuaries" from various Federal laws regarding immigration, marijuana and other drugs use, etc."
So, then you're consistent and support both this clerk's actions AND sanctuary cities? Or do you support this clerk, while criticizing sanctuary cities? The latter seems inconsistent to me. I thought conservatives always say they were the principled ones and the liberals are the hypocrites.
Marriage has existed in many forms in many cultures in many eras.
This is America, not Bora Bora.
Legally, I do not see why a fervent belief in a religion, or the tenets a particular religious sect, is any different from a fervent belief in a political party, or cause.
Or do you support this clerk, while criticizing sanctuary cities? The latter seems inconsistent to me.
What about you? Do you support sanctuary cities while condemning this clerk? I will tell you that they should both follow the law, but I am certainly not going to come down on her while ignoring the issue of sanctuary cities, which is what I am sure you would like. That way you win on both issues.
Let's take it to the SCOTUS and get a ruling on this that will apply to sanctuary cities is what I say. She should take it to court, and conservatives can't lose. Either state's rights will be strengthened, or sanctuary cities will be shut down.
"Why do gays who seem to hate religion want a religious imprimatur?"
What makes you think gays hate religion? Why does their seeking marriage equality under the law mean all gays want a religious imprimatur? (Many people get married at City Hall; under prior law, gays could not even do that.) You're confusing marriage as a civil institution and marriage as a religious institution and assuming they are inextricably bound together.
It is all "nullification," or "interposition," i.e. sedition leading to insurrection and civil disturbances.
Once written, twice... said...
"She is just another crazy right wing hillbilly. Now better known as the GOP's base."
Fandor said...
"Once written, twice...the clerk is a democrat."
And this is the democrat base.
Isn't there an employment law issue here too, though?
She took the job with a certain set of job requirements. At the time, "Marrying Gays" wasn't one of the requirements and she might not have taken the job if it was.
Now, the job requirements have been unilaterally changed. So if she's forced to quit, isn't the government depriving her of her livelihood without due process?
I mean, imagine, instead, that the requirements had said "must be able to lift 20 lbs." and she applied for, received, and accepted the job based on that. Now, suddenly, they say, "Oh, if you can't lift 150 lbs, you're fired!"
That's clearly illegal. Instead, the employer usually needs to hire someone else to do the lifting. So, in this case, shouldn't the answer be to hire a second employee for the new job duty?
"This is America, not Bora Bora."
Irrelevant. To assert that "marriage has a religious component" is to assert that it is so everywhere in all times. If one recognizes that marriage has taken many forms in societies around the world in all eras, often with no religious component, one cannot logically object to gays having the right to marriage by claiming that this violates some innate religious prohibition. Many of us choose to be married in churches or with religious trappings...but many of us do not.
You're confusing marriage as a civil institution and marriage as a religious institution and assuming they are inextricably bound together.
Right, the traditional definition of the word "marriage" is Oldspeak. That goes down Winston Smith's memory hole. If you use that definition, you are flirting with crimethink.
What you want is the cultural respect that the old definition of marriage has earned to carry over to your new definition of the term. Its the same technique you guys use all the time, change the denotation of the term, then insist that it keep its old connotations.
What you are trying to do is rob the language of words for certain things, like traditional marriage in order to eradicate them.
Robert, either you are not smart enough to play this game, or not honest enough for it to be interesting.
It is not criminal though, which is what all this talk about arrest and fines imply.
These officials should submit to the laws of their states, and the states to the Federal government, and there surely are mechanisms for achieving that without threatening criminal penalties.
Of course, it gets a bit cloudy, when the the President of the United States threaten officers of the United States with "consequences" if they try to enforce the laws as written rather than as otherwise directed by him personally.
Or the Attorney General of the United States going on national television and casually discussing his role in suborning perjury before a United States court.
tim in vermont,
"What about you? Do you support sanctuary cities while condemning this clerk? I will tell you that they should both follow the law, but I am certainly not going to come down on her while ignoring the issue of sanctuary cities, which is what I am sure you would like. That way you win on both issues."
