Shot in the Dark

Unpersuaded

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Kim Davis, the Apostolic Christian who was elected County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples after the Supreme Court decision in June, citing her First Amendment right to a workplace accommodation based on a sincerely held religious belief.  It’s the same argument made by Muslim check-out clerks working for Target who refuse to scan SPAM because it contains pork.

A local judge ordered Ms. Davis to issue licenses for gay marriage and sent her to jail for contempt but a federal judge released her after five days.  A Deputy Clerk in the office is issuing marriage licenses to gays while Ms. Davis is out of the office but the drive-by and social media storm is relentless and seems to boil down to:

The Apostolic Christian religion does not prohibit gay marriage in the way that, say, the Roman Catholic Church does; therefore, Ms. Davis does not have a sincerely held religious belief and is not entitled to a workplace accommodation.

The Apostolic Christian religion does prohibit gay marriage, which is a hateful and bigoted theology; therefore, Ms. Davis should receive no accommodation for her sincerely held – but politically incorrect – religious belief.

The Apostolic Christian religion prohibits gay marriage but permits divorce meaning the religion doesn’t believe in the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and thus cannot prohibit homosexual marriage in the way that, say, the Anglican Church did from 1534 until 2003; therefore, it’s an illogical religion so its adherents are not entitled to a workplace accommodation.

Even though the Apostolic Christian religion permits heterosexual divorce while prohibiting homosexual marriage and Ms. Davis sincerely believes in her religion, she is a sinner and sinners are not entitled to Constitutional rights.

American government officials should not be allowed to hold Christian religious beliefs and thus won’t need workplace accommodations, a logical expansion of the Act of Settlement of 1701 that prohibited British Catholics from holding any position of trust.

Ms. Davis is from The South but is neither Liberal nor photogenic; therefore, she has no Constitutional rights at all.

I remain unpersuaded.

Joe Doakes

The US Government will eventually establish a state religion, by defining all the things that people of faith can’t do.

Posted

in

,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

19 responses to “Unpersuaded”

  1. J. Ewing Avatar
    J. Ewing

    What continues to puzzle me is the actual black and white law, here. The State REQUIRES the signature of the county clerk, so having her deputies issue licenses renders those licenses invalid, yet that’s what the judge ordered– breaking the law. Second, the State has a MANDATORY religious accommodation statute, meaning the only way the State (or federal government) can command her obeisance is to prove that she has no such religious objection. SHE is following the law, the courts so far have not. Bad judges.

  2. Loren Avatar
    Loren

    She, while entitled to her individual religious belief, is a government official. The government may not rule according to religious belief. If she is unable to impartially perform her governmental duties without infringing on her own religious belief, she needs to follow her belief and resign. We expect, no we demand, an impartially administered government. If she were not a government functionary, I would support her position, but as a provider of governmental services, she can not impose her religious beliefs on those who do not agree with that belief.

  3. AlexG'sWankingMitten Avatar
    AlexG’sWankingMitten

    Her hubby’s choice of go-to-meeting duds is unfortunate. A guy doesn’t wear his straw hat off the tractor; he should have worn the good felt one.

  4. AlexG'sWankingMitten Avatar
    AlexG’sWankingMitten

    Loren, Davis is an elected official, not an employee. I’m pretty sure she is adhering to the will of her constituents.

  5. Loren Avatar
    Loren

    Wanking Mitten, no she is imposing her personal belief on the function of her governmental role. Whether her constituents (Democrats) want her to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. The provision of governmental services should be impartial, without the imposition of the individual member of government’s religious belief.

  6. Seflores Avatar
    Seflores

    “The provision of governmental services should be impartial, without the imposition of the individual member of government’s religious belief.”
    Totally agree.
    I just wish this applied to the government employees/priests who worship at the alter of massive government and require the laity/citizens to come before the various government Cathedrals (in Washington D.C, in St. Paul, etc.) on bended knee, with bowed head, and prostrate themselves in order to petition for governmental redress of grievances. In my mind there is not much difference between Kim Davis and Lois Lerner beyond one having a better lawyer/taking the 5th and the other going to jail.

  7. AlexG'sWankingMitten Avatar
    AlexG’sWankingMitten

    Loren, Davis (on behalf of her constituents) is violating a SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution, not the constitution. I’m 100% sure because I checked several times, and there’s no homo in it, so we know it’s the result of fever dreams.

