No matter what side of the fence you're on in this issue you have to respect her standing her ground based on her beliefs. She no doubt will do some jail time, but it certainly won't be the first, and no doubt the last one did jail time for refusing to give in based on their beliefs.

 

No. I respect those that hold her beliefs and stepped away from the job. Not her.

The clerk is not discriminating against gay people.

 

Nice try!

 

“It wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment decision,” Davis said. “It was thought out, and I sought God on it.” - Kim Davis.

 

On the stand Monday, Davis described herself as an Apostolic Christian who believes marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman under the Bible — “God’s holy word” — and said she contemplated her policy for months.

 

She choked back tears at times as she argued that issuing licenses under her name would violate her religious beliefs even if a deputy clerk performs the task in her stead.

 

“If I say they are authorized, I’m saying, ‘I agree with it.’ And I can’t,” Davis said.

 

And why is she now saying that she will ask the SCOTUS to take it up on her religious freedom?

 

And lets review:

 

The clerk is not discriminating against gay people.

It does not matter what HAS BEEN accepted. The law TODAY matters. She doesn't get to pick and choose.

 

Yes, she has 1000% freedom of religion. That means she gets to go to church where she wants and express her views as a citizen. It does NOT mean she gets to serve the public as clerk and IMPOSE her religious views.

 

This is such a non-debate that I'm shocked it's still being debated. She is IN VIOLATION of the law. She's not the Queen. Abide by CURRENT law or get the hell out of the office.

 

Do you feel that way about Dred Scott? Should everyone have gone along with that law because it was the law of the land? It is hard to be consistent, isn't it? Especially when dealing with fallible humans making the laws.

 

The clerk is not discriminating against gay people.

 

Of course she is. She's not issuing licenses to that class of people; she is to others.

 

Blatant discrimination.

Nice try!

 

“It wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment decision,” Davis said. “It was thought out, and I sought God on it.” - Kim Davis.

 

On the stand Monday, Davis described herself as an Apostolic Christian who believes marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman under the Bible — “God’s holy word” — and said she contemplated her policy for months.

 

She choked back tears at times as she argued that issuing licenses under her name would violate her religious beliefs even if a deputy clerk performs the task in her stead.

 

“If I say they are authorized, I’m saying, ‘I agree with it.’ And I can’t,” Davis said.

 

And why is she now saying that she will ask the SCOTUS to take it up on her religious freedom?

 

And lets review:

 

and your point?

Do you feel that way about Dred Scott? Should everyone have gone along with that law because it was the law of the land? It is hard to be consistent, isn't it? Especially when dealing with fallible humans making the laws.

 

I wasn't around the time so I can only speculate.

 

Had I been an elected official whose job was to enforce CURRENT law then I would hope I would have either done my job properly or stepped down because of my PERSONAL issues.

Had I been an elected official whose job was to enforce CURRENT law then I would hope I would have either done my job properly or stepped down because of my PERSONAL issues.

 

Do you think this should apply to elected officials who have created sanctuary cities?

and your point?

 

Not only mine, but the point of many of us, I quoted you saying "The clerk is not discriminating against gay people", The point is, SHE IS! So why keep up the charade that she is not discriminating?

Do you think this should apply to elected officials who have created sanctuary cities?

 

I am completely ignorant on the issue of "sanctuary cities." Just haven't looked into it.

 

My general feeling is that the law is the law. If it's your job to enforce law you enforce law.

Of course she is. She's not issuing licenses to that class of people; she is to others.

 

Blatant discrimination.

 

She treats everyone equally. Has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Has everything to do with what constitutes a valid marriage. If they were two homosexuals but of opposite sexes, I'll bet she would issue them a marriage license. She wouldn't even ask them their sexual orientation. It is a non-issue.

She treats everyone equally. Has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Has everything to do with what constitutes a valid marriage. If they were two homosexuals but of opposite sexes, I'll bet she would issue them a marriage license. She wouldn't even ask them their sexual orientation. It is a non-issue.

 

We simply agree to disagree on this one.:lol:

I am completely ignorant on the issue of "sanctuary cities." Just haven't looked into it.

 

My general feeling is that the law is the law. If it's your job to enforce law you enforce law.

 

Cities that choose to ignore federal immigration laws. The officials in those cities, like San Francisco, are doing exactly the same thing this woman is doing.

 

As to this case, I do share the same beliefs as this woman. And while she has every right to stand up for what she believes in, she also must face the consequences of breaking the law.

And while she has every right to stand up for what she believes in, she also must face the consequences of breaking the law.

 

That's all a majority of folks who share different beliefs as Kim Davis are saying.

Cities that choose to ignore federal immigration laws. The officials in those cities, like San Francisco, are doing exactly the same thing this woman is doing.

 

As to this case, I do share the same beliefs as this woman. And while she has every right to stand up for what she believes in, she also must face the consequences of breaking the law.

 

In my cursory googling of "sanctuary cities" I see generally what you described.

 

I'm not sure how a city can make an official policy that goes against Federal law. Seems to be more of a situation of "I'll turn my head this way so I don't see something I shouldn't see."

 

If there's a way to show that someone intentionally violated a law, like this lady in Rowan County, then it's no different. They have to pay the price.

 

I'm stunned this lady still has a job.

She treats everyone equally. Has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Has everything to do with what constitutes a valid marriage.

 

 

Didn't the SCOTUS define a marriage?