Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by HalfHazzard, Sep 6, 2015.
If you are refusing to do something that is in your job description, you are probably going to get fired. I don't see a problem here.
Unless you are a county clerk in Kentucky
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
She will end up being fired.
She should have when she first started refusing to do her job requirement
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
Not sure she will get fire. She was elected as a democrat to that position.
I was just thinking, why are they not in jail? Apparently that's how it's now done in the United States. Don't do your job for religious reasons, off to jail you go. Or is that only for Christians?
If someone knows the job description includes something against their religion, they should refrain from taking the job, not seek a religious exemption afterwards.
She's a public official who refused to carry out the duties of her office and is in jail for contempt of court. The principled and ethical thing for her to do would have been to resign.
Maybe she has a lot of support from the people who elected her. It seems that standing her ground would be the ethical thing to do.
You comparing a stinkin koran reading (believing) muslim to an American and feel they are equal?
muslims dont need to be in the western world....they need to be in their own land...*they will be happier...
I disagree. I believe they will be happier here enjoying more freedom until they can f*** it up into an Islamic s***nole like where they came from.
It's ethical to refuse to carry out the duties of your office and continue to draw your paycheck?
No way. The degree of public support is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. They changed the rules on her in mid-term.
Any job I work, if they change the rules on me, I can ethically say I'm going to do the old way................and accept my being fired. They have not fired her yet......why not?
The Cristian love here has just been overwhelming lately. I'm touched.
Kind of like when Eric Holder refused to uphold the "Defense of Marriage Act" signed into law by Bill Clinton?
Gay marriage wasn't legal and the Constitution of the State of KY defined marriage so the argument that its against her religion wasn't true when she ran for office AND there is currently no LAW requiring her to issue a gay marriage license. So you can't really say she needs to follow the law. Because no such law exists--only a judicial order!
Of course the Supreme Court issues all kinds of infallible decisions right? ..see: Dred Scott v. Sanford, and Korematsu v. US, or how about Plessy v. Ferguson etc...
Kim Davis can be removed from office by impeachment but let the first politician step forth in that county to begin the impeachment process and see what happens to him next election cycle. Good luck with that!
I think that you should be able to marry whoever the hell you want and the state or federal government shouldn't have a say in it in any way shape or form. BUT, I strongly feel the proper venue for this decision lies with the voters and the legislature NOT with the Federal government in ANY way shape or form. There is NO Constitutional authority for the Federal government to define marriage. It not an enumerated power anywhere...marriage is not mentioned once in the document. Clearly the power to define marriage is a State power (not a right) and its obscene to turn a state's power to define marriage as the state or voters see fit into a civil right that doesn't exist. There is no doctrine of inclusion for the 14th Amendment for state powers...
But somehow we have people sitting on the SC who don't really care what the document says or how things are structured in our system. They have their own agenda and the Constitution be damned. Which means they can say whatever the hell they want about anything they want...
County Attorney formally requested that the state government charge Davis with misconduct... It is apparently a long and arduous process. Not really surprising in a state where the oath of office makes you swear you have never been in a duel... She is/was flat out refusing to issue any marriage licenses. It is part of her job to issue marriage licenses. She is refusing to do her job and continues to collect a salary at the taxpayers expense(Unethical). She is attempting, as an elected official, to force her beliefs on others(Highly unethical).
I remember a time when the excuse "God told me so" would get you locked in a nuthouse. Now it gets you a hearing with the Supreme Court.
She's an elected official. She can't be fired. Besides, the rules didn't change re her duties, which include issuing marriage licenses to legally qualified applicants. She didn't do that and that eventually led to her defying a court order.