KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[Supertechmom]

I read through the entire Hobby Lobby decision when it came out and one thing I remember is that no one else can define a sincerely held religious belief for someone else.  They used the example of a Jehovah's Witness that had worked in a factory making sheet metal, then the factory switched over to making weapons.  The JW said that it was against his religious beliefs.  They tried to argue that the JW was behaving hypocritically to make metal that went on to be turned into weapons, but claim it violated his religious beliefs to make the weapons himself.  However, the Supreme Court ruled that it didn't matter if one's beliefs were inconsistent or hypocritical.  All that mattered was that they were sincerely held, which as best as I could figure out, was just taken on faith.  I actually don't agree with the Hobby Lobby decision, but I am confused because it seems like the KY clerk being jailed should conflict with the HL ruling.  Why do employers get to not follow the law by not providing health insurance that meets legal qualifications because it violates their religious beliefs, but the clerk doesn't get the same right?  

 

 

The clerk is an elected official in a government office.    That's the difference.  

[LucyStoner]

I read through the entire Hobby Lobby decision when it came out and one thing I remember is that no one else can define a sincerely held religious belief for someone else. They used the example of a Jehovah's Witness that had worked in a factory making sheet metal, then the factory switched over to making weapons. The JW said that it was against his religious beliefs. They tried to argue that the JW was behaving hypocritically to make metal that went on to be turned into weapons, but claim it violated his religious beliefs to make the weapons himself. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it didn't matter if one's beliefs were inconsistent or hypocritical. All that mattered was that they were sincerely held, which as best as I could figure out, was just taken on faith. I actually don't agree with the Hobby Lobby decision, but I am confused because it seems like the KY clerk being jailed should conflict with the HL ruling. Why do employers get to not follow the law by not providing health insurance that meets legal qualifications because it violates their religious beliefs, but the clerk doesn't get the same right?

Well, for starters as a county clerk she is functioning as an agent of the government. The highest court in the land has decided that laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional. When she denies an otherwise eligible couple a marriage license, she is depriving them of the rights that the government says they are equally entitled to recieve. To the couple, the government is denying them their rights because she is blocking the office from complying with the law.

 

Would you like with your application for a driver's license being delayed because the DMV worker thinks women shouldn't drive? Or an interracial couple being told they can't get a license to marry that day because someone who is working there has a religious problem with interracial marriage? I'm guessing not. I think both of those things would outrage you and most people. This is no different.

[idnib]

IBTB

 

(in before the baker)

 

;)

[Catwoman]

Well, for starters as a county clerk she is functioning as an agent of the government. The highest court in the land has decided that laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional. When she denies an otherwise eligible couple a marriage license, she is depriving them of the rights that the government says they are equally entitled to recieve. On their end, the government is denying them their rights because she is blocking the office from complying with the law.

 

Would you be like with your application for a driver's license being delayed because the DMV worker thinks women shouldn't drive? Or an interracial couple being told they can't get a license to marry that day because someone who is working there has a religious problem with interracial marriage? I'm guessing not. I think both of those things would outrage you and most people. This is no different.

:iagree:

 

Exactly.

 

If she refuses to do her job as it is specified, she should either resign her position or be removed from it.

 

She can stick to her personal principles in her personal life and make whatever statements she wants to make, but if her job violates those principles, she shouldn't have that job. She isn't being discriminated against and her rights aren't being violated. The law is the law and if she disagrees with the law, that is her problem; she has no right to violate it just because she thinks she is such a special snowflake that she should be allowed to do whatever she feels like doing.

[December]

I guess I can see how an elected position is different from the CEO of a private company.  Just still seems wrong that it can come down to violating your religion or going to jail.  The judge didn't mention her stepping down as even being an option, right?  It was just "issue marriage licenses or go to jail."

[AvasMom]

Hi AvasMom, I was actually raised in this same religion too.

 

Are you still in? Just curious.

[December]

Are you still in? Just curious.

 

Nope, I am an Orthodox Christian now.

[Rivka]

I guess I can see how an elected position is different from the CEO of a private company.  Just still seems wrong that it can come down to violating your religion or going to jail.  The judge didn't mention her stepping down as even being an option, right?  It was just "issue marriage licenses or go to jail."

 

She could step down at any time. The judge can't remove her from her job, though, because she was elected. So it wasn't one of his options, but it's always been one of hers. She just doesn't choose to do it.

