Decision Day. What will she do?

[True blue (and gold)]

It seems there is a lot of bigotry and hatred in this thread with peoples comment and with some folks making fun of someone who doesn't believe like them.

 

The double standard is disgusting.

 

I see her no different fighting for her right to not have to sign something she doesn't believe in. She is not trying to stop those two men from marrying each other. She is only fighting for her right to not have to sign something she cannot believe in. There is NO DIFFERENCE between her fighting for her right, the same as the two men are fighting for their right. YET many choose to spit venom to her and it is a DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

I will stand in the quiet majority on this. If anyone is proud of two men fighting to get married, standing up for their so called right, not being deterred and bullied, then we can be just the same, proud of her for standing up for what she believes in. She made it clear...she cannot put her name on a marriage certificate with two of the same sex. She has a right to religious liberty, and those rights do not go away just because she is an elected official. Those two fellows can still get hitched if they want to, she is not stopping them. She is just standing for her religious liberty....so good for her. Now let's stop being prejudice, middle schoolers and stop making fun of her.

 

What if I started making fun of Bill and Bob getting married? Many of you would call me some choice names. To me, the shoe is on the other foot, and it is something what comes out of those who have been preaching acceptance and the such so much.

 

Absolutely no one is forcing her to issue marriage licenses. If she feels that she can't do her job based on her own beliefs and principles, she can resign from it and find a new job.

 

I would have completely respected her, had that been what she did.

[SportsGuy41017]

I'm not proud of her one bit. She is embarrassment! Nor am I saying she is sticking up for her beliefs as no one is forcing her to do anything, no one has a gun to her head making her sign anything. But she is a public servant and her beliefs do not trump other people's rights. At the beginning she could have made her point and beliefs known, but then steep down.

 

As Clyde stated, what she said this morning is very scary! Just think if she was a Muslim and said the same exact thing, not would their be people throwing fits in Kentucky, but all over the country. You would have 1,000's of people in Rowan screaming at the top of their lungs about Sharia Law.

 

She just needs to be thrown in jail for at least the same amount of days she has been refusing to do her job since the SCOTUS ruling. Oh wait, they never did their job in her office in the first place, how did a transsexual get a signature? They did not check ID's. That is part of their job.

[rockmom]

The more I've learned of this situation, the less black and white the issue is for me.

 

On the one hand, I can't help but admire her convictions.

 

However, the above gets muddy for me when I think about the fact that she's on her 4th marriage.

 

But maybe she found her faith the 4th time.

 

Or maybe she's conveniently found her faith when it suits her.

 

I imagine it is tough to be a person of such strong religious conviction in any government job that requires duties based upon laws that are not.

 

I have so many more...but those are the "top of mind" ones for me.

[All Tell]

I'm not proud of her one bit. She is embarrassment! Nor am I saying she is sticking up for her beliefs as no one is forcing her to do anything, no one has a gun to her head making her sign anything. But she is a public servant and her beliefs do not trump other people's rights. At the beginning she could have made her point and beliefs known, but then steep down.

 

As Clyde stated, what she said this morning is very scary! Just think if she was a Muslim and said the same exact thing, not would their be people throwing fits in Kentucky, but all over the country. You would have 1,000's of people in Rowan screaming at the top of their lungs about Sharia Law.

 

She just needs to be thrown in jail for at least the same amount of days she has been refusing to do her job since the SCOTUS ruling. Oh wait, they never did their job in her office in the first place, how did a transsexual get a signature? They did not check ID's. That is part of their job.

 

Jack Conway refused to appeal the federal court ruling based on his personal belief that the constitutional amendment that was passed regarding marriage was unconstitutional. I'm sure you feel that he should have resigned as AG when he refused to do his job based on his personal beliefs.

[Jim Schue]

Jack Conway refused to appeal the federal court ruling based on his personal belief that the constitutional amendment that was passed regarding marriage was unconstitutional. I'm sure you feel that he should have resigned as AG when he refused to do his job based on his personal beliefs.

 

Wouldn't him electing not to pursue it on those grounds — that he found it unconstitutional — actually be him doing his job and keeping the state out of what he thought in his professional opinion was a losing battle?

 

Did he cite his religious faith as a reason for not pursuing it?

[TripleSevens]

Ok. So now we are going to discriminate in the work place, push her out for her religious beliefs, and tell her to get a new job. Interesting.

 

Please note. One does not lose constitutional rights once they become an elected official. She still has her rights. Those rights cannot be taken away or discriminated against because you don't like how she thinks, or what she wears or what she looks like, or how she worships. Again, elected officials still have the same rights as unelected officials. It is not her fault the SCOTUS made a ruling that contradicts other constitutional rights.

