George Takei owns Kim Davis and her defenders on First Amendment

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is considered a hero in the eyes of many social conservatives, who are quite sure — against all available evidence — that she isn’t a bigot. But she is. And if she continues to be a bigot on the government’s dime, she’ll likely find herself back behind bars, where people who insist on breaking the law generally wind up.

Davis claims that she is acting in accordance with her own moral judgment. As a Christian, she believes that she is obligated to perform her job in a manner that reflects her values, including denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Several Republican candidates for president have stressed their support for Davis’s right to deny marriage licenses to couples. Mike Huckabee has been her strongest supporter, it seems, going so far as to claim that her initial jail time (on being in contempt of court) is an example of Christian persecution. From Breitbart:

“Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country,” Huckabee said in a press release Thursday afternoon. “We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny.”

No one is arguing that Kim Davis can’t have thoughts and feelings about same-sex marriage, and to deny her the right to have them or even deny her the right to promote them would be against her First Amendment religious and speech rights.

But Kim Davis is also a public servant. She is expected to adhere to the laws when operating in a public capacity, even if she disagrees with them on a personal level.

Leave it to George Takei to make this plain. In observing the ongoing mess in Rowan County, Kentucky, Takei commented that, “she is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others.” He added:

It's OK to be Takei, via Wikimedia Commons

It’s OK to be Takei, via Wikimedia Commons

Permitting a state employee to foist her religion upon others, denying them a fundamental right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell, would be to give government, through this agent, the power to impose religious doctrine and viewpoint. That it cannot do. Ms. Davis is in effect establishing religion by using her governmental powers to impose her religious views.


We would consider any action that Davis did to be reprehensible were it to have been done by any other member of the public sector. A police officer or a firefighter acting in the same way — refusing service to same-sex individuals on the basis of their personal religious beliefs — would be considered unlawful and dangerous in the eyes of the public.

And why stop at religious beliefs? What if the director of the FDA becomes a vegetarian and decides that by signing off on meat inspections, they are endorsing the practice of eating meat, which is against their sincerely-held beliefs. No one has any problem understanding how ridiculous their case would be, yet that’s exactly the same argument Davis is making.

The Supreme Court, in its Obergefell decision earlier this year, recognized that “marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order.” But it also recognized that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage was disrupting that order, thereby interrupting and burdening the lives of American families who sought out legal recognition that straight couples already received.

In that way, it wasn’t same-sex couples who were seeking “special rights,” as some like to argue. Rather, it was straight couples who had been receiving them all along, at the expense of same-sex couples.

Kim Davis wants to pretend that her actions were individualistic, but as a public servant — an agent of government — she is required by law to uphold the Constitution when performing her job duties. When she didn’t do so, she acted against the law, and was rightfully held in contempt of court.

If you have any questions, take them up with George.


Chris Walker has been a political writer for more than ten years, contributing freelance opinion pieces to several online publications as well as managing his own blog, Political Heat, for more than six years. With a B.A. in Political Science and Journalism, Chris tries to bring a unique angle to every article he produces, including Millennial perspectives on the issues he's covering. Chris resides in Madison, Wisconsin, and proudly owns both a cheesehead and stock in the Green Bay Packers.

Share This Post

212 Responses to “George Takei owns Kim Davis and her defenders on First Amendment”

  1. Trevor Jameson ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:

    I still don’t understand. I BINGed it too. I have clear complexion.

  2. The_Fixer says:

    Well, I don’t really think you cleared much up here, in spite of a sincere effort to do so.

    You have made line of demarcation here that was not in the bible – that of custom and of sexual activity. All of those prohibitions are contained in Leviticus. There is no distinction made between wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish and same-sex sexual activity – they all are referred to as “abominations”, for which the penalty is death. Pretty heavy penalty for eating a lobster or wearing a stunning poly/cotton blend, not to mention falling in love with a person of the same sex.

    With regard to the story of Soddom, the reason given for it’s destruction is “wickedness”; which was described as being unkind and inhospitable toward guests, travelers and the poor. In the context of the times, rape of one man by another was A) certainly not comparable or in any way can be equated with same-sex romantic relationships and B) was most often used to express dominance over an enemy. Note that the angels who were threatened with rape weren’t threatened for sexual reasons – Lot had offered up his daughters to the attackers to prevent the rape of the angels (an action that can only be regarded as detestable – yet Lot was saved as long as he didn’t look back??). The attackers refused. The reason? They had a beef with the angels and wanted to express dominance over them, and do them harm. They were not a roving band of “homosexuals” who were out for a little Friday night fun. This was the exact opposite of a romantic, or even recreational sexual encounter. Isn’t it possible that such a prohibition against same-sex activity was designed to prohibit the practice of victorious soldiers raping the conquered?

    I have tried to read the bible from cover to cover. It is a slog, and quite a depressing one at that. One cannot get past the first book, Genesis, without encountering inconsistencies. There are two versions of creation presented. Why? It’s like it was written by a poorly organized committee. Is that resolved in the rest of the bible? No.

    Simply reading the bible without context of the times in which it was written is an exercise in futility. That’s why we have textual scholars – they put it into some kind of historical perspective and can deal with the often erroneous translated parts of it. For another take on biblical interpretation as it pertains to same-sex relationships, I suggest you sit down and spend some time watching this:

    As far as the bible is concerned, I think it is a collection of books written by people who did not understand their world and incorrectly concluded things based on a lack of their own knowledge. Which, as you point out, would matter little to me. However, we have factions in this country who believe that the U.S. Government should be run according to the rules presented in it. We have a clearly stated right to practice a religion if we so wish. However, there is also a clearly stated prohibition against establishing a state religion. Here is where I have a problem – Kim Davis is attempting to force her religious beliefs on others, in the process, causing the state to endorse a particular brand of religion. Clearly, that is unconstitutional.

    That is the real issue here. Yes,the discussion has wandered off to other parts of the bible. When one presents the bible as the only guide to living – especially when there’s clearly some very questionable stuff in it – one should expect pushback. Especially when others are trying to make it a guide for governance.

  3. Earn $98-per -Hour (Home Jobs) says:

    my mate’s aunt makes $98 consistently on the PC………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT…….jfd……..➤➤➤➤ http://www.MainSwitchJ0bs/boom Sector2015/make98$perhour.


  4. Sean Knight says:

    @The Onion, please do an “article” with this headline: “Christian firefighter refuses to save gay couple from burning house, says ‘let them burn'”.

  5. Andrew R says:

    Well the Bible says Thomas was blessed. Perhaps you’re reading some other holy book that I’m not aware of…

  6. 1tymtrvlr says:

    Proving my point, that trying to talk sense into commie, Marxist, drug addicts, drunks and idiot marxist tools like you is a waste of time. Buy the obama lie, but use your own money.

  7. 1tymtrvlr says:

    Oh yeah, you marxist tool!

  8. 1tymtrvlr says:

    Slither back into your Marxist cesspool. someone may call you on your Obama phome. May!

  9. vrk says:

    In this case hat happened to it is the same thing that happened to “we reserve theorist to tefus

  10. BeccaM says:

    Kim Davis threatened to fire any deputy clerk in her office who obeyed Judge Bunning’s court orders to resume issuing marriage licenses immediately and not to discriminate based on the gender of the applicants.

    There are different kinds of force. One of them is economic, and Davis was more than happy to wield that particular cudgel to force her religious beliefs onto others. She has no integrity — she’s a coward and a hypocrite.

    To rephrase something you wrote: ‘Homophobes TODAY won’t let same-sex couples marry because they really are bigots.’ Yeah, in the late 1960s, there were the same people like yourself who apologized for the racists and who said they were only acting according to their deeply held beliefs and principles. The ones who would say, ‘What’s the problem? Can’t that mixed-race couple just go to the next county over?’

    You are blind to the social poison which is the result of allowing a minority to be treated not as an equal, but as less than everybody else. Frankly, that position is appalling.

    The point is equality under the law. When a government employee is allowed to use their religious beliefs to choose who gets immediate and unfettered access to civil rights and who has to jump through hoops and live with the humiliation of being treated like a second class citizen, this is discrimination and it is wrong. Nobody should be denied equal rights simply because some homophobic bigot has decided his or her deity has given them permission.

  11. Bill Lewis says:

    I cant argue with that except the stupidity part.

  12. Buford says:

    That’s actually a big part of my issue with Davis and the idiots who honor her ‘heroic sacrifice’. She hasn’t sacrificed anything. ‘Sacrificing for her faith’ would have been quitting her job and foregoing a paycheck rather than be party to gay marriage. What she’s doing is actually the opposite of sacrifice… she’s demanding that her religion be allowed to excuse her from her job responsibilities while preventing her from being fired in the process.

    She greedily wants everything… the career that allows her to pick and choose what tasks she will perform… while refusing to give up anything. Some ‘sacrifice’…!

  13. Buford says:

    Devil’s Advocate – I see the value in the argument for ‘reasonable accommodation’… that is, don’t force Davis to violate her repugnant faith-based biases if there are others in the office that can ‘reasonably’ do the job. Obviously, the govt cannot support Davis’ attempt to block all gay marriages that require licenses which carry her name, but the govt can allow her to personally refuse as long as others in the office can perform the task.

    I’m pretty sure that’s how the Hood County Texas case ended up… Katie Land will not issue licenses to gay couples, but others in her office can/will.

  14. Steven Rowell says:

    Beam his little ass back into outer space Captain Kirk.

  15. Steven Rowell says:

    No, Thomas was a coward and turned his back on his faith and it’s leader.

  16. Steven Rowell says:

    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. Ponder on that for a while.