 

[Joules]

I guess I can see how an elected position is different from the CEO of a private company.  Just still seems wrong that it can come down to violating your religion or going to jail.  The judge didn't mention her stepping down as even being an option, right?  It was just "issue marriage licenses or go to jail."

I believe resigning was the first most obvious solution, but she and her lawyers had already made it clear that she refuses to do that. The judge doesn't have the option to remove her from office, but she has the option to quit at any time. The law would be upheld and her personal conscience safe if she just left her job.

[Corraleno]

I guess I can see how an elected position is different from the CEO of a private company.  Just still seems wrong that it can come down to violating your religion or going to jail.  The judge didn't mention her stepping down as even being an option, right?  It was just "issue marriage licenses or go to jail."

 

Yes, she had the option of resigning, and she even had the option of just allowing the other clerks, who were willing to issue the licenses, do their jobs. She refused to appear before the judge when she was called the second time, and she is refusing to allow the other clerks to issue the licenses. It's completely untrue that her only options were violating her conscience or going to jail. She would not even lose her cushy 80K/yr job if she just let the other clerks issue the licenses, but she is purposely choosing "martyrdom" to further her agenda and to convince people that poor innocent Christians are being jailed for their beliefs. She chose jail.

[December]

Except I wonder at this point if it is no longer an option.  Because even if she resigned, she could still be held on contempt, couldn't she?  Since the act of contempt has already been committed.

[Rosie_0801]

I guess I can see how an elected position is different from the CEO of a private company.  Just still seems wrong that it can come down to violating your religion or going to jail.  The judge didn't mention her stepping down as even being an option, right?  It was just "issue marriage licenses or go to jail."

 

Why does the judge need to point out the obvious? She already knew she could have avoided this by resigning. She chose this option.

[December]

I just wonder if the whole thing could have been avoided by letting the other clerks issue licenses without her name on it.  Because that seemed to be her main objection to other clerks issuing the licenses, that her name would still appear on it as if she herself endorsed it.

[Rosie_0801]

Oh yeah. She could have just used white out. She wouldn't even have had to pay for it. Office supplies don't come out of her pocket.

[December]

Oh yeah. She could have just used white out. She wouldn't even have had to pay for it. Office supplies don't come out of her pocket.

 

That would have been hilarious.

[Xuzi]

I honestly never thought of the county clerk as having "endorsed" my marriage, just the legality of the certificate (i.e. it's not a forgery). I couldn't even tell you the first initial of the clerk whose name is on my marriage certificate. I honestly don't know if I've even ever bothered to look.

[Joules]

Except I wonder at this point if it is no longer an option.  Because even if she resigned, she could still be held on contempt, couldn't she?  Since the act of contempt has already been committed.

I'm sure the judge wants this over with.  If she said she changed her mind and wants to resign, he would just drop the contempt charges.  In order to get the press, she has engineered the situation such that the only option the judge has (to keep the gov't functions running) is to send her to jail.  He can't legally remove her from office; as long as she is at the office, no one can issue marriage certificates.  

[LucyStoner]

I guess I can see how an elected position is different from the CEO of a private company. Just still seems wrong that it can come down to violating your religion or going to jail. The judge didn't mention her stepping down as even being an option, right? It was just "issue marriage licenses or go to jail."

Allowing every public servant to choose which laws to follow and which to ignore in the course of their public duties based on their personal religious beliefs would be violating the religious freedom of every citizen. It wouldn't establish just one state religion, it would establish thousands of different flavors of state enforced religions, each enforced in fiefdoms of varying sizes, led by clerks and judges and weird mayors and sheriffs. That.would.be.insane. Not to mention, it would be very, very wrong.

 

Imagine her being told by a judge that he would not be able to grant her divorce because he believes marriage is a lifelong bond and what God has joined together, he can not as a mere man and judge put asunder.

 

Imagine a clerk refusing her a marriage license for her 4th marriage based on her previous sucktastic marriage record and the clerk's religious belief that the new marriage would be, by biblical definition, adultery?

 

If it is ok for her to do what she is doing, it would have been ok for the above to happen to her. This is why we don't have a state religion!

 

She chose jail over doing her job or resigning. She has no one to blame but herself.

[Joules]

I just wonder if the whole thing could have been avoided by letting the other clerks issue licenses without her name on it.  Because that seemed to be her main objection to other clerks issuing the licenses, that her name would still appear on it as if she herself endorsed it.