    Also, is it acceptable to violate the law if it’s not religious? I don’t think the government should be handing out gayweddingdressupday permits for a lot of reasons, none of which are remotely religious in nature.

    It’s kind of like the leftists sanctuary city’s, but with preservation of our society in there instead of destruction.

  8. Loren Avatar
    Loren

    Wanking Mitten: You are trying to apply situational ethics. Not correct when EITHER side does it.

    If you think the SCOTUS incorrectly interpreted the Constitution, figure out who and specifically where, and petition your representative to impeach the Justice who violated the oath.

  9. Prussian Blue Avatar
    Prussian Blue

    It is no longer possible to deny that the American Left stands for hatred and intolerance of people who believe differently than they do:
    http://www.gocomics.com/chrisbritt/2015/09/08

  10. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Just curious, Loren, are there any limits to your analysis?

    Liberals argue no child should be born into poverty, they should be aborted instead. Suppose Congress took that logic to the next step and decided no child should be allowed to slip into poverty after knowing wealth, they should be executed instead, and ordered all County Welfare agents to do the killing within three days after receiving the parents’ application for welfare.

    Surely there must be some government employees who’d object to that order on religious grounds. Must they resign?

    Britain went with a bright line – Catholics are banned from holding positions of trust. Where would you draw your lines?

  11. Loren Avatar
    Loren

    Joe:

    Well, if a Muslim becomes a county clerk, do we want him to deny licenses to any woman not a virgin? Deny restaurant licenses to BBQ and breakfast joints for serving pork?

    Your strawman fails in that the state taking a life on such grounds also violates the due process of the victim.

    But certainly any SCOTUS that ruled so should be immediately impeached. (If not fed to a woodchipper, after tar and feathering)

    And if it gets that bad, revolution is appropriate.

  12. Emery Incognito Avatar
    Emery Incognito

    I would have more respect for Ms. Davis if she quit her job on grounds that her conscience didn’t allow her to perform it. She should be fired for the same reason, although that has the downside that it lets her play martyr.

  13. AlexG'sWankingMitten Avatar
    AlexG’sWankingMitten

    “Your strawman fails in that the state taking a life on such grounds also violates the due process of the victim.”

    And of course, since the blob of cells Dr. Mengele hoiks out are not human, there is no victim….Oh, excuse me, my head just rolled off my shoulders again. Happens every time I get a load of insanity crammed into it.

    Oddly enough Emery, your objection isn’t as offensively asinine as usual. If Davis was an employee, I’d agree she should quit. But (and this is where your ass starts showing just a wee bit) she is an elected official. If her constituents don’t approve of her work, they will fire her come election time, right?

  14. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    What the Founders envisioned was a secular government free from religion. That’s why they explicitly prohibited any sort of religious test to serve in government. As a public servant, her religious views have no place in the official administration of her public duties. If her religious conscience forbids her from fulfilling the duties of her office, she needs to resign. If she wants to keep her public office, she needs to put her religious beliefs aside and follow the law. She cannot have it both ways. When you serve in public office, the only ultimate authority you recognize is the Constitution of the United States of America.

  15. Loren Avatar
    Loren

    Amazingly, I agree with Emery comment completely. Worlds collide, cats and dogs living together…..

  16. AlexG'sWankingMitten Avatar
    AlexG’sWankingMitten

    Here’s the rub. We have groups, cities, counties and states defying federal law on a host of issues. Now as a rule, I encourage that sort of behavior, and would happily abet it.

    It so happens that at this time, most of the rebellion is coming from leftists intent on moving the leftist agenda ahead, so I won’t abet it, but I don’t condemn it. But if the only thing that sets Davis’ actions apart is what motivates her, ima call bullshit.

    Leftists don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and they hate people that do. But they do worship an ideological god, it’s just not properly identified as the Church of Gimme.

  17. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    Tom, you are the master of sophistry.

  18. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    “What the Founders envisioned was a secular government free from religion. ” Really, Loren? You agree completely? When you start with the wrong premise, how can arrive at the correct conclusion?

  19. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    The American Constitution grant negative liberties, the right to do and think various things unimpeded as long as they do not impede the rights and freedoms of others.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.