  17. Samurai2083 says:

    First, sexual activity isn’t a custom. The things you described revolve around customs that was promoted to that culture, and from what I can tell they were to establish a set of rules because of the way things were back then. Why is pork and shellfish wrong to eat to the Israelites? I don’t know, I didn’t make the rule back then so I won’t even comment on why they were suppose to follow it. Sexual activity isn’t a custom, and as such, have boundaries and guidelines that promote its proper use. Can a heterosexual couple break those rules? Of course. According to Biblical text sex was designed for a man and a woman to engage in. I didn’t design sex, neither did any other Christian in history design it. If you have a problem with the rules of sex, take it up with God. If you don’t believe in God or care for what the Bible says, then who cares what anyone says or thinks … just make up your own rules on the subject and let everyone else follow whatever guideline they choose to follow. My original reply to the OP was in regards to cherry picking scriptures to make some kind of point that really doesn’t make sense if you actually read the Bible as a whole, and not in convenient sections.

    Second, the subject of homosexual activity in the Bible is clearly a problem. God calls it an abomination. He follows that up with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (yes, I’m aware that there were additional reasons why that happened, but clearly the main reason was due to those men wanting to force sex with the male guest. God didn’t destroy other cities when a man forced sex with a woman). God didn’t destroy cities because their haircuts were wrong, or that the people in those cities ate pork. There are several places through the old and new testament that condemn homosexual activity, that cannot be argued, not just in the rules set for the Israelites.

    Look, you replied with a sincere response, as opposed to one guy posting a list of the same old cherry picking list of so-called inconsistencies. Someone else just says the Bible was written by man to control man, then follows that up with a man-made wiki article, as if that’s suppose to prove his point. I wanted to reply to you to help you understand that there really isn’t any inconsistencies when reading the Bible cover to cover, to get a complete view of what is being said. How many times do you watch a movie, a TV show, read a book, and have an idea of what is going on based on a few chapters or episodes, only to have it all make complete sense when the story is fully digested? I suggest reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, then see if those inconsistencies actually make sense. Thank you for your reply.

  18. vinagaroon says:

    I don’t care what a fruit that takes it up the ass has to say or thinks

  19. MountainGuardian says:

    I am greatly ashamed of people like you Steven, you make me embarrassed to be associated with christianity…. Keep up your fine example, you are bound to run many away from christianity by your less than christian attitude and approach.
    One of my favorite quotes…. “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, for they are so unlike your Christ” Mahatma Gandhi

  20. Shivas says:

    If she had any true honor (and class), she would quit her job because her conscience would not allow her to perform her duties.

  21. Politikator says:

    Similar mode of argument was used to justify Jim Crow legislation and public policy more than a century after a Civil War over slavery should’ve shut it down from ever happening. It really is great being a political Conservative and schooling history: you never have to say your sorry nor learn any actual events or reasons for them!

  22. Politikator says:

    Love ALL Friday movie references, its a comedy classic!

  23. JaneE says:

    Exactly. What she does on her own time is one thing, what she does in her capacity as a representative of the secular government is another. She doesn’t even have to condone or approve, just issue the damn license.

  24. Bob Munck says:

    A gay man had the same marriage rights as a heterosexual man

    I know you guys had your cute little “Both have the same rights — to marry someone of the opposite sex,” but a bunch of states ALSO had laws that prohibited gay marriage; gays didn’t have the same rights, there were explicit laws limiting their rights. Those are the laws that the SCOTUS ruled violated the Equal Protection Clause and were therefore unconstitutional.

    And as such, the Supreme Court did indeed re-define marriage.

    The twenty or so states that already had gay marriage didn’t think so. If anyone “redefined” marriage, it was the guys who wrote the 14th Amendment in 1866, John Bingham and others. Republicans, of course. Back when right-wingers believed in equality.

    And for you to liken sexual orientation to race just shows that you’re a racist as well, since doing so trivializes race in this country.

    But by saying that you’re trivializing sexual orientation. I, on the other hand, assume that both aspects of humanity are of equal importance; that’s not racist.

  25. BeccaM says:

    It must’ve been terrible for you in school, being jeered at and physically bullied for being straight. And for being denied housing or a job because the company’s owner or his managers had a “no heteros” policy. And then there was the time you tried to join the armed forces, but they had a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and if you had a romantic partner, you had to hide this person’s very existence from everyone else. Then you went to the county courthouse to marry this person anyway, and some surly bigot behind the counter said her religious beliefs prohibited her from giving licenses to heterosexuals, because she claimed God said so.

    Oh right, none of that stuff happens to straight people and never did.

  26. BeccaM says:

    Except for the ‘slutty’ and ‘bouncing checks’ part, GreenDot just described the man who raised me.

    Can’t begin to tell you how many times my father was an utter dick when we were leaving church each week.

  27. 2karmanot says:

    But my dear you are so worthy of condescension.

  28. 2karmanot says:

    “Nouns are not the same as verbs” Thanks my friend, but this is America after all and such subtlety is lost on Kardashian nation.

  29. The_Fixer says:

    Now that I have stopped laughing from the Anastasia Beaverhousen reference, you make a wonderful point :)

  30. 2karmanot says:

    Well, reading the Babble from cover to cover would provide Comedy Central some juicy material.

  31. 2karmanot says:

    OMGawd (pardon my pun) Seriously? I can’t round the corners of my head. Now, that’s a bummer!

  32. 2karmanot says:

    Yep, because he/she’s ‘verified.’

  33. nofauxnews says:

    I wonder what Tom & Lorenzo would have to say about it?

  34. 2karmanot says:

    The only thing missing from this troll salad are the nuts, or did I miss something?
    Hippies? Where, when, really? You’ve actually seen one? I thought they went extinct decades ago.

  35. 2karmanot says:


  36. 2karmanot says:

    Thanks for the pickled herring, but I prefer mine red.

  37. 2karmanot says:

    I’ll have to take a few Valiums to read that Iron Age tripe and ask Anastasia Beaverhousen to point out the sexy parts, maiming of children, stoning of women, smiting of fig trees and other glorious acts of psychopathic divinity.

  38. 2karmanot says:

    Yep, that Clampet couturier was country shabby chic fabulous.

  39. The_Fixer says:

    Let’s start with this:

    Marriage has always been open to gay people, both before and after the Supreme Court re-defined it.

    In what sense? If you respond with “They could always marry someone of the opposite sex”, you deserve to be told that you are making a non-argument that is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Gay people aren’t making the argument that we want to marry a person of the opposite sex, and to respond with such a specious argument is ridiculous.

    The fact that you are making the assertion that it always has been open to gay people makes me very suspicious. I hope you have a better argument than that.

    I say that those rights for same-sex couples have been there as long as those have been there for opposite-sex couples, they just haven’t been recognized until recently. Which can be taken to mean that for all practical purposes, they didn’t exist. But that would be incorrect.

    Yes, the constitution does not say anything specifically about marriage. So why is this an issue? Marriage is one of our assumed, “innate” rights. The Constitution does not specifically say anything about opposite-sex marriage either, does it? Yet, there were, up until recently, exclusive legal protections for it. There are tax benefits, the benefit of not having to testify against your spouse in court, and any one of a number of Federal benefits to marriage. Same-sex couples are entitled to those rights the same way that opposite-sex couples are.

    As to your next, concerning the change in job qualifications, was addressed in my last comment. You have presented no argument to rebut that, just restated a (faulty) position. Again, it would be impossible to keep track of what laws were in place when government employees were hired. That is simply illogical to want to do that anyway – laws, and interpretations of them, are always changing. It would be stupid to try to do that. To do it on a one-off basis for Ms. Davis is a blatant violation of equal treatment under the law (14th Amendment to the Constitution).

    This business of her name being on the marriage certificate…. sigh. First off, they have removed her name from the certificate. It was a change that they were willing to make and did make.

    Now Ms. Davis claims that because those very certificates now have her name removed from them that they are not valid.

    So, which is it? Does her name go on there, or does it stay? This is a stupid argument in that light.

    It’s pretty clear that you are not serious, and do not have a good understanding of the underlying principles here. I don’t think there’s any point in continuing here, have a nice life and all.

  40. 2karmanot says:

    Even Jeebus doesn’t like Felicia.

  41. 2karmanot says:

    I’ll wait for the cartoon version of this rather lengthy persecution meme.

  42. dcinsider says:

    Well if that’s the definition, I’m a BIG bigot because I do demand my rights and I have absolutely no respect for your “religion.”

  43. dcinsider says:

    If you are under the impression that businesses can refuse service to “to anyone for any reason” you were either asleep in your civics class or you don’t own a copy of a history book.

    When a person enters the marketplace, they do so subject to the rules of the marketplace. In many states, those rules include rules governing public accommodations. A place of business, open to the general public, cannot deny service to any person on the basis of certain delineated classes, which include in some states sexual orientation (and in most race, gender, national origin).

    “We don’t serve blacks” is not exactly protected activity for a restaurant.

    You may be confusing a business that says “no shirt no service” or something similar. In that context, businesses may reasonably restrict service, so long as it is not directed to a protected group. For example, “no ha-bibs permitted” probably won’t fly.

    As for the florists and bakeries, if their state has a public accommodation law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, they must provide their service to all comers, including the gay couple.

    Finally, most states DO NOT have such laws. Accordingly, in most states, it is perfectly legal to deny housing or public accommodations to gays and lesbians.

  44. dcinsider says:

    Man is this true. I’ve yet to meet one, just one, who is not a horrible human being.

  45. Jon Green says:

    Wow, can’t believe I missed that. Fixed!

  46. Gene Mierzwa says:

    What happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service”?

  47. olandp says:

    Look in a mirror.

  48. Concerned American says:

    Marriage has always been open to gay people, both before and after the Supreme Court re-defined it.

    You’re wrong that “the right to same-sex marriage was always there” because the Constitution says nothing about marriage. As such, the Supreme Court couldn’t possibly do what you claim.

    The point of marriage not having been re-defined when Davis was elected is that the prior commenter said “If a public servant refuses to do the job asked of them” – the job changed after she was put in that office.

    Removal of the name on a form is not a red herring – it’s an inconvenient truth for those on the left. The media naturally didn’t tell you she was trying to do this, because they want to smear her as much as possible, but she attempted to do that so her name would not be on the licenses. They refused, even though they changed the forms to accommodate the gay marriage lobby, and her name was still on those forms – which was her issue. In other words, it is not “open defiance” since she tried to be accommodating but officials above her would not do it.

  49. olandp says:

    Christians are losing the right to tell other people how to live. You’ll find that in the scripture, Uranus 11:34, Do as I say, not as I do for God has given me dominion over thee because I’m special, and you aren’t.

  50. Concerned American says:

    The only wackos anyone has been listening to are the lefty wackos you have listened to who think the government has any business re-defining something it didn’t create and which the Constitution says nothing about.

    “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is titled “Citizenship
    Rights.” It says very clearly and explicitly that all citizens have the
    right to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. Everybody gets treated equally.”

    Before the Supreme Court re-defined marriage, this already happened. A gay man had the same marriage rights as a heterosexual man, and a lesbian had the same marriage rights as a heterosexual woman. They were treated equally. And as such, the Supreme Court did indeed re-define marriage.

    And for you to liken sexual orientation to race just shows that you’re a racist as well, since doing so trivializes race in this country.

    I’m afraid left-wing talking points and racism don’t trump the U.S. Constitution, which says nothing at all about marriage.

  51. olandp says:

    So, the only good moral man in all of Sodom offered up his two daughters to be raped by the mob, just as God intended. Got it.

  52. olandp says:

    That isn’t exactly what Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says…

    “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:”

  53. Andrew R says:

    What’s Doubting Thomas got to do with it? And BTW, Thomas wanted evidence in order to justify his beliefs. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

  54. goulo says:

    “At the expense of other people’s rights”…?

    What rights do you lose by other people gaining the right to marry the person they want to marry?

    If you think you have a “right” to live in a world where everyone else has to follow the rules of your religion, you’re mistaken.

  55. goulo says:

    Agreed (e.g. drone assassinations, NSA surveillance, prisoners still held in Guantanamo, etc), but what in the world does that have to do with Kim Davis not adhering to the law?

    You’re just bringing up some random unrelated red herring because you don’t like Obama?

  56. goulo says:

    The opening sentence of the article is:

    Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is considered a hero in the eyes of many
    social conservatives, who are quite sure — against all available
    evidence — that she is a bigot.

    Is there something miswritten/misedited here? I don't think the social conservatives who consider Davis a hero are also "quite sure that she is a bigot".

  57. goulo says:

    Yeah, the nerve of those gay people, wanting to marry the person they love! It’s terrible how they place that ahead of doing what your religion says they should.

  58. Dandy in Space says:

    Was written by man to control man nothing more nothing less.

  59. Steven Rowell says:

    You need to go back and read the bible again especially that part about Jesus against the Roman Empire. The last thing he supported was the “will of the majority”. Doubting Thomas would be proud of you. I guess in Vietnam you would have killed the women and babies because your government told you to do it. The job description changed, not Kim Davis.

  60. LA Nwa says:

    She’s just like the people who INSISTED that everything would be in the world, if only the coloreds would “mind their places”….in her Mormon sect Stepford wife dresswear! Honestly! Do yyour JOB, or GO to JAIL lady! Or give the job to someone willing to do it!

  61. MountainGuardian says:

    “Criminalization of christianity”, man what a nutjob…… So do christians need to be immune to the laws that the rest of society have to follow?….. As a christian and a war vet, I believe in the will of the majority, I do not have to agree with it, or like it, but I do have to accept it…. This woman is no more a hero than your average Ku Klux Klan member is, she is a bigot holding a government position using her position to break the law and undermine the rights of other members of society because of her belief that they do not have deserve the same rights afforded to her and other people like her.

  62. The_Fixer says:

    Simple logic will tell you that she prevented her staff from issuing marriage licenses. That’s why she was brought to court for to begin with.

    She prevented the issuance of marriage licenses for both gay and straight couples. The fact that she was denying everyone licenses means that in her inaction, she was not discriminating with regard to sexual orientation. However, her motivation for denying everyone certainly was – she said so herself in an expression of her religious views. She just thought she could make an end-run around the law in a rather stupid and cheesy manner.

    One of the duties of a County Clerk is to issue marriage licenses. She was not doing that herself, and preventing her staff from doing so. She runs the office. Hence, she is the one who pays the price for violating a court order.

  63. The_Fixer says:

    It does not matter whether marriage was recognized by the Supreme Court to be open to gay people at the time of her hiring or not.

    First off, the Supreme Court did not make a new law, it interpreted constitutional amendments in the context of a legally available right – a legal contractual right. In a real sense, the right to same-sex marriage was always there, the Supreme Court just recognized it. In the process, it invalidated laws that ran counter to the free exercise of those rights.

    Second, the laws, and interpretation of them, are a dynamic situation. New laws come up, old laws are removed from the books, and courts rule on the constitutionality of a given law on a regular basis. To insist that every government employee be bound to only obeying the laws in place at the time of their hire is just lunacy.That would at least be an administrative nightmare; at the most, it would totally prevent government from functioning.

    Keep in mind that any removal of name on a form is a red herring – she actively prevented anyone else in the office from issuing licenses. That’s open defiance of a court order and blatant interference in governmental functions.

  64. Jay Libowicz says:

    TL;DR: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don’t sacrifice your convictions for anyone, nor demand others to sacrifice theirs because of yours, either. If you claim to be a free human being, you don’t need government’s permission to marry, nor do you need government’s permission to hold to your convictions. That is the difference between a free man and a slave.


    FULL: Actually, the most un-American thing is people thinking they live in the “Land of the Free”, while needing a government permission slip (marriage license) for something as basic as marriage. Many say marriage is a right. I would suggest that free people don’t need to ask permission, especially to exercise their rights. In case anyone is scratching their heads after I said that, needing someone else’s permission (especially the permission of the ruling class) is exactly the polar opposite of freedom. If you have to ask permission to live your life, you are actually a slave.

    The government has a long history of trying hard to maintain control over people, capitalizing on keeping them divided — left vs. right, republican vs. democrat, religious vs. secular, gay vs. straight, black vs. white, etc. The thing that is most toxic to government domination over people is the concept of people of all political, religious, and social beliefs coming together in support of freedom. But that will never happen as long as they spin words to have us blaming each other for the problems of society. This is what the ancient world called “divide and conquor”. People are MUCH easier to dominate if they are not united on common ground.

    The only way we as a people can win is if we respect each other’s freedom. Imagine that. Freedom doesn’t mean anything if it only applies to people you agree with. Me, I personally disagree with gay marriage on many levels. But I have gay friends, and I also absolutely abominate the idea that government should use violence to force people to act according to the beliefs of others, whether they are gay people who want to be married, or religious people who simply want to follow their convictions. There is no freedom if you are not allowed to disagree with others. Freedom of speech, for example, exists PRECISELY to protect people who have unpopular opinions. You don’t need freedom of speech to talk about the weather.

    If you demand freedom without respecting the freedom of others, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM IN THE WORLD, not other people. You can severely disagree with people on major issues, but if they are not initiating violence against someone else, there is no crime, and you cannot justify the use of force against them.

    (If someone is told to do something because of the law, and they refuse, they will be kidnapped and caged, possibly even assaulted and/or killed — that’s what I mean when I talk about using violence)

    In case there isn’t anyone left who doesn’t have the uncanny, supernatural ability to read the actual story behind the unabashed, overbearing prejudice: Kim Davis isn’t trying to keep gay people from marrying. (Please, let me still have hope for humanity, and tell me you already knew that…) She simply holds her convictions higher than her job, and even her freedom. She has no desire to use force to keep someone else from performing the marriage. Racists from long ago wouldn’t let interracial couples marry AT ALL, because they really were bigots. Please tell me you have the intelligence to tell the difference between convictions and bigotry…

    Cultures around the world, as far back as time goes, historically call that “integrity” and “courage”, especially in the face of a vocal majority condemning and oppressing her.

  65. The_Fixer says:

    Please explain the prohibitions in Leviticus involving haircuts, pork, shellfish, mixed fibers along with same-sex sexual activity. Why do Christians and all but a small minority of Jews ignore all but one?

    The common sense you ask us to have, and the admonishment that we live in a modern world, only seems to center around the haircuts, the food and the clothes, but seems to fade when it comes to same-sex relationships.

    You have to realize that to gay people, not only are these prohibitions ridiculous, but also ridiculous is the fact that only some of them are regarded as being OK while one is not.

    It’s an inconsistency that can’t be resolved.

  66. John Shisler says:

    1) Don’t call me “boy”. You don’t know me. 2) Those lawsuits have nothing to do with the case of same sex marriage. 3) I actually have an issue with many of those lawsuits. I was always under the impression that businesses could refuse service to anyone for any reason. But, again, those have nothing to do with the same sex marriage issue. Don’t try to compare apples to oranges. We are talking the right to marry versus a service. They are not the same.

  67. The_Fixer says:

    That’s simply the result of travelers who were passing on their own beliefs, orally, others co-opting them and modifying them to suit their purposes, and sweeping these stories into their tradition.