 

Since the law requires that the marriage license come from the clerk, I imagine they won't be legal if her name isn't on it.  I'm guessing the reason the judge was waiting for the courts, and not finding a work-around, is that he was concerned that any licenses issued under different circumstances would be legally invalid.  

[December]

Allowing every public servant to choose which laws to follow and which to ignore in the course of their public duties based on their personal religious beliefs would be violating the religious freedom of every citizen. It wouldn't establish just one state religion, it would establish thousands of different flavors of state enforced religions, each enforced in fiefdoms of varying sizes. That.would.be.insane. Not to mention, it would be very, very wrong.

 

Imagine her being told by a judge that he would not be able to grant her divorce because he believes marriage is a lifelong bond and what God has joined together, he can not as a mere man and judge put asunder.

 

Imagine a clerk refusing her a marriage license for her 4th marriage based on her previous sucktastic marriage record?

 

If it is ok for her to do what she is doing, it would have been ok for the above to happen to her. This is why we don't have a state religion!

 

She chose jail over doing her job or resigning. She has no one to blame but herself.

 

I just don't find those examples persuasive because those are all things you'd know was the law before you decided to pursue your chosen career. That's the sticking point for me.  And I hate the "just find another job" argument.  I hated it when they used it against women who worked for Hobby Lobby, so I can't agree with it now that's it being used against someone I disagree with.  

[Haiku]

Just still seems wrong that it can come down to violating your religion or going to jail.

It only came down to that because she forced it to.

[LucyStoner]

I just don't find those examples persuasive because those are all things you'd know was the law before you decided to pursue your chosen career. That's the sticking point for me. And I hate the "just find another job" argument. I hated it when they used it against women who worked for Hobby Lobby, so I can't agree with it now that's it being used against someone I disagree with.

Um, no. If her religious freedom is being trampled, the same would apply to any other clerk or judge who wanted to limit access to divorce or remarriage. Plenty of clerks with a religious objection to interracial marriages did exactly what she is trying. It was a stunt based in bigotry that failed then and it is a stunt based in bigotry that will fail now. The job changing due to the law isn't any different than her beliefs changing after the seat as clerk is taken.

 

Divorce has not always been legal in this country in many instances. Interracial mariage was illegal in many states for many years. Any one knows the laws of a nation as large as ours can and do change, every month and year. Do not take a job where you need to follow the law if you are not willing to see it change at all. This isn't, strictly speaking, just a job either. She recieves a handsome salary as an elected public official. No one is owed their job, least of not people who answer directly to the electorate.

[justasque]

It really bothers me that she's been jailed.  One of the main reasons I supported gay marriage being legal is that I figured, what does it hurt anyone?  How does it affect anyone else if gay people can get married?  I never imagined that one of the consequences would be people being forced to choose between quitting their job,  violating their religious beliefs, or going to JAIL!! It would be different if she chose this line of work after gay marriage became legal.  I don't know what the answer is though.  :sad:

 

There is always a tricky line when one person's religious freedoms bang up against another's right of some kind.  In this case, it's Mrs. Davis's religious rights vs. the rights of the couples (gay and straight) in her county who want to marry, but who are being refused this right.  Ideally, this kind of thing is handled with grace and respect on both sides.  For example, Mrs. Davis could have explained to the six people on her staff that she felt that issuings marriage licenses violated her conscience, and asked if there was any one on the staff who would step in and handle marriage licenses.  Since it turns out that there are indeed five people willing to take on the marriage license task, it would have been easy for her to designate several of them as "marriage license specialists" and had them manage the job between them.  Instead, Mrs. Davis chose to not issue any licenses and not allow her staff to do so either.  Realistically, I don't know what she expects as a realistic resolution that would respect both her rights and those of the couples in her county who wish to marry.

 

Fire her.  That would be the fair precendent to set -- that you cannot use religious beliefs as an excuse not to do your proscribed job duties.  Jail just fuels the drama of "persecution." 

 

ETA:  I think it is ridiculous that people like sheriffs and county clerks are elected.  They are jobs that require skill and experience, and should be entirely non-political. 

 

I think there are pros and cons to either set-up.  If the clerks and sheriffs are elected, then, at least in theory, it gives the community the power to remove someone who is not meeting the needs of the community. (At least, not meeting the needs of the majority; those holding minority views may have problems in this set-up, though that may also be true with these positions being civil service jobs.)

