Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

"she's been jailed for being a christian!" = "She was arrested for not putting out her cigarette!"

Both are very extreme statements that glossed over actual details and were used for the speaker's own agenda.

I'm just curious how many people so strongly in one corner over one issue, were able to discern details in the other issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Or just doing their job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Anonymous wrote:No, I do not support Kim Davis, and yes I do support marriage equality.

That being said, I am interested in a discussion of the law of religious accommodation. I *think* that the deal is that changes must be made to the way an employee has to perform the duties of the job to accommodate religion, but all of the duties of the job must be performed. Is that right? For example, uniform requirements can be modified for religious reasons. I know that working hours can be changed to accommodate things like the sabbath (but the same number of hours must still be worked). But are there any circumstances under which an employee can be entirely excused from performing any functions of the job in order to accommodate religious beliefs?

She was given a religious accommodation by the judge. Allow her deputy county clerks to issue the marriage licenses. She would not have to be personally involved in the process. But she refused that; she barred her deputies from complying with the court order. At that point, this isn't about a personal religious exemption; this is an obstruction of a court order. In point of fact, one could even say that in addition to the court decision, she is also violating the first amendment. While she does have a right to hold her own personal religious beliefs, so do the county license petitioners. They are entitled to participate in a religious joining if they are members of a religion that condones their marriage. The first amendment prohibits the government from impeding the free exercise of religion. By both refusing to do her job and refusing to allow her deputies to do her job, she is actually causing the government to abridge the free exercise of religion to the license requesters. She does not have that right. She was correctly jailed and I do hope that she remains jailed until she complies with either the directive or the accommodation (either issuing the licenses or allowing her deputies to issue the licenses) or resigns from her elected office because she cannot comply with the job requirements. If she resigns, then the state will have a process for replacing an elected official.

Anonymous wrote:Huckabee is going to visit her in jail and lead a demonstration against the "criminalization of Christianity". I think he should get the Al Sharpton award for contribution to divisiveness.

I'm a Conservative and a Christian. My daughter is gay. I think it's a sin. I also think the little "white lies" I tell my boss or friends or spouse are sins.

I didn't get upset over the gay marriage ruling, because marriage is just a word and a legal recognition.

I used to love and respect Mike Huckabee, but I 100% agree with you. He's inciting uproar over something that is black and white. She's not being jailed for being a Christian, she's being jailed for breaking the law. I think he's taking advantage of the uneducated Christians who would rather pound their chest saying "me Christian" than really understand how if the tables were turned, they'd really know what persecution is.

She needs to look up the definition of Clerk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

By signing it she sanctions it

No, she doesn't. Her signature is simply saying that the couple meets the legal requirements for a marriage license.

To her, it does.

That does not make it so. Clerks do not endorse any marriages or any other documents they sign. They just process paperwork for the county.

I think your mistake is trying to apply any sort of rational thinking to a religious dingbat like Ms. Davis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

By signing it she sanctions it

No, she doesn't. Her signature is simply saying that the couple meets the legal requirements for a marriage license.

To her, it does.

That does not make it so. Clerks do not endorse any marriages or any other documents they sign. They just process paperwork for the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

By signing it she sanctions it

No, she doesn't. Her signature is simply saying that the couple meets the legal requirements for a marriage license.

To her, it does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

By signing it she sanctions it

No, she doesn't. Her signature is simply saying that the couple meets the legal requirements for a marriage license.

In her twisted little mind, they do not meet the legal grounds based on "natural law."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

By signing it she sanctions it

No, she doesn't. Her signature is simply saying that the couple meets the legal requirements for a marriage license.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

By signing it she sanctions it

And allowing her clerks to sign it, she's sanctioning it. So, being in the government in any capacity is sanctioning it. By her logic, she should flee to Cuba, where the government does not sanction sin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.