[thehotsnakes]

Ok. So now we are going to discriminate in the work place, push her out for her religious beliefs, and tell her to get a new job. Interesting.

 

Please note. One does not lose constitutional rights once they become an elected official. She still has her rights. Those rights cannot be taken away or discriminated against because you don't like how she thinks, or what she wears or what she looks like, or how she worships. Again, elected officials still have the same rights as unelected officials. It is not her fault the SCOTUS made a ruling that contradicts other constitutional rights.

 

I don't think this is exactly a correct interpretation, just an FYI.

[Jim Schue]

Ok. So now we are going to discriminate in the work place, push her out for her religious beliefs, and tell her to get a new job. Interesting.

 

Please note. One does not lose constitutional rights once they become an elected official. She still has her rights. Those rights cannot be taken away or discriminated against because you don't like how she thinks, or what she wears or what she looks like, or how she worships. Again, elected officials still have the same rights as unelected officials. It is not her fault the SCOTUS made a ruling that contradicts other constitutional rights.

 

But in this case, the good of the many — the taxpayers of Rowan Co. — supersedes the good of the few. She took an oath to serve the people of Rowan Co. and she's not doing that. Now, she's going to cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps millions in legal fees that will saddle the Rowan Co. budget for years.

 

She is using the power of her office to make a personal religious stand that is not in the best interests of the people she was elected to represent. If she wants to make that stand she should resign her office and use her newfound fame to spread her message around via mass media through talk shows and other appearances. She instead chose to drag her unwitting Rowan neighbors into a nasty, expensive slog in the legal mud.

[SportsGuy41017]

Ok. So now we are going to discriminate in the work place, push her out for her religious beliefs, and tell her to get a new job. Interesting.

 

Please note. One does not lose constitutional rights once they become an elected official. She still has her rights. Those rights cannot be taken away or discriminated against because you don't like how she thinks, or what she wears or what she looks like, or how she worships. Again, elected officials still have the same rights as unelected officials. It is not her fault the SCOTUS made a ruling that contradicts other constitutional rights.

 

She is forcing her beliefs onto others and interfering with their rights. No one is forcing her to give up her faith, or even her beliefs, it's she cannot force her beliefs and deny others their rights, with her being a public official.

 

Again, put a Muslim in her exact same position talking about their beliefs on religion grounds and I am willing to bet you would need either a whole slew of KY Troopers or KY National Guard to protect that person and anything in Rowan. People will come out screaming bloody murder and screams against Sharia Law would be heard every second.

 

So be VERY careful what you ask for concerning freedom of religion and an official bringing in their faith and beliefs to deny others of their rights.

[Clyde]

I just watched on the news where Kim Davis and the gay couple wishing to be issued a marriage licenses had an exchange of words today' date=' and at the risk of sounding stereotypical, am I the only one who finds a homosexual male having a hissy fit a bit disturbing as it is humorous?[/quote']

 

I admit that I laughed.

[HammerTime]

It's my religious belief that I don't have to show up to work and still get paid. Does that count?

[Jesse James]

The more I've learned of this situation, the less black and white the issue is for me.

 

On the one hand, I can't help but admire her convictions.

 

However, the above gets muddy for me when I think about the fact that she's on her 4th marriage.

 

But maybe she found her faith the 4th time.

 

Or maybe she's conveniently found her faith when it suits her.

 

I imagine it is tough to be a person of such strong religious conviction in any government job that requires duties based upon laws that are not.

 

I have so many more...but those are the "top of mind" ones for me.

 

Rockmom here is part of her statement released today:

 

In addition to my desire to serve the people of Rowan County, I owe my life to Jesus Christ who loves me and gave His life for me. Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish. There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God.

[PurplePride92]

I just watched on the news where Kim Davis and the gay couple wishing to be issued a marriage licenses had an exchange of words today, and at the risk of sounding stereotypical, am I the only one who finds a homosexual male having a hissy fit a bit disturbing as it is humorous?

 

You know how it goes. We won't laugh until you say it is cool for us to laugh.

[Clyde]

@TripleSevens and Ms Davis do not have an accurate legal understanding of Freedom of Religion.

[TripleSevens]

I don't think this is exactly a correct interpretation, just an FYI.

 

It is spot on.

 

If you desire someone to lose their job because of who they are and what they believe, that would be discrimination.

 

Her rights remain as an elected official. Her rights remain even with the SCOTUS ruling. Her rights remain even if it cost millions. Her rights remain even if some folks don't like it.