 

 

Except I wonder at this point if it is no longer an option.  Because even if she resigned, she could still be held on contempt, couldn't she?  Since the act of contempt has already been committed.

 

Usually if you are being held in contempt, you are released when you comply with the judge's orders.  In this case, if she is still not allowing clerks to issue licenses, she is still in contempt.  I am not at all sure how she hopes this will play out.  What, for her, is the best-case scenario she is hoping for?

[Pawz4me]

I just don't find those examples persuasive because those are all things you'd know was the law before you decided to pursue your chosen career. That's the sticking point for me.  And I hate the "just find another job" argument.  I hated it when they used it against women who worked for Hobby Lobby, so I can't agree with it now that's it being used against someone I disagree with.  

 

She was just re-elected in November.  She would or should have known this was very likely coming.  Certainly anyone with a modicum of intelligence who bothered to keep up with the news would have known the possibility existed and was in fact likely.  The prudent thing for her to have done would have been to search her conscious before she decided to run for re-election.  Not now.

[justasque]

She was just re-elected last November.  She would or should have known this was very likely coming.  Certainly anyone with a modicum of intelligence who bothered to keep up with the news would have known the possibility existed and was in fact highly likely.  The prudent thing for her to have done would have been to search her conscious before she decided to run for re-election.  Not now.

 

I believe I read that this is actually her first term, which started in January.  For decades prior, her mother held the position.  I think she may have been deputy clerk under her mother, but I'm not sure about that.

[Joules]

She was just re-elected in November.  She would or should have known this was very likely coming.  Certainly anyone with a modicum of intelligence who bothered to keep up with the news would have known the possibility existed and was in fact likely.  The prudent thing for her to have done would have been to search her conscious before she decided to run for re-election.  Not now.

 

It does at least seem like something she should have thought about before she took the oath of office:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oath-court-clerk-now-jailed-gay-marriage-33516278

 

 

"I, —————, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of ————— County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."

[zoobie]

I just don't find those examples persuasive because those are all things you'd know was the law before you decided to pursue your chosen career. That's the sticking point for me. And I hate the "just find another job" argument. I hated it when they used it against women who worked for Hobby Lobby, so I can't agree with it now that's it being used against someone I disagree with.

So the clerks who claimed interracial marriages violated their religious beliefs were correct to hold out after Loving v Virginia came down? If you are a government official, you carry out the government's laws. You cannot use your personal religion to withhold a government service from a citizen.

[Rivka]

Allowing every public servant to choose which laws to follow and which to ignore in the course of their public duties based on their personal religious beliefs would be violating the religious freedom of every citizen. It wouldn't establish just one state religion, it would establish thousands of different flavors of state enforced religions, each enforced in fiefdoms of varying sizes, led by clerks and judges and weird mayors and sheriffs. That.would.be.insane. Not to mention, it would be very, very wrong.

 

 

Yes. One of the fundamental concepts of government is the difference between individual actors and state actors. When people are acting as agents of the state, they are understood not to be exercising their own personal wills. We don't expect every soldier to have personal animus towards the enemy. We understand that police can't fail to arrest someone committing a crime because they like the guy. We allow homeschoolers to serve on school boards and teetotallers to serve on liquor control commissions.

[LucyStoner]

I believe I read that this is actually her first term, which started in January. For decades prior, her mother held the position. I think she may have been deputy clerk under her mother, but I'm not sure about that.

Yes, she was a deputy clerk for 20 odd years and was elected last November when her mother retired.

 

In 2012, the compensation policies of the office were reviewed and her mother's office budget cut by 1/4 because she was found to be paying Kim Davis considerably more than the other deputies.

 

Why Kentucky allows nepotism in the hiring of clerks and setting of the salaries of their own family members, I have no idea.

[Pam in CT]

Yes, she was a deputy clerk for 20 odd years and was elected last November when her mother retired.

 

In 2012, the compensation policies of the office were reviewed and her mother's office budget cut by 1/4 because she was found to be paying Kim Davis considerably more than the other deputies.

 

Why Kentucky allows nepotism in the hiring of clerks and setting of the salaries of their own family members, I have no idea.

 

Dang.  Rilly??!  This truly is the story that keeps on giving, isn't it?    

[kiana]

What this story is convincing me is that I shoulda been a clerk. 

[LucyStoner]

Dang. Rilly??! This truly is the story that keeps on giving, isn't it?