I'm against both this clerk's actions and the very concept of sanctuary cities, so it's easy for me to maintain consistency on this issue. But then I deliberately try to maintain consistent political principles in general. I'm not a liberal. Nor, apparently, a conservative.
IF you support the concept sanctuary cities ignoring Federal immigration law, then you should have no problem with this clerk ignoring the law as well.
It's an issue of power more than one of lawlessness. And because she doesn't have power and SCOTUS does, she will surely lose.
Nonetheless, one might at least consider the lawlessness SCOTUS has displayed here, in finding things in the U.S. Constitution which are not there and thus denying The People to settle the matter democratically.
As others have pointed out, gays have always had the same right to marry as anyone else, and certainly those who wrote and voted to ratify the 14th Amendment could not have imagined that it contained a right to same-sex marriage.
The point is not that gay marriage is necessarily a bad idea, just that the federal constitution is silent on the matter (just as surely as it is silent on abortion). And a Supreme Court that usurps powers that rightfully belong to The People is a far greater danger to the republic than this hard-headed clerk of the court.
She needs to "...render unto Caesar...". If she cannot fulfill her elected duty she must resign. Otherwise she's just clinging to a public paycheck. She's no hero.
SGT Ted,
Yes, that would be consistent as well. However, I don't think that's what we're seeing here. I think we're seeing most people are either: (1) supportive of sanctuary cities, but have a problem with this clerk's actions; or (2) opposed to sanctuary cities, but in favor of this clerk's actions. Adherence to these positions requires mental gymnastics in order to justify the inconsistency, but oddly that does not seem to stop either side from thinking they are the "principled" squad.
Note that not everyone here adheres to one or the other- Gahrie, for example, has clearly staked out a consistent position- but just that these are the dominant positions.
"This untrue, they will not be happy unless she is made to issue them a marriage license, or is fired.
"
Exactly. This is what the whole "gay marriage" subject is about. It began as a fad of trying to control gay men's drive for promiscuity which was killing them. Now that AIDS is treatable, it has continued as a fun way to batter the religious into approving and supporting their life style.
What's not to like ? Punish those evil church goers. Canada is threatening ministers with prison if they criticize gay life style.
Canada legalized gay marriage years ago but, until recently, few gays were bothering to get "married." Now it is the thing to do and the rate has picked up along with the publicity.
I've found that it comports with good manners to judge a devoutly religious person in terms of his or her usefulness.
Michael McClain said...
She needs to "...render unto Caesar...".
Micael McClain, I think you are oversimplifying the words of Christ in Matthew:
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
It is critical that the coin bore Caesar's image. The person who owes the taxes bears the image of God. That is why the passage finishes with the bit about giving to God the things that bear his image.
This is easy. The county must issue a license. She doesn't. Take her name off the stamp. Delegate signature authority to someone willing to do it. Instant reasonable accommodation.
It's amazing to see all the goddamned petty fascist libtards screaming for her scalp who are obviously ok with an unconstitutional religious test to hold public office.
Furthermore, religion is a federally protected class when it comes to employment. Both state and federal officials must provide reasonable accommodation. Know what's not a federally protected class? Libtards who refuse to comply with immigration laws.
I didn't like it when Gavin Newsome ordered the City of San Francisco to give out marriage licenses to same sex couples in violation of CA law some years back, and I don't like this woman's actions for the same reason. When you're a public official, you follow the law. Sure, you can challenge it--but if you choose to deliberately disobey it in the meantime you need to accept the consequences.
Never mind the leap of saying "my religion does no recognize same sex marriage so as a state official I cannot issue licenses for other people's same sex marriage"--if she cannot do her job, she can step aside and let someone do it who will obey the law which is a key component of that job.
Look at all those libtards embracing slut-shaming!!
