Fire her?

[Tom]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/01/will-clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-court-ruling/?intcmp=hpbt1

But Davis has refused to issue the licenses, saying her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages.

She needs to understand who she works for.
It is not God. She has no right to use her position for personal reasons.
If part of her job is offensive to her, she needs to find another job.

She should be fired immediately.

[Clocker]

She should be fired immediately.

Fire a civil service employee? :D

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) -- A county clerk in Kentucky who invoked "God's authority" Tuesday for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage has been summoned by a federal judge to explain why she should not be fined or jailed for contempt.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48

[Clocker]

Oops, she can't be fired. She is an elected official, a Democrat. She can be impeached by the legislature, but it is not in session.

As an elected official, Davis can't be fired; her impeachment would have to wait until the Legislature's regular session next year or a costly special session.

[TJDave]

Fire a civil service employee? :D

She is an elected official.

[TJDave]

I'm not convinced she could be jailed, either.

[Tom]

Oops, she can't be fired. She is an elected official, a Democrat. She can be impeached by the legislature, but it is not in session.

Geeze, Clocker, I was phishing for a lib to pile on!
You never let me have any fun! :lol:

[Clocker]

Geeze, Clocker, I was phishing for a lib to pile on!
You never let me have any fun! :lol:

They will. They don't understand the difference between the public and private sectors. As as elected official, you swear to uphold the law. As a baker, you can opt not to take part in ceremonies counter to your belief.

[GameTheory]

I don't get why such people can't separate civil marriage from religious marriage. Many atheists get married by a judge or whoever in a secular ceremony -- lots of religious folks wouldn't even consider them married at all. This person is giving out a certificate to engage in a legal secular contract and she acts like she is part of the chain of command from God himself. Merely because the term "marriage" is used. She needs to be removed ASAP...

[DRIVEWAY]

She could be a quest on the Ellen DeGeneres show. The two of them could snuggle up real close on the couch and discuss her reluctance to marry homosexuals.

I'm sure Ellen will respect her opinion. :lol:

[Robert Goren]

In Nebraska, the county board can remove an elected county official for cause. My home county, Thayer, has done it at least three times in my lifetime. A county assessor, a county attorney, and the county sheriff were all removed by the board. A petition drive forced a vote for the assessor, but she did not get enough votes to save her job. The county attorney and the sheriff were in over there heads and it was clear something had to be done. The Assessor, who had held the job for at least 3 terms, was over heard saying that farmers were whiners. A bunch of farmers went to the board and complained. In rural Nebraska, you have to be very careful what you say about farmers. They have been known to boycott businesses and put them out of business. The county board did not want to cross that bunch of farmers.

[Robert Goren]

I suspect that she can be held in contempt of court. A few days in jail and some large fines and she will resign rather than risk more jail and more fines.

[NJ Stinks]

Maybe she would understand better if they threatened to burn her at the stake.

[Actor]

If she's an elected official then she was most likely elected by voters who share her views.

Those who could impeach her are likewise most likely elected by voters who share here views, and at least some of them most likely share her views.

That makes impeachment seem unlikely.

[Dave Schwartz]

Oops, she can't be fired. She is an elected official, a Democrat. She can be impeached by the legislatur

She can, however, be sued for malfeasance in office (or similar) in a civil suit.

IMHO, she should simply resign because she cannot, with a clear conscience, fulfill the duties of her office.

Kind of like being a conscientious objector. You get to follow your conscience but you don't get to keep your job.

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN2LwRyUAAExxZh.jpg

[LottaKash]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN2LwRyUAAExxZh.jpg

Perhaps, there may be more to this story....Maybe ?...

[thaskalos]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN2LwRyUAAExxZh.jpg

Typical Christian hypocrisy. Make a big deal about the "sanctity of marriage"...while you keep your divorce attorney on speed dial.

[Rookies]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN2LwRyUAAExxZh.jpg

I always love a profound hypocrite.

They appear profoundly foolish, when the "rest of the story" comes out. :lol:

[Clocker]

I always love a profound hypocrite.

They appear profoundly foolish, when the "rest of the story" comes out. :lol:

There is nothing about what that county clerk in Kentucky is doing that qualifies as profound. She is a mediocre functionary with a minimal grasp of religion, law and politics. She is a low level, clueless drone.