Really, though I misremembered some details. It was a 1/3 reduction made in 2012 in response to complaints made in 2011. Apparently she was paid $51K PLUS an additional 11k in overtime when other department deputies, like the deputy sheriff were making under $40K a year with no overtime. Call me nuts but I think a deputy sheriff probably has a harder job than a deputy court clerk.

[Audrey]

If she's recently in this job, then did she run for it knowing she was going to have a chance to make this "moral stand" of hers?  Is it possible this was her plan all along?  If so, she's a bigger ass than I'd thought.

[sunflowerlady]

She is worried about what God thinks. What does she imagine He thinks about someone collecting a handsome salary from citizens and yet refusing to perform the job duties.  :confused1:

[mathnerd]

Imagine her being told by a judge that he would not be able to grant her divorce because he believes marriage is a lifelong bond and what God has joined together, he can not as a mere man and judge put asunder.

 

Imagine a clerk refusing her a marriage license for her 4th marriage based on her previous sucktastic marriage record and the clerk's religious belief that the new marriage would be, by biblical definition, adultery?

 

 

  :laugh: Yeah, that would not have gone down well with the county clerk who is on her 4th marriage, is very Godly and wants to stop other people from getting married in the name of God.

[December]

So the clerks who claimed interracial marriages violated their religious beliefs were correct to hold out after Loving v Virginia came down? If you are a government official, you carry out the government's laws. You cannot use your personal religion to withhold a government service from a citizen.

 

I think I would have felt a little uneasy about jailing clerks who objected to interracial marriage based on religious beliefs too.  Did that actually happen?

 

It's unfortunate that it has to be an elected position.  "Violate your religious beliefs or you're fired" is so much more palatable than "Violate your religious beliefs or go to jail."  Not to mention the former is not worth nearly as many martyr points.

[Joanne]

I read through the entire Hobby Lobby decision when it came out and one thing I remember is that no one else can define a sincerely held religious belief for someone else. They used the example of a Jehovah's Witness that had worked in a factory making sheet metal, then the factory switched over to making weapons. The JW said that it was against his religious beliefs. They tried to argue that the JW was behaving hypocritically to make metal that went on to be turned into weapons, but claim it violated his religious beliefs to make the weapons himself. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it didn't matter if one's beliefs were inconsistent or hypocritical. All that mattered was that they were sincerely held, which as best as I could figure out, was just taken on faith. I actually don't agree with the Hobby Lobby decision, but I am confused because it seems like the KY clerk being jailed should conflict with the HL ruling. Why do employers get to not follow the law by not providing health insurance that meets legal qualifications because it violates their religious beliefs, but the clerk doesn't get the same right?

She is an elected official serving in a government capacity. 1) not cparable to corporate enterprise and 2) government employees can't superimpose their religion on their job and 3) she is breaking the law.

[albeto.]

I think I would have felt a little uneasy about jailing clerks who objected to interracial marriage based on religious beliefs too.  Did that actually happen?

 

It's unfortunate that it has to be an elected position.  "Violate your religious beliefs or you're fired" is so much more palatable than "Violate your religious beliefs or go to jail."  Not to mention the former is not worth nearly as many martyr points.

 

You keep saying "violate your religious beliefs or..." like it's a threat, when in fact the issue is "don't violate their civil rights or..."

[LucyStoner]

When asked on whose authority she was acting, she said she was acting on God's authority.

 

No, in the course of her public duties she is a representative of the state of Kentucky, which must adhere to the federal laws and the rulings of the Supreme Court. Not God. If she can't see why it's not appropriate to act on behalf of (her interpretation of) God in a civil courthouse, she's not fit to work there.

[zoobie]

I think I would have felt a little uneasy about jailing clerks who objected to interracial marriage based on religious beliefs too. Did that actually happen?

 

It's unfortunate that it has to be an elected position. "Violate your religious beliefs or you're fired" is so much more palatable than "Violate your religious beliefs or go to jail." Not to mention the former is not worth nearly as many martyr points.

Yes, it actually happened.

 

The original judge in Loving v Virginia cited biblical reasoning for his decision. https://www.aclu.org/loving-v-virginia-case-over-interracial-marriage

 

One of the more recent court cases on this issue is Bob Jones University v United States: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

N.B. BJU did not end its interracial relationship ban until 2000.