This is the kind of garbage you get when libtards circumvent the deliberative legislative process, whith all it's committee work and deconflicting processes and impose sweeping social changes by judicial fiat.
A county office is not a church, there is nothing religious about issuing a certificate at a government office.
This is not asking to pray or have off a day for religious holiday. This is direct refusal to do the job, which should be grounds for dismissal.
I also feel uneasy about this in another way. Perhaps the Profssor can enlighten me.
The office of county clerk is a bedrock institution of American democracy (small "d").
I do not think the Federal government should work directly on a county clerk. It seems more appropriate that the Federal Government should take the State of Kentucky to court for failing to to take action to make the county clerk comply with "the law of the land" or resign?
This isn't about pointing out hypocrisy or incoherence or about making any kind of logical argument.
She has defied the OneTrueFaith and must be mocked, shunned, and hated -- for her allotted two minutes. Then we'll move on to hating someone else.
(Yes, she's wrong. But she doesn't deserve the hatefest.)
The fourth hero for the conservative Mt. Rushmore...Zimmermann, Robertson, Cliven Bundy, and Davis.
And you cannot just "fire" a county clerk. They must be impeached and removed.
The DoJ could go into State court and seek impeachment or order the Governor to remove her? Can a governor do that?
If a governor cannot remove a county clerk except by sending some kind of military force to do it, can he/she set up a State office to issue marriage licenses in that county?
This looks like the kind of thing that people of good will could work around, but, on the other hand, this also looks like the kind of issue that people who want to strike a pose can make so hideously complicated that the heads of all sane humans hurt.
We're going to need a lot more of this.
It's sorta interesting in that, the minute we are the right stand up for principles and engage in push back behavior, it's a national tragedy.
But if you're on the left and you break the law as a government employee, you're given all sorts of positive attention on magazines and newspapers.
Where is the outrage at all the states and cities currently breaking our Federal marijuana laws? Where is the outrage over elected government officials ignoring the immigration laws?
It's time we on the right started employing the tactics of those on the left. This is how they've moved overtons window. This is how we'll move it back.
Major cities nullify immigration law and allow non-citizens to vote, a few of which have gone on to murder people, and our Two Minute Hate is directed against a county clerk who doesn't want to issue marriage licenses.
The only winning move is not to play.
Welcome to the world where rule of law has broken down. The President is ignoring Congress and effectively making his own laws and treaties by fiat, government bureaucracies are currently the most powerful branch of government, the Supreme Court continues to just make stuff up to satisfy their own policy preferences, local governments ignore the law as they see fit this being one of many examples. Of everything that is going on, this is tiny. The Constitution is on the verge of irrelevance, if it is not there already. The concept that anyone has rights is now a questionable position as those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and if the Constitution means nothing then there are no rights. We're just pretending because no one is willing to start shooting as of yet.
We deserve Donald Trump. For that matter, at the moment he is objectively an improvement!
Reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs would be pretty easy as others have mentioned. But it would negate the "dignity" clause that Kennedy invented. Obviously he intentionally formulated his opinion in a way to prevent anyone who participates in the institution of marriage from being able to abstain from participation in SSM. If the role of govt is to confer dignity, then allowing a clerk (or photographer, baker, etc...possibly clergy soon) to refuse participation would violate equal protection.
Of course the ridiculous thing is that the state can't arbitrate dignity. Millions of citizens will still disapprove and.or consider SSM different than heterosexual marriage, but those people will be forced to keep their opinions to themselves. And instead of growing more acceptant, they will resent that tolerance isn't reciprocal.
"The fourth hero for the conservative Mt. Rushmore...Zimmermann, Robertson, Cliven Bundy, and Davis."
Is she a conservative? Or just religious? Or are they one and the same? She's a registered Democrat, which might not mean anything, either.
As to the clerk's divorce history, from a Christian perspective when you give your life to Christ your old life is washed away and your sins forgiven. If these multiple marriages happened before then and she has since repented, that's the end of it from the Christian perspective. Bringing this up is like trying to condemn someone for the actions of someone else.
Now from a criminal and civil perspective, all past actions never go away. You cannot murder someone and then claim not guilty by nature of religious conversion.
As to the hypocrisy claim, there is no foundation for it. She literally has changed her principles and no doubt rejects her own actions from before. It is not hypocrisy if you actually and sincerely change your mind. For that matter, it wouldn't be hypocrisy if she had been a lesbian before converting.
CVan't ya just, ya know, go to the next window?
The State-established cult is based on a pro-choice or selective doctrine. The clerk is following the precedent set by the progressive liberal judges and "equal" campaign to promote or normalize institutional exclusion or congruence. She just happened to choice a different modulus and the bigots are waiving the rainbow flag in her face.
"Blogger bbkingfish said...
The fourth hero for the conservative Mt. Rushmore...Zimmermann, Robertson, Cliven Bundy, and Davis."
Oh, I think you deserve a spot up there. Lefty heroes. That's a pretty small group so they could find a place for you, I'm sure.
The clerk ought to do her job (treating citizens equally under the current law) and if she won't (and won't resign) she should face fines and jail time. The Media agrees and there're vocal protests to that end, all getting good coverage.
Lois Lerner (and her group) ought to have done their jobs (treating citizens equally under the current law) but they very clearly didn't. The Media seems to disagree, or at any rate has taken almost no interest in those IRS violations, and people protesting unequal/unfair treatment don't receive much coverage.
If the principle really is "bureaucrats have to treat everyone fairly under the law and if they don't they should be shamed in the Media and punished" then the Media has a lot of catch up stories to do on the IRS, EPA...the list goes on. If the principle instead is something like "people we like (homosexuals) ought to be treated fairly under the law and when someone from a group we don't like (vocally Christian/religious) doesn't comply with that we'll bring out the big guns" then the Media coverage makes more sense.
There are a hell of a lot of local officials (usually Sheriffs) who refuse to issue concealed carry permits to citizens legally permitted to have them. Some jurisdictions require a local official to sign off or approve issuance, and if for any reason that official decides not to, too bad. Most of those jurisdictions have very limited (or nonexistent) appeals processes.
This fact is what's behind the push for "shall-issue" state laws, which have proliferated in recent times.
Deirdre Mundy said...
Isn't there an employment law issue here too, though?
She took the job with a certain set of job requirements. At the time, "Marrying Gays" wasn't one of the requirements and she might not have taken the job if it was.
Now, the job requirements have been unilaterally changed. So if she's forced to quit, isn't the government depriving her of her livelihood without due process?
I mean, imagine, instead, that the requirements had said "must be able to lift 20 lbs." and she applied for, received, and accepted the job based on that. Now, suddenly, they say, "Oh, if you can't lift 150 lbs, you're fired!"
That's clearly illegal. Instead, the employer usually needs to hire someone else to do the lifting. So, in this case, shouldn't the answer be to hire a second employee for the new job duty?
9/2/15, 8:39 AM
You raise an interesting point BUT I think your example is not quite the right one. Think of it instead as:
A Sheriff is elected and after he assumes office, the state passes a new law. He indicates that he does not agree with the law, that it is against his religious views to enforce that law.
a) It is not practical to hire another Sheriff just to enforce the law the current Sheriff does not like,
b) He was elected to "enforce the law" not enforce only the laws in effect at the time he was elected.
c) He represents the local government but is NOT the government.
I would think that in both cases, if the office holder has strong religious beliefs about performing their duties, they should resign. I would think that it would be quite reasonable in my example and in this actual case, that the citizens should sue the government for redress and have the government compel the office holder to perform their duties or remove them from office.
I think this is VERY different from a private business being forced to deliver services to patrons they wish to not serve.
@Todd:I would think that in both cases, if the office holder has strong religious beliefs about performing their duties, they should resign. I would think that it would be quite reasonable in my example and in this actual case, that the citizens should sue the government for redress and have the government compel the office holder to perform their duties or remove them from office.
Yes. Let's start with Federal officials, and San Francisco and other cities, not enforcing immigration laws. When we've worked our way through those we can worry about county clerks not issuing marriage licenses.
bbkingfish: "The fourth hero for the conservative Mt. Rushmore...Zimmermann, Robertson, Cliven Bundy, and Davis"
Why should Angela Davis be on this Mt?
BTW, have you figured out how to tally up shifts in polls yet? I'm betting not.
"...the traditional definition of the word 'marriage'...."
What is the "traditional definition" of marriage? According to whom? What makes any particular definition of marriage (of the many it has had) the definition of marriage? Why cannot a commonly held "traditional definition" be changed?
Gabriel said...
@Todd:I would think that in both cases, if the office holder has strong religious beliefs about performing their duties, they should resign. I would think that it would be quite reasonable in my example and in this actual case, that the citizens should sue the government for redress and have the government compel the office holder to perform their duties or remove them from office.
Yes. Let's start with Federal officials, and San Francisco and other cities, not enforcing immigration laws. When we've worked our way through those we can worry about county clerks not issuing marriage licenses.
9/2/15, 11:40 AM
I completely agree! Sanctuary cities are a stain.
I was VERY pleased when FL passed some new gun laws a few years back. One of them specifically stated that no municipality in FL can pass or enforce a gun law that was more restrictive than state law. It included fines and other penalties to the specific persons in local jurisdictions that attempted to do so.
It is hard to do that for sanctuary cities when those in the Federal government have made it clear that it is not something they will fight.
Let's start with Federal officials, and San Francisco and other cities, not enforcing immigration laws
Those people could be fired, couldn't they? They're not elected like a county clerk.
@MadisonMan:Those people could be fired, couldn't they? They're not elected like a county clerk.
Their bosses are elected, and they are acting with their bosses' approval, so it's the same problem.
Just as a counter factual, what if she was not a county clerk but a career bureaucrat at the Dept of the Interior and she refused to implement the name change from McKinley to Denali? What could they do to her? Obama has no lawful authority to make the change after all. My bet it that she would be getting the same treatment, though could probably win a lawsuit if fired.
I think she should be removed from office if she doesn't resign.
OTOH, you could point to Hillary's Emails and Obama's thumbing his nose at the War Powers Act in the case of Libya, not to mention all of the elected officials in the city of San Francisco (as others pointed out upthread), and ask why she should obey the law when they don't.
And I do not have an answer to that question.
I'm curious why this isn't "slut shaming".
Apparently, a woman's past sexual behavior is relevant in a discussion of RFRA, but not in a discussion of whether a rape actually happened.
Sanctuary City
That's TOTALLY different because...FYTW.
We on the Right cannot condemn sanctuary cities while supporting this clerk. Of course it is also hypocrisy for the Left to support sanctuary cities while attacking this clerk. But then we are back to the Left having no standards.......
I'm not. Like it or not, a government job isn't a personal fiefdom. If a clerk cannot do what the law requires, then she cannot do the job. Period.
Okay...where is it written in California law that one can refuse to perform one's job duties without consequence because of one's religious convictions?
Kentucky state law doesn't say a thing about gay marriage being legal. That is done via the SCOTUS --- who has also not named federal immigration laws illegal (in fact ruling that states cannot change what the law requires).
So, again, the difference?
This is not asking to pray or have off a day for religious holiday. This is direct refusal to do the job, which should be grounds for dismissal.
Elected, so dismissal isn't an option.
And I don't disagree that she should be fired.
What should we do about city governments that ignore immigration law?
Big Mike said...
I think she should be removed from office if she doesn't resign.
OTOH, you could point to Hillary's Emails and Obama's thumbing his nose at the War Powers Act in the case of Libya, not to mention all of the elected officials in the city of San Francisco (as others pointed out upthread), and ask why she should obey the law when they don't.
And I do not have an answer to that question.
9/2/15, 12:28 PM
Me neither and that (in total) is a sad state of affairs. Those that SPECIFICALLY swore an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the country treat that oath with no more respect than Planned Parenthood gives to the unborn.
Robert Cook
"Why cannot a commonly held "traditional definition" be changed?"
The definition of marriage can and has been changed. The definition of traditional marriage cannot without changing the meaning of the word traditional. Perhaps in a hundred years the word "traditional" will have a different meaning than it does today,
Deirdre Mundy said...Now, the job requirements have been unilaterally changed. So if she's forced to quit, isn't the government depriving her of her livelihood without due process?
I'm not a lawyer but I'd think you'd need to have a property right (in your job/having your job) for this to be a violation of due process. If you don't have a right to your job then it's subject to the rules (and rule changes) that some higher authority makes. There appear to be some exceptions to this general rule in cases where the person harmed is part of a specifically protected class...but this clerk isn't, so no dice there.
damikesc,
"What should we do about city governments that ignore immigration law?"
I believe I saw Duncan Hunter, Jr. has authored (or is sponsoring?) a bill to pull federal funding from sanctuary cities, and that's a good start. (I mean, we're gonna fund you to do something, you're not gonna do that something, and yet we're still give you the funds... even if you support sanctuary cities that makes no sense at all).
Obviously, because of federalism's shared sovereignty- wherein I understand the federal government can't just order the State government to use their resources to implement federal policy the way a State government can order county or municipal governments (I believe this is called Dillon's Rule)- Congress is circumscribed in a manner that answers Todd's 11:54AM comment. But Congress can and should use the power of the purse- if it's been enough to compel the State's to raise the drinking age to 21, I'm sure it would be enough to shut down sanctuary cities.
Michael,
Agreed that the definition of "traditional" changes with time- in fact, polygamy is almost certainly more "traditional" than monogamy with respect to human civilization, but contemporary American traditionalists would probably not consider it "traditional" at all. Humans have a tendency of thinking the way things are in their lifetime is the way things must have always been.
Hoodlum-- actually, most states do recognize a 'right to a livelihood", so it's much harder to fire government employees than private ones.
Also, if she's over 45 she IS a protected class. it's almost impossible to fire a woman over 45~!
Though she is an elected official. So if the people of her county have an issue they could impeach or recall.
Yet, she doesn't seem to fear that this hurts her chances of re-election, which suggests that she's actually doing her job and representing her electorate?
Could it be that the court decision is somewhat divisive, particularly along geographical lines?
This psycho cow got pregnant with her third husband's twins while married to her first husband, and she's claiming moral superiority over others. Fire or throw her ass on jail.
Blogger garage mahal said...
This psycho cow got pregnant with her third husband's twins while married to her first husband, and she's claiming moral superiority over others. Fire or throw her ass on jail.
Yeah, this weird thing happened. In the 1990's she was married and divorced twice. In 2008 she got divorced a third time. In 2010 she converted to Christianity.
Did you notice the timeline there?
In other words, there is still hope for you, too, garage.
She can no more be fired for her illegal actions than Obama can be fired for his illegal actions. She's an elected Democratic Party official, just like him. Unless you've got the votes to impeach her, nothing's happening.
Blogger Steven said...
She can no more be fired for her illegal actions than Obama can be fired for his illegal actions. She's an elected Democratic Party official, just like him. Unless you've got the votes to impeach her, nothing's happening.
Which is why I say we need more of this. Can't have only half the people playing by the rules. If the democrats are going to play this game, then the Republicans need to as well. Then when the Democrats throw a fit and scream and stamp their feet and say, "You can't do that!" then we Republicans can come back and say, "Oh, now you agree with us?"
This psycho cow got pregnant with her third husband's twins while married to her first husband, and she's claiming moral superiority over others. Fire or throw her ass on jail.
"That harlot wore a short skirt. Surely she was ASKING for a raping, amirite gents?"
It's amazing. Every time I think, "no, Garage has proven himself to be a clueless, uneducated and arrogant imbecile in every possible way. There is no possible way he could do so in a new and original way anymore," he somehow manages to pull it off.
It's like he has a genius for it.
If she's issuing KY state marriage licenses, then she is bound and sworn to uphold Kentucky law. Forget statutes for a second...What does the Kentucky State Constitution say?
HINT: It expressly forbids same-sex marriage. THAT is the law she has to uphold. It's up to the KY legislature to change it.
The Federal Courts might have a problem with the KY State Constitution. But until that changes, or the Feds address that, they should leave this woman alone.
I thought you were good Paul...but you're no good. You're just another lying dirty birdy.
garage mahal: This psycho cow got pregnant with her third husband's twins while married to her first husband, and she's claiming moral superiority over others.
I suspect she claims moral superiority over her old self. It comes with the religious conversion package, regardless of religion or lack thereof.
I cannot believe all this slut shaming of an elected Democrat woman.
Normally I'd say she should just follow the law, but what difference, at this point, would it make? The Federal government has gone lawless - from the President and the State Department to the IRS and the EPA. They all seem to think that the Freedom of Information Act is a game to be played, not a law to be obeyed.
" It comes with the religious conversion package, regardless of religion or lack thereof."
Garage would have no idea. "Conversion package" is something for his vibrator, most likely.
It was only yesterday that garage was railing on and on about how improper sanctuary city officials were behaving and calling them names and saying they should all be fired.
Because if there is one thing garage is known for, it's being a stickler for the rule of law by elected and appointed government officials.
If there is another thing garage is known for, it's middle school football exploits!
If there is another thing garage is knows for, it's.............well, we all know there isn't much else there.
Does that make her more contemptible or ridiculous than Obama, Clinton or any other politician that suddenly "evolves" on an issue when they see a political advantage?
In any case, Christians tend to believe that they are forgiven for their sins and to try to go forward without committing new sins, so is this evidence of the "selective application of the Bible to her life"?
It does make Davis a more ridiculous or contemptible person, for those who are inclined to think of her that way.
She can be impeached or an appropriate party, probably the County Attorney, can obtain a writ of mandamus ordering her to do her duty. If the latter, she will be forced to comply, resign or face a contempt of court consequence.
County clerks in Kentucky are an elected post and as such are state actors. The take the 228 oath demanded by the US Constitution and a separate oath mandated by KY law that (among other things) requires them to "not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance in office, will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."
Since Clerk Davis is a state actor, the very people that the First Amendment protects us from, she is, in essence, denying several of her constituents their First Amendment rights by imposing her religious beliefs on them This is clearly a violation of both of her oaths of office and probably a civil rights violation to boot.
Judge Anthony Scalia wrote an essay in 2002 in which he said that if a judge felt that the death penalty was immoral, he should resign from the bench. It was his opinion that a judge has taken an oath to uphold the law and that he has "been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own." The same rule applies here, if she cannot fulfill the duties she took two sacred oaths to do, she should resign. If she wants to rewrite the rules, then she should find a legal way to do it.
She's an elected Democrat who has chosen not to obey the law. Since when did we start getting upset about that?!
A little late.
She's an elected Democrat who has chosen not to obey the law.
Is she? Has Kentucky changed its laws?
I just read that she's been sentenced to jail. Why not simply removed from office?
"Christians tend to believe that they are forgiven for their sins"
If they recognize them as sins and repent. Which she apparently has. But if you don't think what you're doing is sinful or recognize that but are not repentant? No deal.
Freeman, the issue is that as an elected official under Kentucky law she cannot be removed by either the Executive or Judicial branch. She has to be impeached. The Kentucky legislature is in recess and will not meet again until 2016. The Governor doesn't want to call a special session just to impeach her - and guess what? He might not have the votes to do so, which means she gets to finish out her term, even if she stays in jail.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा