If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future
Sadly the racist haters have transformed the information age to the misinformation age.
So true Stealth. In a time when good information is so readily available, people choose to believe that which confirms their prejudices. In most cases a few minutes of research would show them that the story they are forwarding has been debunked, but they prefer to live in ignorance. I don't get it. I was forwarded some nonsense about how the term "in God we trust" was removed from the dollar coin. People were outraged! They were told to refuse to accept these godless coins! Thirty seconds of research showed that for a short period, the term was moved to the edge of the coins, not removed, and that it was moved back to the face a year later, all this happened ten years before the email was sent to me. But people do not like to have facts get in the way of their righteous indignation, I was the bad guy for saying anything.
Back to the gay marriage issue. What this woman doesn't seem to understand is that in her duties as an elected official, she is not representing herself. A judge may rule in favor of an organization she finds personally repugnant, but her job as a judge is to uphold the law, that's why the symbol for justice is blindfolded, because the law should be impartial. However she feels about Gay marriage, she swore to uphold the law and execute her duties, she doesn't seem to take that vow seriously. I can respect her right to believe what she wants about Gay marriage, I cannot respect her choice to refuse to carry out her job. She has a choice, to resign, she doesn't have a choice to choose what part of the law she chooses to uphold.
Maybe a few days in a jail cell will give her time to reflect on her choices and either perform her duties or resign from her position.
@Lisa Rose - well put.
Ms Davis tried to impose her beliefs on others. This was way out of order, and incompatible with a free society.
And of course those who blamed bush for everything were different......
politics is decisive by its nature and riles peoples passions. I enjoyed the spirited debated but its certainly taxing
The religiots are so stupid - they don't realize that they are campaigning for the right for other people to do this to THEM.
Suppose someone else with some radical beliefs is in the position instead and decides they don't like Christian beliefs. Sorry Christian fundies - you don't get to marry now.
The reason it's important is the precedent - you cannot have government employees deciding who they will and won't "serve".
What if it's an ambulance driver? Or a firemen who doesn't want to put your "sinner" house out?
It's unworkable. Of course the stupid bitch thinks she's in the right because she assumes she will always be the majority. She won't and she isn't. She should be nicer to people on the way down.
She has the right to refuse. She doesn't have the right to refuse AND be paid to do the job. If her conscience won't allow her to do that job then she should find a different one. It's that simple. She has a choice. She just doesn't want to live with her choice.
And that is where government can and should come in with a big stick to make everyone follow the rules equally. Majorities don't need protection - it's the minorities that they pick on and abuse their power with that need protecting from them.
A self fulfilling prophecy:
"We're at the point now where there must be a massive national upheaval. If we cannot have it, I will predict, I will prophesy to you, there will be blood and it will be massive."
Take these people seriously, they want civil war and can cause it.
Some of those gays appeared awfully happy to see a non-believer go to jail - she never stopped any from obtaining a marriage license from a gay-tolerant clerk in another county.
She refuses to endorse ss marriages.The Bible teaches that homosexual (ss) conduct is bad and also teaches to hate what is bad.
It was posted earlier that she ran for public office knowing that laws can change, it was also posted that she agreed to do her job when such changes happened which is part of her job.
But does that mean that everyone that runs for public office or accepts a position of public official should do so knowing that they will be expected to violate their religion? -Maybe someday?
I think that she is not doing her job. I also think that she should do the job that she was elected to do.
But I do not think that she should have to endorse ss marriage licenses if it violates her beliefs.
The catch-all seems to be for the Court to order her to do her job and then remand her for willful disobedience -which in this case should be civil and not criminal. But the lower Court did not jail her when she did not do her job for religious reasons, instead they ordered her to do it and then they detained her for contempt.
When the Bible says to hate what is bad it means to hate doing what is bad. It does not mean to prevent others from doing what you view is bad. Hating what is bad is not the same as personal hate towards others which in action is demeaning and disrespecting others verbally, or physically by using any means to stop the person from enjoying what you do not want them to do or harm such person directly or indirectly, like some religions did to get at JW. In Davis case, homosexuals want to force her to endorse ss licenses instead of going to another county.
Homosexuality is the American way now, it is the law, like it or not. You cannot un-ring the bell and change the ss marriage laws. Even if some other President is elected, I do no think that he can change the ss law, besides, it was posted how many countries have legalized ss marriages, so it is not as if the US is doing something unheard of, practically the whole world is doing it, so it was just a matter of time before it became legal in the US. I do not blame Obama. It was going to happen sooner or later. I think that US Presidents are figure heads. They have some flexibility, but I think that there are other powers dictating policy.
The issue in Davis case is not her motive, she has a good reason that applies to others that may be required to violate their beliefs. It is easy for the Court to tell her to quit, but why should she quit. It is hard to find a job, and then if she is forced to quit, why not everybody else that requires special accommodations so that they can practice their religion at work. It is an inconvenience and burden for those that do not share those beliefs.
Homos do not want to be discriminated against. It is the law and they do not want to hear religious excuses from public officials (and neither does anybody else). Do your job. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, quit. Stop inconveniencing people and stop wasting everybody's time practicing your religion at your job.
It's not hate to disagree, nor will I interrupt my retirement to provide research that is openly obtainable for anyone.
You're just a lazy, judgmental uninformed bigot. It's OK. Keep yelling at kids to go get off your lawn.
Nope, then they wanted the Federal benefits from Social Security- hence, the push for marriage licenses. Some of those gays appeared awfully happy to see a non-believer go to jail - she never stopped any from obtaining a marriage license from a gay-tolerant clerk in another county.
As humans, they have the same rights as you. As a clerk of court, she swore an oath to follow the law. Your comments are irrelevant, uninformed and bigoted.
A judge may rule in favor of an organization she finds personally repugnant, but her job as a judge is to uphold the law, that's why the symbol for justice is blindfolded, because the law should be impartial.
Bunk, judges can do whatever they like. Unlike Davis, they enjoy immunity.
But does that mean that everyone that runs for public office or accepts a position of public official should do so knowing that they will be expected to violate their religion?
Of course not. They can resign if they have an issue.
But I do not think that she should have to endorse ss marriage licenses if it violates her beliefs
She doesn't have to. The person choosing to be the clerk of court has to.
The catch-all seems to be for the Court to order her to do her job and then remand her for willful disobedience -which in this case should be civil and not criminal
The rules are different when someone chooses to be an officer of the court.
but why should she quit
Because she refuses to do the job she agreed and swore to do.