 

People (and the government!) used religious arguments to support slavery and segregation and all kinds of heinous things.

[goldberry]

Except I wonder at this point if it is no longer an option.  Because even if she resigned, she could still be held on contempt, couldn't she?  Since the act of contempt has already been committed.

 

From the Courier Journal:  (Bunning is the judge, Gannam is her attorney.)

 

Later, when the deputies agreed to comply, Bunning said that could purge the contempt charge against Davis, and he offered to allow her back in the courtroom to discuss the matter. Davis apparently declined.

 

Gannam spoke with her briefly and said she refused to grant her staff any authority to provide the forms in her absence, so Bunning again ordered her to jail.

 

[poppy]

 

I think there are pros and cons to either set-up.  If the clerks and sheriffs are elected, then, at least in theory, it gives the community the power to remove someone who is not meeting the needs of the community. (At least, not meeting the needs of the majority; those holding minority views may have problems in this set-up, though that may also be true with these positions being civil service jobs.)

 

Plus the idea is that you don't want the town's leadership appointing their buddies to these cushy, high paying, but functionally crucial jobs.  If you are elected, you also have more incentive to serve the people well ---- meaning have lots of office hours, be friendly. Obviously here it didn't make a difference here.  But there are pros and cons no matter what.

 

 

 

Why Kentucky allows nepotism in the hiring of clerks and setting of the salaries of their own family members, I have no idea.

 

In Boston it's the probation department that was incompetent and riddled with nepotism and handouts- hugely infuriating.   It's one of the very few things that the right wing and left wing papers agree on.  That and support for the handsome man named Tom Brady.

[goldberry]

My father-in-law is a Jehovah's Witness who actually did quit his job when the company turned to making weaponry for the military.  He first asked to be transfered to another department.  When that was refused, he quit.  He actually might have had some grounds to make more of a fuss because there was another area he could have been transferred to.  But, he chose to just exit instead.  Not that it should matter, but this was a well-paying job also.

 

She has the same option. 

[MomatHWTK]

We live in a nation of laws, not comfort levels. 

[BrookValley.]

I think I would have felt a little uneasy about jailing clerks who objected to interracial marriage based on religious beliefs too. Did that actually happen?

 

It's unfortunate that it has to be an elected position. "Violate your religious beliefs or you're fired" is so much more palatable than "Violate your religious beliefs or go to jail." Not to mention the former is not worth nearly as many martyr points.

It's not "violate your religious beliefs or go to jail." It's "be found in contempt of court and go to jail."

[LucyStoner]

Plus the idea is that you don't want the town's leadership appointing their buddies to these cushy, high paying, but functionally crucial jobs. If you are elected, you also have more incentive to serve the people well ---- meaning have lots of office hours, be friendly. Obviously here it didn't make a difference here. But there are pros and cons no matter what.

 

 

In Boston it's the probation department that was incompetent and riddled with nepotism and handouts- hugely infuriating. It's one of the very few things that the right wing and left wing papers agree on. That and support for the handsome man named Tom Brady.

There's an option besides buddy appointments and electing court clerks. Certain civil service type jobs in many areas are recommended by a commission of experts in the field and confirmed by either the legislature or the municipal or county council. Incoming mayors and county executives can hire their own office staff but not willy nilly replace the head of the elections office or head of the housing office or the public utilities director.

 

There are, of course, pros and cons to any selection scheme.

[Mergath]

I think I would have felt a little uneasy about jailing clerks who objected to interracial marriage based on religious beliefs too. Did that actually happen?

 

It's unfortunate that it has to be an elected position. "Violate your religious beliefs or you're fired" is so much more palatable than "Violate your religious beliefs or go to jail." Not to mention the former is not worth nearly as many martyr points.

Wow. You really think it's okay for clerks to refuse to provide marriage licenses to interracial couples? If I was a county clerk and I refused to give marriage licenses to any Christians in the county, would you be perfectly fine with that, too? Or, and I'd bet this is more likely, would you be screaming about persecution and discrimination?

[Joanne]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/03/sorry-kim-davis-gofundmes-new-policy-prevents-conservatives-from-raising-money-for-you/

[Guest]

NM

[poppy]

The one I saw said, would it be religious freedom if there was a town where no gun permits would be issued because of a town employee's Quaker pacifism?  Or anything based on Sharia law?

 

Also, Kim Davis can't have a GoFundMe account.  The site forbids "Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts."