If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future
.........But that does not mean that I endorse gay conduct, but I love my friends.
One more thing as an afterthought:
In my time having come across right wingers on many occasions and even being the friend of one who was a militia commander in Wyoming I found,the scariest of them all to be the ones who consider themselves "constitutional libertarians". They harbor a deep disdain for modern government, regardless of party. They are constitutional experts in the context they can quote any and all,of it, but hold a poor interpretation of it due to their unreasonable ideology. They take serious offense to anything that they deem as corrupting the constitution and they are all into conspiracy theories. The Religious nutsa threat? yes. These guys ... Watch out. These are the real bombers (McVeigh was one of them).
If this is part of her duties then she should have to preform them. If it bothers her conscience than she should step down and let someone else do it.
I do not think she will resign. She earns good salary for KY, and if she does, her career is over as a county official. While she has a good chance to be reelected by her supporter, the chance are slim as the county is heavily democratic (she is D), and it has Morehead State University with extremely young population. This demographic group predominantly gay-friendly.
I will see her going back to jail for another contempt of court. There is also possibility that KY AG would investigate her conduct, but also she may be sued by forcing her subordinates to disobey federal judge. She got her 15 min fame up. She could resign or she could continue to perform duties as required by elected official. Nobody is taking her religious beliefs, and she is not required to conduct any SSM ceremony.
Once the backlash from her stance turns against her church, I would not be surprised, if they show her a door. Lastly, no major church wants to be associated with bigotry and homophobia as represented by Mrs. Davis.
It has been published that other KY clerks from other counties had also refused to endorse SS licenses concurrently with Kim Davis without being charged with any violation of law. And continue to do so( as far as I know) because no lawsuits have been filed against those clerks. In other words, legal proceedings were started against KD by the ss-- not by the State, and, had those lawsuits not been filed, KD would not have gone to jail.
In other words, KD was doing nothing wrong until she violated the Court Order mandating her to issue ss licenses. It was not wrong for her not to issue licenses based on her reasons. That is not why she went to jail. But it was wrong for her to violate the Court Order. And that is why she went to jail, because she violated the Court Order.
The Court was satisfied THAT HER CLERKS are issuing ss licenses. If it was wrong FOR HER not to issue ss licenses, It would still be wrong even if the clerks are issuing ss licenses. EVIDENTLY, it does not violate the law for her not to issue ss licenses because she was released from jail refusing to issue them. Again, if she violated the law to begin with by personally refusing to issue ss licenses based on religious reasons, the Court would have personally ordered to do so.
Just because I say or anyone else on this thread says it that KD has done something wrong by refusing to issue ss licenses does not determined that not issuing ss licenses for her reasons violates the law, or her oath of office. WE do not have the authority to make that determination-But should that stop us from believing it? As far as I know, the Courts have not decided that KD has violated the law by not issuing ss licenses for religious reasons.
The reason KD went to jail is for not complying with a Court Order ordering her to issue ss licenses BUT NOT BECAUSE NOT ISSUING SS LICENSES FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS VIOLATES THE LAW.
Here's what I would like just ONE of the reporters to do:
Ask more than the same questions over and over and play the same soundbites.
For instance, "So Kim Davis, can you should me exactly WHERE your religion forbids you to issue marriage licenses or otherwise serve any SS couple? I understand you think it's not for you, but you know no one is going to force you to attend a gay orgy ... right? You obviously don't care about the hundreds of other things in the bible that you're profess to follow so what is the rule you claim to be following?"
Seriously, I want to see some religious edict from a church saying that is their belief. If they won't put it in print then it's not an excuse for anything. If they do then they lose any tax free status they enjoy.
I suspect there will be no problems after that.
This applies equally to the Muslim "sorry, I can't serve drinks even though it's my job, can't other people do all the work for me and I still get paid" flight attendant. Show us the official rules of your religion or shut up.
Show us the official rules of your religion or shut up.
They'll simply state that it's in their Bible and it is. It would be best for us to show her the rules in the Bible that she wishes to ignore. Quote a bible verse that they definitely won't abide by like the one in Deuteronomy which states:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version
Once quoted she should be asked if she would give out a marriage license in such a case. When she says no ask her what gives her the authority to pick and choose which Bible verses she wants to abide with and which ones she doesn't. Accuse her of hypocrisy for not following the whole Bible.
For instance, "So Kim Davis, can you should me exactly WHERE your religion forbids you to issue marriage licenses or otherwise serve any SS couple?
And ask the Muslim where does it say it in the Koran and then have the reporter tell her that that she is wrong. She would tell the reporter: "God Bless America because we can both have different interpretations, BUT HEY,DON"T TELL ME HOW TO PRACTICE MY RELIGION, now go to hell. The Courts have no authority to interpret the Bible or dictate to people how to practice their religion either. And whether the fiat comes from Rome or not, (in JW case regarding serving on Jury duty or joining the army, there is no edict) people still have the right to be conscientious objectors. What I find interesting about this case is that it involved an elected official not an employee.
What matters is when the Courts decide that it is the law that the employee MUST serve the alcohol regardless of what they believe., they have not, or, in KD case, that it is the duty of an elected official to issue ss in-spite of her beliefs. That is what my eyes are peeled for. I have not seen that is the law. A lot of people have a lot of different opinions about that, but they are only views.
There are other pending legal actions filed against her, discrimination if I am not mistaken, among other lawsuits. IT is very interesting that the State DOES want to file OM charges against her. They wanted to appoint a special prosecutor, they referred the charge to the Attorney General, who says that he cannot charge her because the case is being handled by Federal Court ... All that stuff is still pending. We have to wait and see. But even if they prosecuted her, that is not enough, she would still have to be found guilty of OM.
I do not know how much National publicity this case is getting but there is an election for US President brewing. and the publicity for this case will have an effect on votes, so does how this case is handled and also its outcome or disposition.
Well, the religitard candidates are certainly pimping her out for their own use. So you know, no different than usual.