Fire her?

[_______]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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]

Originally Posted by _______

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]

Originally Posted by _______

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-briefi...witches-to-gop

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by zico20

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!

Lady, go away.
Kooks need not apply.

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