If you want profound hypocrisy, I'd suggest looking at Ms. Hillary "Rules Don't Apply to Me" Clinton. Her rationalizations of exempting herself from rules, regulations, and law are cosmically staggering.

What is the common link between Hillary and the county clerk? Both are Democrats.

[Tom]

I always love a profound hypocrite.

They appear profoundly foolish, when the "rest of the story" comes out. :lol:

That was 4 men.
The rest of the story is that she is a left-leaner.
A lefty who is religious - must make some of you want to throw up! :lol:

[Greyfox]

This woman should not be fired.
She took the job on the understanding that she would never have to issue licences to gay couples.
The law changed and it was against her moral principles.
Anyone hired before the law changed should be "grandfathered" privileges.
In her instance, grandmothered.

I've seen the same situation before.
A hospital decided it would specialize in Women's Health including abortions.
It had never done abortions before.
Nurses who were opposed to abortions were fired if they didn't help with the procedure.
The firings included several nurses who had been employed happily over 25 years at the hospital.
Firing them was wrong. Firing this woman is wrong.

[Clocker]

She took the job on the understanding that she would never have to issue licences to gay couples.

She was elected, not hired, and the job of an elected official is to uphold the law. If she finds the law to be contrary to her moral beliefs, she should resign in protest. She is breaking the law.

[Greyfox]

She was elected, not hired, and the job of an elected official is to uphold the law. If she finds the law to be contrary to her moral beliefs, she should resign in protest. She is breaking the law.

I stand corrected.
If she had been hired, that was one thing.
Elected is different. She should resign, but assuming that she doesn't, the public will still get a chance of voting her out down the road anyways.

[classhandicapper]

I don't get why such people can't separate civil marriage from religious marriage. Many atheists get married by a judge or whoever in a secular ceremony -- lots of religious folks wouldn't even consider them married at all. This person is giving out a certificate to engage in a legal secular contract and she acts like she is part of the chain of command from God himself. Merely because the term "marriage" is used. She needs to be removed ASAP...

I was starting to think I was the only person that saw the distinction between getting married by a priest, rabbi, minister, cleric etc... and by a judge. They are two completely different things. One is a legal contract and the other is a religious sacrament that also happens to be a legal contract.

I guess since I think the government and its institutions should be mocked, held in contempt, considered the enemy of the average person etc...it's easier for me disregard anything they say or do other than to contemplate how they are going to further screw things up.

[Clocker]

I stand corrected.
If she had been hired, that was one thing.
Elected is different. She should resign, but assuming that she doesn't, the public will still get a chance of voting her out down the road anyways.

I think the real difference is anyone working for the government, elected or hired, has to go by the law. A hospital changing its policy on its own is an entirely different situation and consideration for past practices can and should be given.

I doubt it will go on that long. All of her appeals have been turned down by the courts, and a federal judge is looking into charging her with contempt of court if she doesn't comply.

[classhandicapper]

I don't see this as a very tough one. She has to go either voluntarily or otherwise.

I'm a little surprised by one thing.

If she's a democrat I'm surprised she was targeted. The left usually doesn't eat its own. They look the other way and target the right. Showing this kind of principle is encouraging. I guess their hate of religion trumps party.

[Clocker]

I'm a little surprised by one thing.

If she's a democrat I'm surprised she was targeted. The left usually doesn't eat its own. They look the other way and target the right. Showing this kind of principle is encouraging. I guess their hate of religion trumps party.

She wasn't toeing the party line so she got tossed overboard. You aren't a real Democratic if you oppose gay marriage.

[classhandicapper]

She wasn't toeing the party line so she got tossed overboard. You aren't a real Democratic if you oppose gay marriage.

They looked the other way when Clinton was having all his affairs and embarrassing Hillary. There have been other examples of that kind of inconsistent behavior, but I guess the gay agenda overrides all else,

[baconswitchfarm]

Can someone explain to me this. I couldn't care about this issue. This woman is in jail for not following federal law as a local official. Shouldnt every person who allows weed stores in states and sanctuary cities be held in the same scenario. They all as state and local officials allow federal law to be broken and violated every day in the exact same manner. Where is the outrage and why is this woman the only target ?

[_______]

Can someone explain to me this. I couldn't care about this issue. This woman is in jail for not following federal law as a local official. Shouldnt every person who allows weed stores in states and sanctuary cities be held in the same scenario. They all as state and local officials allow federal law to be broken and violated every day in the exact same manner. Where is the outrage and why is this woman the only target ?

She's in jail for contempt of court. She was ordered to issue marriage licenses and refused to comply.

The parallel is not local officials who fail to enforce other federal rules. It would be local officials who have defied a court order.

Reporters have gone to jail for extended periods for refusing to identify a source. That would be a parallel. There is a great tradition in this country of people people serving time for defying laws they deem unjust.

Somehow, I doubt her principles are that strong. How long she serves will certainly tell you a lot about how much of this has to do with following God's will and how much with just not liking gays.

I say she figures out a way that God wants her out of jail sooner rather than later.

[classhandicapper]

Just for the record, this woman did not become a devout Christian until 2011. So whatever she did or believed prior to that gets an asterisk.

"Though Davis was tearful as she testified how she came to Christ in 2011 following the death of her mother-in-law, she appeared straight faced as marshals led her out of the courtroom. When previously asked her beliefs, she has said she is an Apostolic Christian."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COBImmYUwAMAWZp.png

[TJDave]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COBImmYUwAMAWZp.png

She would make a very attractive lesbian. Maybe Dr. Carson is on to something. ;)

[Robert Goren]

I was starting to think I was the only person that saw the distinction between getting married by a priest, rabbi, minister, cleric etc... and by a judge. They are two completely different things. One is a legal contract and the other is a religious sacrament that also happens to be a legal contract. You are absolute corrected. There is a difference. It is also true that there is gay marriage ceremonies being preformed members of the clergy every day. Quite a few, in fact, are preformed clergy. There are plenty of Christian(including several mainline Protestant Churches) and non Christian sects that have no problem with gay marriage. Something that is often left out of the conversation on gay marriage.

[LottaKash]

You are absolute corrected. There is a difference. It is also true that there is gay marriage ceremonies being preformed members of the clergy every day. Quite a few, in fact, are preformed clergy. There are plenty of Christian(including several mainline Protestant Churches) and non Christian sects that have no problem with gay marriage. Something that is often left out of the conversation on gay marriage.

Yes that is true, but those people and churches, preach another Jesus and another Gospel....Simple...but as Christians churches go, that doesn't change anything...In the eyes of Man maybe, but not in God's ...

[classhandicapper]

You are absolute corrected. There is a difference. It is also true that there is gay marriage ceremonies being preformed members of the clergy every day. Quite a few, in fact, are preformed clergy. There are plenty of Christian(including several mainline Protestant Churches) and non Christian sects that have no problem with gay marriage. Something that is often left out of the conversation on gay marriage.

The point is that people that believe the natural order of things is for men and women to be married or that their God would not condone a marriage between gays are all fighting about a stupid word.

If you are Catholic or Muslim for example, you are free to reject the religious sacraments of some devil worshipping voodoo religion.

So why should you care what some breakaway Christian religion is doing?

If you are religious (or not) why should you care what our government or Supreme court thinks unless it impacts you?

What they are condoning is the not the same thing as the sacrament of marriage in one of the mainstream churches anyway. They are condoning a legal contract that never was and never will be the equivalent of "your" church wedding (whatever that church might be). In fact, what the government is condoning and performing is actually better described as a civil union even though the definitions of all these things are all screwed up.

This woman should be signing off on these marriages because as far as she should be concerned, they aren't marriages to begin with.

Personally, the only thing I care about when it comes to the government is figuring out how I should protect the fruits of my labor and keep myself safe from all the corruption and incompetence within it. Until they present me with a competent and honest leader that is doing what I see as the correct long term things, I will continue laughing at it, mocking it, holding it disdain, and figuring how to protect myself from it. What those assholes think or condone is irrelevant.

[GameTheory]

The fact that she is a "new" Christian explains a lot (possibly) -- newly converted can be the most zealous and stubborn. They feel pride in accomplishment in exercising their conscience (much like a newly politically active teenager) that they never experienced before probably. An untapped power they didn't know they had, even if they are completely off-base in terms of their "cause".

So as of today the 5 of the 6 deputies are issuing licenses (the other one is the son of Kim Davis I believe) and getting married, but there is some question if whether those are valid without official clerk's Davis sanction. More to come...

[Hoofless_Wonder]

She would make a very attractive lesbian. Maybe Dr. Carson is on to something. ;)

With her looks, the real mystery is the four marriages. Must be lean pickings in that part of KY.

When the smoke and dust clears, she'll regret picking this fight. She makes $80K per year, and that's good dough for that part of the world. Chances are she won't get re-elected, and her value on the talk show circuit will be diminished by the time she's out of jail (next week?) - and she's on the wrong side of the issue to make the really big bucks anyway.

If I was a reporter, I'd make a note to look her up five years from now when she's living in a broken down trailer on welfare, with it likely that she'll have lost her faith by then. The story will write itself. Working title of "Clear Conscience and Cloudy Faith - How Jesus Ruined My Life".

[classhandicapper]

The fact that she is a "new" Christian explains a lot (possibly) -- newly converted can be the most zealous and stubborn. They feel pride in accomplishment in exercising their conscience (much like a newly politically active teenager) that they never experienced before probably. An untapped power they didn't know they had, even if they are completely off-base in terms of their "cause".

So as of today the 5 of the 6 deputies are issuing licenses (the other one is the son of Kim Davis I believe) and getting married, but there is some question if whether those are valid without official clerk's Davis sanction. More to come...

I think she actually agreed to issue them if they would simply take her name off the paperwork. IMO that's a reasonable request if the other side is open to a solution and is not just to looking destroy someone that disagrees with them on this issue. It would be kind if like saying I'll allow the cake for your wedding to be baked in my store, but I won't do it.

[rastajenk]

Too late for that, I think. She Must Be Destroyed.

[classhandicapper]

Too late for that, I think. She Must Be Destroyed.

:lol:

Well, if you are a public figure or in government you are generally targeted for destruction by the radical left the moment you say you believe in God.

Tim Tebow would be a much less controversial figure in the NFL if he was a convicted felon, had a 666 tattoo on his forehead, and wore a dress. ;)

[GameTheory]

I think she actually agreed to issue them if they would simply take her name off the paperwork. IMO that's a reasonable request if the other side is open to a solution and is not just to looking destroy someone that disagrees with them on this issue. It would be kind if like saying I'll allow the cake for your wedding to be baked in my store, but I won't do it.No one really seems to be trying to destroy her. No one wanted her in jail, even the judge, even the people trying to get their license. But she wouldn't agree to anything, and the judge felt a fine would just be paid by supporters and the order would still be defied. She'd be forgotten about immediately if she would just issue the licenses or resign.

[Tom]

This has nothing to do with marriage of any kind.
It about a pathetic little nothing of a person thinking her way of thinking is good for everyone. She is not fit to hold that office.

She is also a cookie cutter democrat.
If she had refused to issue hunting licenses, she would be a democratic hero.

[classhandicapper]

No one really seems to be trying to destroy her. No one wanted her in jail, even the judge, even the people trying to get their license. But she wouldn't agree to anything, and the judge felt a fine would just be paid by supporters and the order would still be defied. She'd be forgotten about immediately if she would just issue the licenses or resign.

That is the left wing media spin. It's just like when they spun her divorces into hypocrisy to make her look as bad as possible when she only became religious a few years ago.

She agreed to allow the office to issue the licenses if they would take her name off the documentation. That way they could get the licenses and be married, but without her tacit approval. That reasonable (imo) compromise was rejected.

A judge right in the area agreed to marry all the couples until it could all be sorted out. He was rejected.

I'm more sympathetic to the gay couples in this case. I see a significant distinction between a job in the public sector where's it's your duty to uphold the law and private cases where I could give you a lot of examples where I if refused to cater a party based on personal values no one would blink an eye.

Despite that, I also have sympathy for this woman.

This is about one thing and one thing only. The militant left is targeting anyone that believes in scripture. If you are famous and say anything against gay marriage your career and business is done. If you are in a small business and refuse to become part of the ceremony by catering it (given that no one is actually refusing to simply serve gays) you will be destroyed. All of this is done without much regard for the consequences to the religious person and their family or any consideration for compromise that would accomplish the goal. It is financial and social terrorism against Christianity on more levels than just this gay issue. The ironic thing is that the militant left is where most of the hate is coming from.

The idea here is for gay people to be married in a civil ceremony because the law says they are entitled to. It really shouldn't be that difficult to both satisfy them and not put religious people in jail or destroy their lives.

[classhandicapper]

If she had refused to issue hunting licenses, she would be a democratic hero.

I agree with this 1000%.

[_______]

That is the left wing media spin. It's just like when they spun her divorces into hypocrisy to make her look as bad as possible when she only became religious a few years ago.

She agreed to allow the office to issue the licenses if they would take her name off the documentation. That way they could get the licenses and be married, but without her tacit approval. That reasonable (imo) compromise was rejected.

A judge right in the area agreed to marry all the couples until it could all be sorted out. He was rejected.

I'm more sympathetic to the gay couples in this case. I see a significant distinction between a job in the public sector where's it's your duty to uphold the law and private cases where I could give you a lot of examples where I if refused to cater a party based on personal values no one would blink an eye.

Despite that, I also have sympathy for this woman.

This is about one thing and one thing only. The militant left is targeting anyone that believes in scripture. If you are famous and say anything against gay marriage your career and business is done. If you are in a small business and refuse to become part of the ceremony by catering it (given that no one is actually refusing to simply serve gays) you will be destroyed. All of this is done without much regard for the consequences to the religious person and their family or any consideration for compromise that would accomplish the goal. It is financial and social terrorism against Christianity on more levels than just this gay issue. The ironic thing is that the militant left is where most of the hate is coming from.

The idea here is for gay people to be married in a civil ceremony because the law says they are entitled to. It really shouldn't be that difficult to both satisfy them and not put religious people in jail or destroy their lives.

It isn't difficult. The vast majority of religious people don't ask for special carve outs in laws that apply to everyone. When ones religious belief conflict with a public duty that is a problem but one easily solved by stepping away from the duty causing the conflict. She isn't being persecuted for religious belief. She is being punished for disobeying a court order to carry out the duties required of her office.

I know some believe she should be able to both keep her job and refuse marriage licenses to those she deems unsuited to marry but the Supreme Court settled that debate.

[ReplayRandall]

It isn't difficult. The vast majority of religious people don't ask for special carve outs in laws that apply to everyone. When ones religious belief conflict with a public duty that is a problem but one easily solved by stepping away from the duty causing the conflict. She isn't being persecuted for religious belief. She is being punished for disobeying a court order to carry out the duties required of her office.

I know some believe she should be able to both keep her job and refuse marriage licenses to those she deems unsuited to marry but the Supreme Court settled that debate.

Though I may not agree with your post, I do appreciate the respectful manner in which you presented your opinion. More posters should emulate your example of decorum when dealing with sensitive matters such as this...

[classhandicapper]

It isn't difficult. The vast majority of religious people don't ask for special carve outs in laws that apply to everyone. When ones religious belief conflict with a public duty that is a problem but one easily solved by stepping away from the duty causing the conflict. She isn't being persecuted for religious belief. She is being punished for disobeying a court order to carry out the duties required of her office.

I know some believe she should be able to both keep her job and refuse marriage licenses to those she deems unsuited to marry but the Supreme Court settled that debate.

I agree with you in this case.

My point was that she was targeted for destruction (as are many famous people and people with private small businesses that believe in scripture) They should have a right to speak their mind without the threat of destruction and in some cases I think they should be allowed to refuse doing business depending on the specifics.

I always use this example.

Some church lady is asked to cater a party being run by the porn industry. At this party there will be nudity, sex toys, live sex acts and couple swapping.

Can she refuse on religious grounds because she would be extremely uncomfortable catering that party?

If the legal answer is "no", then the law is wrong.

Can she refuse to serve them in her store as long as they are decent and respectful?

Absolutely not.

The difference is if she refused, the guy running the porn party would laugh and go to another store. The radical left would destroy her business and her life for believing that homosexuality is a sin and not being comfortable at the party.

I find that kind of economic and social terrorism just as intolerant and MORE offensive that some ignorant religious lady not being comfortable at a gay wedding reception.

[zico20]

Kim Davis is now one of us. She has officially switched parties to the GOP. She says the Democratic party left her long ago. Even better news. She is bringing her husband along. He switched also!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/254967-kim-davis-switches-to-gop

[TJDave]

Kim Davis is now one of us.

Not of me. I'm a registered republican. She's an embarrassment to the 'Party of Lincoln' and just another in a long list which will lead to national defeat in 2016.

[Tom]

Nature abhors a vacuum.
We lose one nut (Boehner) and gain this one! :ThmbDown:

Lady, go away.
Kooks need not apply. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Thank GOD I'm not a member of any party, especially one that would have HER in it.