    Like with the Christians embracing the Winter Solstice and arranging Jesus’ birthday to coincide with it. It was designed to help convert pagans to Christianity. All accounts that can be drawn from the Christian bible indicate that if there was a Jesus, he was born in the spring.

    The idea of a half-man-half-god has been around well in advance of the emergence of Jesus. It’s aplenty in other cultures, most notably the Greeks. The same with the Triune god, the Virgin Mother, the 10 Commandments (based on the Code of Hammurabi) and many, many others.

    This adaptation of other cultures into religious sects is all designed to do one thing – to perpetuate said religion. They’re saying “We definintely, irrevocably believe X as the divine word, until it’s expedient to embrace Y in order to get more followers.”

    Which is what Kim Davis is doing, in a roundabout way – proselytizing in order to advance her religion. It’s not a proper function of government. She is not being persecuted by being put in jail – she can be god’s biggest booster on her own time.

  68. Bob Munck says:

    I think it’s important for everyone to know that George Takei and his parents were imprisoned in our Japanese internment camps for three years during WWII. I had a good friend (James Minoru Sakoda) who was also in the camps and a high-school history teacher (Keitha Lewis) who taught in them, so I have some idea what it was like. Those camps are a national disgrace, in the same league as Bush and Cheney’s torture program. Takei’s attitude toward our country, given that, is simply amazing.

  69. j_verria says:

    lol..You err on a few points Sir Jizz100..1) KD is NOT a lady, I know a few ladies and she is not one! 2) if she felt an imposition in issuing those marriage licenses, she could resign or have one of her deputies issue the license. She is not violating her beliefs by doing her job.JC sez to give to God what is God’s and unto Caeser what is Caesar’s. 3) I know some thug’s and I don’t know any gay 4) If KD’s husband can’t defend himself against gays with all the guns he claims to have, then he aint much of a man and I can see why the best he could do for a wife was this “lady”. My apologies for being a troll but I really hate morons and bigot Christians that claim they are the voice of JC and God!! PEACE

  70. 357x6 says:

    Maybe you didn’t hear about the lawsuits and other harassment by homosexuals, as if there were no other bakeries, florists, etc., in the world. It’s a two way street, boy.

  71. Bob Munck says:

    Davis is refusing to uphold a court order that re-defined marriage, not a law

    Nah, you’ve been listening to the religious wackos. The Supreme Court ruled that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They struck down state laws banning same-sex marriage, ruling them to be unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court’s decision … invented a “right” to something the Constitution says nothing about.

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is titled “Citizenship Rights.” It says very clearly and explicitly that all citizens have the right to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. Everybody gets treated equally.

    The various civil rights acts are much the same; they said you have to treat members of all races equally. They didn’t re-define race, and Obergefell v. Hodges didn’t re-define marriage.

    I’m afraid the christian bible doesn’t trump the US Constitution.

  72. BeccaM says:

    You do know there are a bazillion different versions and translations of the Bible, right? It so happens Dandy there was quoting the King James version, word-for-word.

    That one predates nearly all of the other translations commonly in use these days, so in reality, if you’re using a different one, that makes you the potential heretic.

  73. BeccaM says:

    Got it. You believe your Angry Sky Tyrant is going to murder the entire human race. Again. Only this time without excepting one extended family. And of the sentient remnants thereof, billions are going to spend all of eternity suffering unimaginable tortures, including those whose only transgression was failing to worship this deity of yours exactly as you did during their brief human lifetimes.

    Please do us all a favor and stop pretending your deity actually loves us humans. No parent who truly loved his or her children would murder them. And infinite love cannot possibly include infinite, eternal torture with no hope of redemption ever, not unless one is dealing with a psychopath with an extreme multiple-personality disorder.

    God is not ‘self-evident’ otherwise there would be no need for the faith of which you sorts are so proud. What is self-evident to me is while this is not universal, but the majority of men seem very much prone to create their own God in their own image, because it is remarkable how often their God hates exactly the same people they do and who always can be counted upon to give them permission to do as they like. Up to and including abridging the civil rights of others.

  74. Mike says:

    Can I get an Amen (sic)! Geesh! You can shove this truth at them day in and day out! They will NEVER get it. Even as it is proven to them time and time again . . . empirically

  75. Tim Conway says:

    first kim davis does not believe in biblical principals, since she has been married 4 times, as westboro baptist church put it she is an adulterer in the biblical scene, and should remain in jail. So in a nut shell kim davis in no more than a bigoted hypocrite who is just another hater.

  76. Don Chandler says:

    “When rights collide, the court has to decide which one takes precedence”

    So, Early, pretend your a judge:

    A gay couple goes into a county clerk’s office asking for a marriage license, something the law insures. The clerk looks at them and say, you are a same-sex couple, by god’s authority, I will not give it to you the form.

    Be honest, who the fuck is going to side with the Clerk. She will fail the reasonable person construct no matter how you parse it. And no place in her job description does it say she can deny people a licence according to her faith. Further, if she really felt that this act was a heaven or hell decision for her, she could have asked another person in the office to do it. Most reasonable people would do this.

    As for the gay couple, they are there because they know the law allows them to get a marriage license, why would they go elsewhere? They are certainly being reasonable. They are informed. They are citizens. What is so complex?

    Go look at all the job descriptions of county clerks throughout the states…none of them say the clerk or head clerk can use “gods authority” to deny a person. If they did, then there would have been a law made respecting religion which is very very wrong.

  77. Concerned American says:

    What we’re talking about here, since you seem a little unclear, is what the Constitution says and doesn’t say. It says nothing at all about marriage. You equated the right to bear arms – enumerated in the Constitution – with a bunch of things not in the Constitution. That makes your analogy fall flat.

    In your scenario in the last paragraph, you highlight exactly why the government has no business meddling with marriage – and government did not create marriage, certainly not our government as it pre-dates the New World, let alone the United States. Get the government out of marriage and your question doesn’t come into play.

    And let this be one more example of why limited government works.

  78. Concerned American says:

    When Davis was elected, marriage had not yet been re-defined by the Supreme Court. She also tried to get the forms changed to not have her name on them, but officials refused – even though they changed the forms to accommodate the gay marriage lobby.

    Imprisonment was very excessive.

  79. Concerned American says:

    Perhaps you’re not aware of context, only condescension.

    Davis is refusing to uphold a court order that re-defined marriage, not a law. The Supreme Court’s decision short-circuited the legislative process and invented a “right” to something the Constitution says nothing about.

  80. nofauxnews says:

    Doesn’t matter what YOU think it is, it matters what the constitution thinks it is. The constitution protects the rest of us from the tyranny of stupidity.

  81. emjayay says:

    Clearly we should count or throw out votes of citizens depending on whether they are women, or whether they are of a certain race or are progressives or not.

  82. emjayay says:

    The exception is her son, who I assume was hired because he was the most qualified applicant.

  83. GreenDotPrivacySpy says:

    Most people I know who have strong religious beliefs are also the same people who cut you off as they leave the church, abuse their animals, are slutty, use foul language, bounce checks, lie, cheat, steal, …troll and bully. Overly religious people hide behind this fictional character they’ve created so that they can validate their judgement of others…as trolls.

  84. vrk says:

    Nothing pushed on anyone simply an expectation that you follow laws against discrimination. A gay baker wouldn’t be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a straight couple under that ruling. You know, the rule of law.

  85. emjayay says:

    Any other fantasies you would like to roll into this word salad?

  86. GreenDotPrivacySpy says:

    Do your religious beliefs have any place at the office? Do you perform your work duties according to your religious beliefs? Is there a sum of money that someone can pay you to ignore your religious beliefs?

  87. BeccaM says:

    The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not in any way free one entirely from the consequences of an act of free speech or religion. Davis sought to impose her religious beliefs on marriage license applicants who were legally entitled to a civil marriage license. She also sought to impose her religious beliefs on the Rowan County deputy clerks who said they were willing to follow the law and issue and process licenses in her stead.

    Cry and moan all you like, but Obergefeld (aka ‘marriage equality for straight and same-sex couples alike) is the law of the land now, all across America. Another case you may not know about, Garcetti v Caballos, further clarified that the free speech and 1st Amendment rights of government employees can be limited, especially when such impacts the lawful performance of their jobs.

    Moreover, in an act of petty petulance, Davis also stopped issuing all marriage licenses to all qualified applicants. A court ordered her not to do this. She appealed and received a temporary stay. The appeal was turned down. She appealed again. And again, eventually reaching the United States Supreme Court, which turned her down. The stays were lifted and by the laws of this country, Davis was offered several choices, including simply to obey the lawful court orders or to resign her post. She was not offered the choice where she got to continue breaking the law and defying lawful court orders and not suffer any consequences.

    Do you get it? Davis tried to argue a 1st Amendment claim that her religion gave her the right to deny civil rights to lawful marriage license applicants. The courts — all the way to SCOTUS and back — unanimously ruled against her. That should have been the end of it.

    Since Davis remains defiant, I fully expect she’ll charged yet again with contempt of court and re-incarcerated next week when she returns to work.

    Your right to practice your religion ends where someone else’s civil rights begin. In short, if you want the law to be different, to instead reflect your bigoted Iron-age view of human sexuality, lobby to have the laws changed and challenge them in the courts. If and when you lose, don’t behave like spoiled children throwing tantrums.

  88. DRoseDARs says:

    Saw it before you nuked it. Yep, that was a lot of argle-bargle. Looking over his posting history of… 32 posts… since 01/2014… is amusing.

  89. Jon Green says:

    I’m pretty laissez-faire with this comments section, but that’s a whole lot of hate. Bye, Felicia.

  90. John Shisler says:

    And, again, wanting equal rights under the law is NOT imposing anything on anyone. Using your religion to keep someone from having equal rights is imposing on their lives.

  91. John Shisler says:

    If you honestly think being gay is a mental illness, you need your own head examined. And, for the record, I’m not gay, but I have family member and friends who are. I’ve seen how “conversion therapy” does more harm than good and how it does not work.

  92. Rob says:

    Unfortunately, Takei and his repugnant beliefs are going to outlive the rest of the original ST cast. Too bad he didn’t go first. Then again, watching you degenerates get all excited when he “owns/schools” somebody is a lot of fun. You see, no queer has ever owned any body on the area of queer rights. Why? Queers aren’t discriminated against. You can discriminate against a person because of skin color, disabilities, etc. i.e. Things they had no control over…you see, little queers, despite your insistence to the contrary


    You were NOT “born that way.” Show me legitimate, non-partisan scientific evidence and I will apologize. I will never have to do so because you will never be able to show it. By the way, non-partisan means real science, not some progtrash “thinktank” that manipulates evidence and outright lies if necessary. Even them, if by some miracle it were shown to be genetic, then it should be treated as an illness, a disease, a defect. Homosexuality should be eradicated, not encouraged. Now, before you freaks start screaming, I said homosexuality should be eradicated, not the people.

    Right now, it is a choice, and to choose it is to be an odious, repugnant person. You queers don’t love. That’s a joke. Homo love is the person you are sodomizing until somebody better looking comes along.

    I know you sissy little snarkscum are going to ask “how do you know so much? You must be gay”. No. I’m smarter than you. Queers are self-absorbed and delusional, and can’t even recognize their own many defects.

  93. Bill Lewis says:

    Your mental illness is not a right to impose on others. And, that’s what I think it is.

  94. BeccaM says:

    That was my guess, too.

  95. Thom Allen says:

    I think they also have the highest rate for buying, reading and watching porn.

  96. nofauxnews says:

    I LOVED his “The Real McCoys” look! I predict it will be trending heavily on the right wing red carpet.

  97. Jon Green says:

    She has the right to believe what she wants. She doesn’t have the right to refuse to do her job as a public servant — a completely secular job.

  98. nofauxnews says:

    I never said she was jailed for forcing her religion on her deputies, just that she had done so. She would not allow her subordinates to issue marriage licenses based on her personal religious beliefs. That is her imposing her beliefs on others when they wanted to comply with the court order.

    I don’t think the court ever addressed that issue directly, but by jailing her they removed her from that position of power and the office issued the licenses in question.

  99. Jon Green says:

    Add “George Takei” to the list of right-wing rapid response keywords, I guess.

  100. Doug105 says:

    Top 10 Problems with Christianity.

    1) Relative Time: It makes no sense that the relatively short life we live on this planet, at most 100 years and perhaps as brief as a few minutes, would be used by a God to determine our ultimate destiny, one that will last trillions and trillions of years and beyond.

    (2) Lack of Gradation

    Christianity proposes that only one of two fates awaits humans after they die — an extremely attractive invitation into Heaven or a miserable, dreadful sentence to Hell. Given the complexities and varieties of human experience, offering only two judgments is absurd.

    3) Repentance:

    The simple act of repentance will allow someone who to go to Heaven.Ted Bundy, a confirmed murderer of over 30 young women, confessed his sins before his execution and, according to Christian doctrine, was sent directly to Heaven. Bill Gates, an atheist who has lived a virtuous life and has donated more than $27,000,000,000 to global health, development, and education will be sent to Hell.

    4) Infant Death

    Most Christians believe that people who die at a young age are given a free pass to Heaven. It would seem to suggest that dying at a young age, before encountering the age of accountability, would be the best and safest way to leave Earth. This would guarantee a place in Heaven without having to take a risk of living a potentially failed life in the sight of God.

    5) Life

    Many Christians believe that life begins at conception and an entire anti-abortion industry has been built around this concept. But it presents a problem. Does a fertilized egg that fails to implant in the uterus go to Heaven? This seems a bit absurd

    6) Judas

    What he allegedly did actually hastened the salvation of mankind, as defined by Christianity. Without Jesus’ capture and execution, everybody would still be subject to the condemnation of original sin as well as their personal sins, making him a hero.

    7) Tiny Drama/Huge Stage

    “It doesn’t seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”

    8) Slavery.

    The Bible condones Slavery according to Exodus and Leviticus.

    9) Christians Ignore Old Testament Laws

    Jesus said to follow old testament laws: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

    10) Splintering

    The surest sign of a man-made enterprise is that it splits quickly into many different factions. On the other hand, one initiated by a God would be expected to converge into a tight unity. This is because only those groups that aligned correctly with the divine theological blueprint would receive supernatural support and thereby flourish, attract members, and survive the long term. Any wayward factions would lose favor and couldn’t compete for new members.

    There are now more than 41,000 Christian denominations, many of which have very disparate beliefs and practices. This is a valid clue that Christianity is a man-made concept.

  101. nofauxnews says:

    I never claimed she was jailed for discriminating against gay couples. She was jailed for not complying with a court order that she do the job she was elected to do. The purpose of jailing her was to stop her from interfering with the issuance of licenses, and the court has ordered her to refrain from doing so. She was released because the office issues the licenses in question.

    She was using her personal religious beliefs to keep her subordinates from doing the job the law required. It is not new info that she would not allow anyone to issue any marriage license, and that was 100% because of her personal beliefs. You seem to think a boss imposing their beliefs on subordinates is an expression of religious freedom.

  102. Doug105 says:


  103. Early Brown says:

    You keep making this claim, but I’ll need to see some evidence.

    As I’m reading more about the actual court case, I’m interested in something I didn’t realize before:
    She said her office would issue no marriage licenses–apparently in an attempt to AVOID being discriminatory. By issuing NO licenses, she believed she was treating same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples.
    She was sued by both homosexual and heterosexual couples, and was jailed for not issuing ANY licenses.
    She was apparently NOT jailed for discriminating against same-sex couples…nor for forcing her religion on others.

    It is an interesting case.

  104. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Prove the death threats. How does he know that a gay person made that threat (If there really was one)? Maybe it was someone who didn’t like his choice of wardrobe.

  105. nofauxnews says:

    She was FORCING her subordinates to abide by her personal religious beliefs. That is American?

  106. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I’m a member of the ELCA (the largest Lutheran church in the U.S.A.). They believe that same sex marriage is fine. You’re not respecting my religion.

  107. Early Brown says:

    Any chance you can point me to that court order? If she was jailed for forcing her religion on her deputies, that’s a whole different story. But I never saw (and cannot now find) a thing about that when she was sent to jail.

    Here’s what I know (or at least understand):
    –The day after the SCOTUS ruled same-sex marriage is protected under the equal protection clause, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses–all of them, not just for same-sex couples.
    –Judge Bunning ordered her to resume issuing licenses, and she refused.
    –The Supreme Court upheld Bunning’s order with a one-line statement, but still she refused.
    –Bunning declared her in contempt and put her in jail.

    Do you have a source that shows what Bunning said about her forcing her deputies to follow her religious beliefs? (Before he sent her to jail, that is?)

    He has NOW said that she’s only out of jail for as long as she doesn’t interfere with the deputies who issue licenses…but I can’t find anything that says that’s why she was jailed.

  108. vrk says:

    How dare they demand not to be discriminated against and to have the same rights as others. Fucking thugs indeed

  109. Don Chandler says:

    Abuse of power, in the form of “malfeasance in office” or “official misconduct,” is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties.

    Kim is definitely someplace around abuse of power by using religion as a reason to deny giving forms to people.

  110. nofauxnews says:

    The problem is, she imposed her beliefs on her subordinates, so I suppose you would have no problem with your islamic boss requiring you to bow to Mecca, or forbidding you to bring pork for lunch.

    I have no problem with her having the freedom to believe whatever she wants. If she wants to believe that her born again status absolves her of all her egregious sins, and qualifies her to sit in judgment of others, by all means she that the right to that belief. I on the other hand have the right not to be subjected to those beliefs in any manner. That is MY freedom.

  111. John Shisler says:

    Idiot. They aren’t imposing anything. What they’re doing is asking for the same rights as everyone else and not having other people’s beliefs infringing upon their rights. When your “rights” start imposing and infringing on someone else’s rights, that’s when’s your rights have gone too far. Same-sex people asking to be allowed to be married does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

  112. nofauxnews says:

    She was not put in jail to force her to abandon her beliefs, but to force her to allow her office to do its job as proscribed by law. She had forced those under her to abide by her personal religious beliefs (do you approve of that?), which is against the law. She was jailed to remove that undue pressure from those under her. That is what happened; they issued the licenses, and that is why she was released.

  113. jz100 says:

    I don’t know where you are getting those translations from but they are distorted.

  114. Early Brown says:

    Of course I would.
    That doesn’t mean I would agree with her–any more than I agree with her on same-sex marriage–but she has a right to her religious beliefs…NO MATTER HOW OFFENSIVE YOU OR I MIGHT FIND THEM.

    And just like I wrote above, I would support her losing her job for not doing her job.

    Amazing thing, this whole concept of freedom. It’s not “freedom to agree with everyone else,” and by its very nature, it’s almost going to guarantee that someone is going to say or do something to offend you.
    If you can’t respect others’ right to believe something you don’t, you deserve no respect in return.

  115. jz100 says:

    “she is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others.”
    The hypocrite needs to look in a mirror. Because what he and gay people are doing is the same thing.

  116. jz100 says:

    Definitely. Gay people are pure thugs, who demand their way through life. They demand people lose their jobs if they don’t do what they demand. They even made death threats to this ladies husband, proof in itself. One day they will have to answer to God.

  117. BeccaM says:

    We’re gonna need an entire case of this here today…

  118. jz100 says:

    The only bigot here are the gay people who demand their way through life, and who have no respect for other peoples religion.

  119. BeccaM says:

    Then let God do his own smiting. For an omnipotent super-deity, he sure is remarkably powerless.

    Or maybe it’s that he doesn’t hate and fear gay people like you do.

  120. Early Brown says:

    Which is why I’ve said she would be removed from her job–through the procedures in place to do so.
    But there’s a difference between firing (or impeaching) someone and putting them in jail to force them to abandon their beliefs.

  121. Early Brown says:

    Now THAT would be a different issue. But that’s not about preventing anyone from getting a marriage license. It’s about forcing her beliefs on those other clerks.
    Did those clerks bring suit against her? Is that what brought this to the court?

  122. nofauxnews says:

    “She has a right to her religion and to live according to it.” She does not have the right not to perform the civil job she was elected to, and is paid $80,000 a year to do.

  123. Early Brown says:

    You’d almost be there–if his decision to not eat meat meant he would also no longer allow meat to be eaten by others.
    Except, of course, that one county clerk has very little effect on anyone’s ability to get married, whereas the head of the FDA would have a national effect on the ability of many people to buy meat. The extent of the impact does make a difference (in terms of legal remedy).

    In the Davis case, it was the law that changed–not the beliefs of the official. When she took her oath of office, I assume she was sincere. The changes that have occurred since then are what makes it impossible for her to now do her job.

  124. nofauxnews says:

    So if she did not believe in interracial marriage, or interfaith marriage, based on her personal religious beliefs, you would still be defending her “rights”?

  125. ropefuzz says:

    Maybe you should read more than the first paragraph. There are exceptions. Read further and you will gain two things; one, you will see that not only can you not yell fire in a crowed theater, but as an employee of a government office you cannot use your “speech” as part of your job duties.

  126. nofauxnews says:

    Or you can be a fool to believe your ancient mythology is any different, and any less a myth, than any of the myths man has invented throughout human history.

    The really funny thing is that you and muslims worship the very same Abrahamic god, yet your god has had you slaughtering each other for centuries.

  127. Early Brown says:

    Hardly irrelevant. The “attributes” she gives it, based on her religious beliefs, are precisely what this is all about.
    You may believe it’s just a signature, and I may believe it’s just a signature.
    But SHE apparently believes her signature would represent an endorsement of the union, which she apparently believes would be a sin (her sin). She has a right to her religion and to live according to it.

    Unless the exercise of her right prevents you from exercising yours, you should respect that.
    (And as I’ve said, she was not preventing anyone from getting married. She was, at most, making it slightly less convenient for them to get a license.)

  128. vrk says:

    I can quote the entirety of The Big Lebowski. Its also fiction and thus lacks any relevance to the discussion at hand.

  129. JeffAtMinetfiber says:

    The trolls are out in force tonight. They don’t have anything resembling a compelling argument, of course, nor do they address one of the main issues, which is KD was keeping her office from issuing licenses (not just refusing to issue them herself).
    Plus, if some obscure verse from one religion’s holy book is all they’ve got, well, that’s not really much to go on, is it?
    Addendum: WWJD? Issue the damn licences and bless the marriages!

  130. Man On Fire says:

    If you read myths of other religions you start to see parallels and supernatural things, for example, Buddha found of Mara the Desire Demon and his Three Daughters who tried to seduce him. Allah the Arabic Moon God similar to Baal has Three Daughters whose Idols are in Mecca. Hugh Hefner keeps three girlfriends on rotation. God is like a more complex Rubix Cube, and Satan is a liar.

    Just between Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 30, the whole story of the Jews from them being cast out into the Nations, to their persecution, to them having their own state again can be told. You have freedom of choice. You can choose to believe or you can choose to be a fool, but God is self-evident.

  131. ropefuzz says:

    She was not being coerced. She took an oath to perform her job . She took an oath to be a servant to the people of Kentucky. All the people, not just the ones she deemed worthy. If her religious beliefs mean more to her than her oath of her office, great! She can quit and fulfill her commitment to her god. She should not be allowed to choose which people get a marriage license and which people don’t. That has been decided. If I were Jewish I wouldn’t work in a deli and then refuse to sell a ham sandwich. That would be imposing my beliefs on others. And “GreggorytheGreat”, if sodomy is a mortal sin in the eyes of God which calls for vengeance from Heaven”‘ then let heaven deal with it. It doesn’t say “in the eyes of Kim Davis”, it says in the eyes of GOD.

  132. vrk says:

    Nonsense. You have the very same rights as Takei when it comes to marriage. You can marry another consenting adult of either sex as long as neither of you is currently married. And if you work in an office that is responsible for issuing marriage licenses you must follow the law in regards to issuing that document whether you are gay or straight.

  133. nofauxnews says:

    Man made god, not the other way around, and man wrote the ancient myths you have the freedom to believe. Do not demand others live by your fantasies.

  134. Samurai2083 says:

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply here with your scripture quotes, but you might want to also note the context that those verses are in. Those are direct customs directed to the Israelites, laws dictated by God to that nation, thousands of years ago. They are not directed to modern societies. These are God’s people, America is not. I really hope I don’t have to explain common sense to anyone here, but cherry picking verses to support one’s political position is easy to do. If you really want to get the whole picture, try reading the Bible from cover to cover before making assumptions on who God is and what He’s telling us.

  135. Man On Fire says:

    “48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. “(Ezekiel 16:48-49)

    Prophet Ezekiel doesn’t even mention sexual immorality in why God destroyed Sodom, but their are layers to. If you give your daughters into prostitution the whole land will turn to wickedness. In God’s view a prostitute doesn’t just accept money for sex. It can be for attention, popularity, security, or a number of things. A relationship girl is nothing more than Tyrion Lannister’s Prostitute from Game of Thrones.

    When sexual immorality is rampant in a land, it hardens men’s hearts, and they start to do wicked things to each other and women. They become of the flesh and not of the spirit. They become blind and lustful and forget what love is, and Love is Patient and Kind.

    God’s Anger is slow. He has the entire world by the balls, and God works in the world just like The Holy Bible says he does. If you didn’t read it with an open heart, then that is no one’s fault but yours.

  136. perljammer says:

    Yeah, and so is eating pork or shellfish, and so is shaving your sideburns or beard. When was the last time you called the vengeance of Heaven down upon an oyster bar or a barber shop?

  137. nworbekim says:

    isn’t it more un American to coerce a person into doing something that is opposed to their religious beliefs?

  138. perljammer says:

    Thanks for the history lesson. Now, then – the Establishment clause:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Where in there is the license to discriminate? Bear in mind, you can’t stone adulterers even though Leviticus says it’s the right thing to do, because we don’t live in the Bronze Age, and it’s against the law — even if you feel as though that law is impeding your free exercise of religion.

  139. nofauxnews says:

    And your imaginary friend has no bearing on my life.

  140. nerdyandhonesty says:

    I see what you’re saying, and you’re right. The writer should have kept his focus with better parallels and said: What if the director of the FDA converted to Hinduism and suddenly had strong adherence to the beliefs in the Yajurveda, so they now find it against their religion to eat meat.

  141. nofauxnews says:

    Her signature on a marriage license only means those named have the legal right to get married. Nothing more. Any other attributes she may give it are irrelevant.

  142. 1tymtrvlr says:

    So, why is obama still soiling my White House? He has decided that he would only enforce laws ( those laws are on the books, the law of the land ) that help his agenda of the decline of America into a sexually perverted ( bad behavior ) cesspool, and not follow the rule of law when it comes to filling the country with illegal parasites that have nothing to offer the country than to be a financial burden. Supplying guns ( fully automatic guns ) to drug lords in southern Arizona not protecting Arizonans from the useless parasites, because a lot of weak minded useless hippies from the 60s want to push their useless agenda on the American people.

  143. Man On Fire says:

    The author of the article was arguing for the Law. Not anyone’s moral
    judgements one way or the other. If the Law of the Land is the Dred
    Scott or Jim Crow then how can any public servant rightly not implement the
    Law in the author’s view? If the Law of the Land says that runaway slaves
    in the North be captured and returned to their masters, then how can any
    Northern State Government Official ignore the law? In the Bible, it
    says if your slave runs away, then let him go. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) If the Law of the Land says we must pay a Tea Tax, then you pay the Tea Tax?

    There is a wall of separation between Church and State. The State keeps pushing that wall back and usurping power. Secular Judges should not be Secular Clergy issuing decisions on Religious and Moral issues. It is like the US is turning into a Secular Progressive Iran.

  144. Trevor Jameson ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:

    lol, both leftists and conservatives don’t agree with me!

  145. GreggorytheGreat says:

    Sodomy is a Mortal Sin in the eyes of God which calls for vengeance from Heaven.

  146. slavdude says:

    Yes, but the point is that Davis was not letting them do their jobs, either. *Nobody* in that office issued any marriage licenses of any sort.

  147. Prince Albert says:

    What did SCOTUS tell Kim? Answer: Nothing. Free exercise is prime here

  148. Early Brown says:

    No, it is not. But equal protection under the law is (see the 14th Amendment). That is what the SCOTUS read. If the government grants the right to be married to a heterosexual couple, it must also grant the same right to a homosexual couple.

  149. Prince Albert says:

    Wha? of course you can discriminate – legally

    The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman Fisher Ames in 1789, who derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which attempts to guarantee freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs of all kinds

  150. Douglas Harrell says:

    Obama does not adhere to the law.

  151. Wade says:

    When did your creator say this? Don’t tell me in the Bible either, that book was written by man, not God.

  152. the50sguystrikesback says:

    I’m glad Kim Davis stood up for what she believes. Many Christian believers have been imprisoned for standing up for the word of God world wide for centuries. (That’s nothing new). I applauder her. However…she cannot have it both ways. She needs to resign from that position bcuz she can’t keep skirting the law. As for Takei and all the other high profile gays and lesbians…they’re ALL hypocrites. They want acknowledgement and equality, but at the expense of OTHER people’s rights. I’m tired of labels like ‘hated’ and ‘homophobia’ being placed on people who have believed the Bible’s doctrine, precepts and commands thousands of years before there was EVER a George, a Rosie or an Ellen. TRUE Christians love people for who they ARE. They don’t hate gays nor are they afraid of them. They simply DISAGREE with same sex attraction and marriage. You can love people AND disagree with them at the SAME time. Ever heard of YOUR PARENTS!

  153. Trevor Jameson ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:

    What is troll?

  154. Bob Munck says:

    an underground link between America Blog postings and the vasty wilderness of Trolldom.

    Sounds like a sewer.

  155. Wade says:

    So what if it was the manager of the DMV that is Amish and they say that none of the clerks can issue drivers licenses? Don’t say that they should just go to another DMV, because I don’t want my tax dollars to be used to allow someone not to do their job. There is already enough of that in congress.

  156. Prince Albert says:

    She does have the right. it is in the first amendment to the constitution

  157. Trevor Jameson ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:

    l don’t think “support” is the correct word. Even if we are against homosexuaI, poIygamous, brother sister and NAMBLA marriage. We understand that what the supreme court says is law. We follow the Iaw and expect Kim to also follow the law. We just think she should be fired, or barred from entering the building, but not jailed. I certainly don’t support Kim Davis.

  158. Prince Albert says:

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion; imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone (aka KIM) to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which “establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. Which in her actions could support the establishment of an alternate religion

  159. jojo says:

    Who cares what this old queen thinks?

  160. Bob Munck says:


  161. perljammer says:

    Heh. I felt the touch of His noodly appendage while typing that post.

  162. Early Brown says:

    And they have that right. If their religious beliefs allow them to do sign the licenses, more power to them.

    It’s also important to remember that “personally objecting” to something is not the same thing as having a sincerely religious belief that something is a sin.
    I personally object to accordion music, but it doesn’t present me with a crisis of faith.

  163. Bob Munck says:

    You don’t really try to think things through, do you?

    perljammer is attempting irony. The reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his meatballs) should have given it away.

  164. madx1 says:

    No the beginning of marriage was a union to pool resources for the child to promote procreation, all other arguments came later. Besides, with our foster care system in the state it is now, some more parents adopting will only help

  165. perljammer says:

    There is no Constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of religion. That cuts both ways — you can’t discriminate against someone because of THEIR beliefs, and you also can’t discriminate against someone because of YOUR religious beliefs. That seems so clear and easy to understand that it’s tempting to characterize someone who disagrees not just as ignorant, but willfully so.

    What we’re talking about here, since you seem a little unclear, is the right of Person A to deny government services to Person B based on Person A’s beliefs. But since you seem to be concerned about the distinction between Constitutional rights and privileges, let’s explore that a little.

    A gay couple, members of a religion that espouses the value of marriage and teaches that people who love one another must marry to fulfill their lives, walks into the county clerk’s office and applies for a marriage license. The gay couple’s religious belief is that they must get married. The clerk’s religious belief is that gay couples must not marry. Who’s religious beliefs take precedence?

  166. Indigo says:

    Now we know: there is an underground link between America Blog postings and the vasty wilderness of Trolldom. It’s good to know that AmBlog is so widespread. A troll filter isn’t necessary but some troll control would be a good thing.

  167. madx1 says:

    What the hell man, public gathering is a privilege? That is amendment number 1! Giving up 1 and 4 to save 2 is not a victory. Still if Davis wasn’t an elected official, I would say that imprisonment was excessive. If a public servant refuses to do the job asked of them, then they should step down or be jailed. Too bad Holder and Obama aren’t gonna be held to that standard…

  168. Bob Munck says:

    only Congress can create a law.

    Perhaps you’re not aware how our system works. State legislatures can create laws also. In this case, the Kentucky state legislature has created several laws governing marriage, and the US Supreme Court has pointed out that the US Constitution mandates that those laws apply to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples. So Davis is refusing to uphold both the laws of Kentucky and the Constitution of the United States.

    he’s flat wrong in his claim that she is “establishing religion”

    You need to read what the Constitution actually says. Nouns are not the same as verbs.

  169. nerdyandhonesty says:

    Marriage, to the best of my notice, is not mentioned in the Constitution either.

  170. ropefuzz says:

    This is what anybody with more than an ounce of sense can grasp. If Kim Davis was a nudist would we have to look at her naked butt? Ms. Davis has all the right in the world to believe in her god but she should not have the power to rob others of their rights, moreover to foist her beliefs on others. Her salary is being paid in part by the very people she turned out of her office last week. It is very ironic that she doesn’t mind being paid with homosexual’s tax dollars. If she was true to her so-called convictions she wouldn’t accept her salary. She is a hypocrite and a bigot.

  171. Dandy in Space says:

    You can read more about it in the Bible.

    Deuteronomy 13:12-15, if you find that the people in the city you’re visiting worship another god, you have to kill them all.

    Leviticus 10:6 says: “Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.”

    Leviticus 20:10 says: “If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.”

    Leviticus 24:16 says: “Whoever utters the name of the Lord must be put
    to death. The whole community must stone him, whether alien or native.
    If he utters the name, he must be put to death.”

    Genesis 19:8: “Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me
    bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do
    nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my

    Leviticus 19:31 reads: “Regard not them that have familiar spirits,
    neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your

    Leviticus 19:27 states: “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.”

    Leviticus 19:28 states: “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh
    for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.”

  172. Early Brown says:

    You don’t really try to think things through, do you?
    If you are a government representative and the only means by which I can access a right, then, no–your religious belief should not be allowed to interfere with my rights.
    But if your beliefs don’t prevent me from exercising my rights, then more power to you.
    (Contrary to popular belief, there is no constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. There IS, however, a constitutionally-guaranteed right to freely exercise your religion.)

    In the Davis case, you’re not far off in your comparison to the Amish clerk at the DMV. If you feel religiously constrained from granting me the privilege of driving, I can always go to the next window and get my license from your co-worker.
    Get it? Your belief does not prevent my right.

    On the other hand, your employer would then have grounds for your termination because you are unable to fulfill the duties you were hired for.

    That’s the case with Davis.
    If she won’t sign your license–or even if she prevents anyone in her office from signing it–you can always go to the next county. That’s inconvenient. You might even argue that it’s unreasonable. But she wouldn’t have the power to prohibit you from being married.

    And then her employer (the county) would have the option of removing her from the job because she can no longer fulfill her duties since the last SCOTUS ruling.
    There are procedures for removing her.

  173. slavdude says:

    I guess that makes nearly every president since Washington lawless, since they have all (with the possible exception of William Henry Harrison, who died after 30 days in office) used executive orders at one time or another. And in fact Obama has issued the fewest executive orders since McKinley in 1897.

    I guess, though, it’s only bad if you’re a black man in power.

  174. greg says:

    this washed up actor that lets men stick their dicks in has butt actually thinks he is intelligent?

  175. Concerned American says:

    George Takei – who is a noted racist, by the way – hardly “owned” her. For starters, freedom of religion is in our Constitution, which says nothing at all about marriage. A court cannot create a right, or even a law – only Congress can create a law. In addition, as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution >>>>>> anything a court ever orders.

    And he’s flat wrong in his claim that she is “establishing religion” since her religion is already established.

  176. Jacobs_43 says:

    Takei is a racist (cf. “clown in black face”). As somebody who has abused his First Amendment rights, I don’t respect his criticisms of how others use theirs.

  177. slavdude says:

    Bible believers will hold to the word of God. Unlike Moslems (or progressives), we won’t kill or threaten you.

    Really? Tell that to Dr. Tiller.

  178. Concerned American says:

    The Constitution says nothing at all about marriage, but it does say something about the right to bear arms – as in, we have it. All of your other examples are privileges, not rights, plus for your second one, not all automobiles use gasoline engines.

    Sorry. Go in peace and exercise your privileges to the fullest if you can meet the conditions for them. Just don’t step on our fundamental rights that are enumerated in the Constitution, while enjoying your right to be ignorant.

  179. slavdude says:

    But could they have gotten a license in Rowan County?


    The other clerks in the office (with one exception) were willing to issue the licenses even if they personally objected to same-sex marriage.

  180. thanat0s2k says:

    Contempt of court is grounds for termination? And how does termination play into this at all as an elected official? Are you in the wrong thread?

  181. Rupert Bauer says:

    He didn’t own anyone. Starting with the fact that it isn’t a law, it’s a court order. Big difference. Also, what she is doing is grounds for termination, not Imprisonment. – If that is the case, then it should also be grounds for imprisonment for the judge that is refusing to do marriages for different sex marriages. (People have forgotten how a scale works). Actually, it should be more so for the judge, because she is in an empowered position. – Truth is, I don’t care what side you are, but quit claiming the high ground on one side of the coin, while doing the same garbage on the other… I think she didn’t do her job, she should be fired. The judge didn’t do her job, she too should be fired.

  182. slavdude says:

    Davis was jailed not for her personal beliefs, to which she is entitled on her own time, but for her refusal to do the job for which she was elected, and for forcing her employees to go along with her beliefs, which violates their freedom of religion.

  183. Early Brown says:

    That is correct. And because Davis was not actually preventing anyone from getting married (that would be outside her power, even if she wanted to), she was not forcing her religion on anyone. She was, at most, asking that others respect her freedom of religion, which is not the same as imposing it on others.

    Any couple whose marriage she refused to sanction could still get a marriage license…just not from HER.
    Like the couple who sued the baker over a wedding cake, the goal was not about the rights of the gay couple. It was about forcing someone to violate their religious belief because it offended the couple.

    Again–answer this simple question: Even if Davis refused to sign their marriage license, could a gay couple have been married in Kentucky last week?
    (The answer is yes.)
    And could they get a marriage license without converting to Davis’ religion?
    (The answer is yes.)
    There was no imposition of religious beliefs. There was one person trying to hold to hers.

  184. nofauxnews says:

    Nope, you comment is stupid 101.

  185. perljammer says:

    Wow. The fundamentalist holier-than-thou folks are abroad today. Hey, folks, how do these strike you?

    — Gun permit? Sorry, I’m Quaker, and my religious beliefs prohibit the use of firearms.
    — Driver’s license? Sorry, I’m Amish, and my religious beliefs prohibit the use of gasoline engines.
    — Concert permit? Sorry, I’m Southern Baptist, and my religious beliefs prohibit listening to that kind of music.
    — Public gathering permit? Sorry, I’m Pastafarian, and my religious beliefs prohibit public gatherings unless everyone dresses in full pirate regalia.
    — Any kind of government-issued license or permit whatsoever? Sorry, I belong to the Church of What’s Happening Now, and my religious beliefs prohibit me from providing any service to someone who obviously isn’t hip enough.

    Sorry, gang. Go in peace and exercise your religious freedoms to the fullest. Just don’t ask the taxpayers to fund you.

  186. nofauxnews says:

    Free exercise means the right to practice your religion, not the freedom to impose it on others.

  187. nofauxnews says:

    YOUR creator might have said that, but you have no right to impose what you think your imaginary friend said on the rest of us.

  188. Inclusion trumps exclusion says:

    I am not a legal scholar, but are you implying that a presidents use of executive order (a completely legal part of our system of government) to a government official not performing their elected duties in direct violation of the law? Are you advocating that we allow people to discriminate against others in the name of religious freedom?

  189. The_Fixer says:

    Well, perhaps you did not do so well in Constitution 101. The Supreme Court made no such new law, it interpreted the Constitution and recognized a right that was already there.

    The 14th amendment protects all people. Even the ones that others think are icky, like LGBT people. That’s specifically what the Bill of Rights is designed to do – make certain everyone who is otherwise a decent citizen is entitled to the same right to live their lives as those in the majority, and marry if they so wish.

    Again, they made no new laws – the struck down unconstitutional laws. That’s quite a different matter.

  190. Collin Stringer says:

    You say “In that way, it wasn’t same-sex couples who were seeking ‘special rights.'” This doesn’t follow from the Supreme Court decision. Since the beginning of time, the natural order is for marriage to be a man with a woman. Our Creator says this. Common sense sees this. A “right” given to one on the basis of how they choose to have unnatural sex is indeed a special one.

  191. The_Fixer says:

    But there’s one problem: Marriage is a civil right, growing/possession/usage of marijuana is not.

    Further, civil rights are not put up to a vote. Civil rights protect not only the majority, they are also specifically crafted to protect the minority. That is why civil rights are not put to a vote. It’s one of the reasons we have the Bill of Rights in the constitution.

    It should also be noted that the Supreme Court recognized a right that has been there all along, it did not make a new law.

    There’s a lot of misunderstanding in your and other’s comments in this thread about how this government is structured.

  192. Quilla says:

    Whew. Did some of these good commenting folks use the wrong fork at the Slauson Cutoff?

  193. Hans Pfall says:

    Guilt-ridden, utopian, white progressives (mostly women) voted for him. Let’s be clear who’s to blame here.

  194. Hans Pfall says:

    …and before anyone says “She can have her views, but…” That is the whole game here. “Oh sure, as long as you stay within the walls of a church and never bring your convictions or morals or views into public, no problem!” Never mind that sodomites are about nothing ELSE but their personal views and opinions which MUST BE ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE ELSE.

    By the way, it’s not going to be long before that evil King James Bible and those people who read and preach it are going to be arrested as well. The narrative will be exactly the same. “Well, the preacher could simply quit, or use an approved book and not say things about gays and it will be fine. But if he insists on calling sodomy a sin, well…”

    Take note: Bible believers will hold to the word of God. Unlike Moslems (or progressives), we won’t kill or threaten you. We will, however, trust in the Lord and His word, even if it means prison or worse.

  195. Early Brown says:

    It’s difficult to take seriously the intelligence or logic of a writer who (seemingly sincerely) supports his argument by asking, “Why stop at religion?”
    Well, maybe because “religion” is (in theory, at least) constitutionally protected?
    Diet, to the best of my notice, is not mentioned in the Constitution.

    And it’s lovely that so many people acknowledge the right to “have” religious beliefs–or even to “promote” them! But somehow they miss the equally important “exercise” clause of the 1st Amendment. We do not just have the right to have a religion. The government is prohibited from passing any law to prevent our “free exercise” of that religion. (“Exercise” means action. It means making daily decisions about your behaviors and your actions based on your religion.)

    In this case, Davis believes that signing a marriage certificate for a same sex couple would amount to her (personally) sanctioning that marriage–which goes against her religion. Therefore, she cannot sign those licenses without violating her faith.
    You don’t get to decide if her religion is “right” or not. I don’t get to decide if it’s right or not. SHE gets to hold whatever religious beliefs she has, and the government is supposed to protect that.

    The problem here is that the couple whose license she has rejected also has a constitutional right–a right to equal treatment under the law. (That is what the Supreme Court recently affirmed.)

    So what we have here should not be viewed as a case of “good guy vs. bad guy.” It is a case of one constitutional right vs another. (If you defend only the rights you like…you damage them all.)

    When rights collide, the court has to decide which one takes precedence, and that usually includes a question of options: Is there an option to Davis signing the licenses? (Yes, I believe the deputies can sign them.) Is there an alternative way for the couple to get a license? (Yes. They could go to the county clerk in the next county over. There is no residency requirement.) So were there ways the court could have addressed this conflict without putting people in jail?
    Yes. There were.
    And that, I believe, was the court’s mistake. By taking the action it did, the court raised this issue and gave Davis a position of moral strength and martyrdom.

    Personally (as in: this is my opinion, nothing more), I think Davis should be removed from her job through the appropriate legal processes (impeachment, recall or re-election cycle). But not as a punishment for failure to think the way the secular left insists she must.
    She should be removed because she is no longer able to perform the duties of her office.

  196. Rancito Barnes says:

    There are federal laws prohibiting the growing, distribution and use of marijuana yet the citizens of Colorado and Washington voted to allow these things while they are illegal elsewhere. Why is Kim Davis targeted and jailed for refusing to obey a federal law and the people of Colorado and Washington are not held to that standard. By that standard, any state be allowed to have a similar referendum on gay marriage. When the federal government chooses to enforce duly passed laws in this arbitrary and unequal fashion, then America is no longer a nation of laws. We are no better than North Korea with a rubber stamp kangaroo court for a SCOTUS. As for George Takei, after his “blackface” comment he has zero credibility except among bigoted elitist like those at Americablog. What, do you just avoid Mirrors?

  197. therealdeal20 says:

    Kim Davis is merely upholding current law. It is up to congress to make law in accordance with what the Supreme Court has ruled upon. The Supreme Court has no power to make law. This is Constitution 101 folks.

  198. Hans Pfall says:

    No no, you misunderstand, Lee. They are being totally consistent. The law only applies when it suits their agenda, otherwise not so much.

  199. William Yancy says:

    This is not about The President Of The United States Of America! Oh by the way,White folk elected him twice !! OMG!!

  200. Hans Pfall says:

    Just come out and say it. “We’re doing this to marginalize and ultimatly el

  201. Mynameis says:

    The Baker was well within his rights to refuse his service. The Baker is not an elected official though.

  202. Glen Thompson says:

    There is a god after all. Martinis at 7:00?

  203. Mr Charrington says:

    Chris is a troll himself hence the word “Owned” was used as such.

  204. buttchop says:

    Certainlly has the mouth for it.

  205. Gene Mierzwa says:

    “Not push her beliefs on anyone”? Like forcing bakers to make wedding cakes?

  206. Lee Barnard says:

    Ok here is your quote “Kim Davis is also a public servant. She is expected to adhere to the laws when operating in a public capacity, even if she disagrees with them on a personal level”

    Where were you when Barrack Obama said “if Congress doesn’t act I will”? Meaning he didn’t give a damn about the law. He felt that he was correct and it needed to be done and by god he was going to do it even if Congress didn’t give him the authority. To legislate by Executive Order is by passing the law because you find it inconvenient. If you are going to criticize be consistent.

  207. Quilla says:

    Chris ~ you should have reported the entire Twitter conversation between George Takei and the troll who had his assets handed to him with a clear and concise explanation of the First Amendment. It was beautiful!

  208. Randy McKee says:

    I see the standard for “owning” someone has dropped considerably. So if I just give my opinion of you then I have,m by your definition, owned you Mr. Walker.

  209. glpage says:

    So, what is okay for Barak Obama is not okay for Kim Davis. I’m not saying either is doing the right thing, but everyone should be held to the same standards.

  210. realityguy says:

    chris walker is gay….. that’s all you need to know

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS