Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage

[Real P]

• Tweet

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html

I hate to see someone go to jail for on what they believe in. She is exercising her first amendment law.

I am glad that her hometown are giving her some support.

[mya88]

I think sending her to jail was rather drastic.... why not just fire her for not doing her job? Now with a jail sentence, she may be ruined fro the long term.

[MOON Ki]

I hate to see someone go to jail for on what they believe in. She is exercising her first amendment law.

It's hard to see how her refusal to follow the law, with respect to  public position---in a country that is nominally secular and which supposedly espouses a separation of church and state---is related to her 1st Amendment rights.  Why should non-Christians and others who do not share her personal religious beliefs have to deal with them when it comes to a public office?

There was a time in the USA when some people believed that the black person was not fully man; some people even claimed to have got that from the Bible and made it part of their "core" religious beliefs.   Some of those people then acted on such beliefs, to the grave detriment of numerous black people.    There is not so much of that sort of thing these days.  The law has helped, and bot just in the USA.   These days the law, where it is sensible, tends to make that rather difficult and insists that on certain things:

(a) People are free, or should be free, to believe in whatever they choose, and they must not be victimized for their choices.   ("Bill of Rights" things are usually about that).   

(b) Nevertheless, people must not then use their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise,  to unlawfully victimize others.  (Places that have  "Bill of Rights" things will also have penalties for such victimization.)

The lady is in trouble because of (b), not (a).   And it's hard to see this ending in any other way but tears for her.

The "what they believe in" line generally runs into problems once it is extended beyond the lone "hero/heroine" who's "bravely" fighting the "military-industrial complex" or whatever "nasty" group is at hand: Any extension would have to permit anything from individual nutjobs to ISIS. 

(Historically, of course, the connection between "belief" and the "action on belief", regardless of the implications or consequences, is very much a "Christian" thing:  for centuries individual "Christian" prelates and their "churches"  terrorized humanity and committed numerous atrocities and crimes against humanity on the basis of "what I believe in", "what the Bible tells me", etc.   These days civilized places prefer the law.

[MOON Ki]

I think sending her to jail was rather drastic.... why not just fire her for not doing her job? Now with a jail sentence, she may be ruined fro the long term.

A judge would not have the legal power to fire her but would have have the power and obligation to ensure (or at least try to ensure) that laws are adhered to.   No other options.

And if she is smart, she need not be ruined: the USA has plenty of elements who will happily donate money, offer opportunities, etc. for someone who is "heroically standing up for Christianity and against immorality".    Especially in her neck of the woods.  And they are real woods.    But she would have to make the most of her 15 minutes.

[veritas]

Jesus clearly says in the Bible do your job. If something offends you then gauge your eye out. She should exercise her zealot right and gauge her eye out as per declared in the bible since she finds the homo couple offensive.

Nothing in the bible says you can be two-faced double standards towards the vulnerable, poor etc. condemning actions maybe a religious right, but not doing your job is another matter. Quit or gauge your eye out.

'...And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast itfrom thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.' Matthew 5:29 (KJV)

[GeeMail]

RP, thanks for bringing this up. This case shows why the SCOTUS should have carefully weighed the matter of gay marriage and only made a ruling on matters pertinent (e.g. equality) and not intruded into personal liberties. Those who do not subscribe to the gay agenda have been boxed into a corner and now have to act against conscience. Knowing thesocial background of the US and having accepted to intrude into matters not pertinent, SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience. It's not like there are no alternatives for gay couples. This may up new dilemmas on how to effect the equality principle, and the question of whether courts interpret or make laws but that would solve some problems. Dissenting justices hinted on this (I think Clarence Thomas).

MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair. The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights? Can Kim Davis sue for unfair treatment and succeed in this atmosphere? From a spiritual angle, believers know a battle is going on between good and evil. In this matter, evil powers have summoned state power to deny believers like Kim Davis their individual liberties in the name of defending "public office". It is not extraordinary.

[MOON Ki]

SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience.

My example earlier was black and civil rights.  And remember that especially in the South some of those who meted out the worst treatment to blacks claimed that they had Biblical support.   When courts enacted laws against discrimination should they also have enacted laws to "satisfy" those whose "conscience" told them it was fine (and demanded by the Bible) to discriminate?

MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair.

That wasn't my argument; please read it again.   Let me put it in two parts:

* People are free to take their personal beliefs to public office.  Many do, and it's not always just religious beliefs.   

* What they are not free to do is to use such personal beliefs to unlawfully infringe on others' rights.

Which part of that do you find problematic?

The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights?

The lady doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.   If you insist otherwise, please state:

(a) What First Amendment right of hers has been violated.
(b) Exactly how that has been done.

Anyways it appears that a few days in jail have clarified her mind: as long as her office issues licenses, then all is well; nobody cares whether or not she is personally involved.   

Please note the underlined word: the key issue here is one of people going to a public office to get what they are entitled to as a legal right.   

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

It's not a stretch to say she would have been at the forefront against interracial marriage in the 50's, defending her Christian conscience, by equating it to bestiality.  She is hideous.

[vooke]

She is no matyr and should not adopt an Adventist persecution complex.
She should rot in jail for not using her head. That's a public office. It's like a stripper seeing the light and refusing to grind because it is against her faith yet she insists on being on your paycheck. Doing what?

In other news, there is a lesbian judge who refused to wed heteros

But I think the story is not adding up

[MOON Ki]

It's not a stretch to say she would have been at the forefront against interracial marriage in the 50's, defending her Christian conscience ....

Well into the 1960s;  and not long before that, the mere suspicion that, say, a black man might be diddling a white woman could well have got the latter a prompt lynching.      It took a Supreme Court ruling in 1967 for places like this Kentucky to do away with laws against black-white marriage, and even then there remained the same funny ideas.   Well into our times.   This is in 2009:   

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/louisiana.interracial.marriage/index.html?iref=24hours

So it is somewhat "amusing" that Real Pokots will happily (on another thread) tell us about his "White/Latino wife" but also still manage to weep for people with unreformed thinking .... supposedly on the grounds of what they believe in and some fuzzy understanding of the US Bill of Rights.   

[Bella]

It's not a stretch to say she would have been at the forefront against interracial marriage in the 50's, defending her Christian conscience, by equating it to bestiality.  She is hideous.

Im sorry but that is in fact quite the stretch if not insulting to nearly every sincerely religious person on the planet. Are you honestly saying that being against gay marriage is equivalent to being against interracial marriage? So that myself,  Daily Bread,  (I dont know about vooke who apparently supports people being jailed for not performing an action that is against unambiguous Christian principles so I will not speak for him here) along with the vast majority of human beings ought to consider ourselves "hideous" because we think that men were made to have sex with women and not other men and that govt should not be creating institutions around the behaviour?  That is hideous? Good grief.

The comparison with a stripper is way out there. The stripper takes the job knowing what it entails. This woman did not really sign up for this,  plus I understand she just stopped issuing marriage licences altogether,  whether hetero or gay,  to avoid contravening the new law. Plus there was a judge in the county who offered to issue the licences in the mean time. Lastly,  as Mya alludes to,  sending her to jail was not the only option available to reprimand her for refusing to issue marriage licences with her name on the certificates (to all in the county,  hetero or gay).

Was I in her position,  I would change jobs. But I still don't agree with jailing her and with how very little accomodation is being given to religious believers who are sincerely opposed to personally participating in acts that clearly violate their conscience. Now the mantra is "it's a public office" but of course the same crowd rejoicing over her jailing is all for going after private business people in the wedding business for decades who simply don't want to cater to gay weddings. It doesn't matter if it is a public office or private one,  that is a ruse.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

It's not a stretch to say she would have been at the forefront against interracial marriage in the 50's, defending her Christian conscience, by equating it to bestiality.  She is hideous.

Im sorry but that is in fact quite the stretch if not insulting to nearly every sincerely religious person on the planet. Are you honestly saying that being against gay marriage is equivalent to being against interracial marriage? So that myself,  Daily Bread,  (I dont know about vooke who apparently supports people being jailed for not performing an action that is against unambiguous Christian principles so I will not speak for him here) along with the vast majority of human beings ought to consider ourselves "hideous" because we think that men were made to have sex with women and not other men and that govt should not be creating institutions around the behaviour?  That is hideous? Good grief.

The comparison with a stripper is way out there. The stripper takes the job knowing what it entails. This woman did not really sign up for this,  plus I understand she just stopped issuing marriage licences altogether,  whether hetero or gay,  to avoid contravening the new law. Plus there was a judge in the county who offered to issue the licences in the mean time. Lastly,  as Mya alludes to,  sending her to jail was not the only option available to reprimand her for refusing to issue marriage licences with her name on the certificates (to all in the county,  hetero or gay).

Was I in her position,  I would change jobs. But I still don't agree with jailing her and with how very little accomodation is being given to religious believers who are sincerely opposed to personally participating in acts that clearly violate their conscience. Now the mantra is "it's a public office" but of course the same crowd rejoicing over her jailing is all for going after private business people in the wedding business for decades who simply don't want to cater to gay weddings. It doesn't matter if it is a public office or private one,  that is a ruse.

Kim Davis is hideous because she is willing to refuse to perform a service out of prejudice.  Not because of her religious beliefs.  Or conscience. 

When she signed up, she knew Kentucky is not a theocracy.  At least she should have known that.  She should not be able to refuse to perform a service she is getting paid to perform and get away with it. 

You don't want a situation where a Muslim can refuse to serve a couple because his conscience tells him a Muslim should not marry a Catholic.

[Bella]

Terminator,  How do you distinguish someone who refuses to perform a service out of prejudice and someone who refuses to do so out of her conscience formed by her religious beliefs? Or if you let your behaviour be guided by your beliefs on right or wrong that is prejudice and hideous?  I'm just trying to understand why you discount the notion that a person could actually refuse to do something simply because his religion tells him it's an evil thing. Why us it assumed that it just gas to be "hate" or prejudice. That in itself seems like a brand of prejudice and intolerance to me. The idea that nobody can sincerely act on his religious beliefs in the gay issue.

Religious accomodation to conscientious objectors is part of American legal system. It is crazy to equate that to an alleged theocracy as if public servants lose their own personal rights as human beings simply by virtue of working in public service. In this case,  there were other options besides jailing her. If a Muslim had to do something against his religion that he did not forsee when he took office,  he could be moved elsewhere and someone else take his place. I can't imagine jailing him because he won't do something that he did not sign up to do when he assumed the job if the thing violates his religion. That is tyranny.

[MOON Ki]

Lastly,  as Mya alludes to,  sending her to jail was not the only option available to reprimand her for refusing to issue marriage licences with her name on the certificates (to all in the county,  hetero or gay).

There was a court order in place.      She refused to obey it.   In such cases, jail for contempt of court is standard practice.    What other options do you have in mind for the judge?

Sending her to jail for contempt had the desired effect, as is always the intent of such jailing: As soon as the person sees the light, he or she is free to go, which is what has happened in that case.   

Was I in her position,  I would change jobs. But I still don't agree with jailing her and with how very little accomodation is being given to religious believers who are sincerely opposed to personally participating in acts that clearly violate their conscience. Now the mantra is "it's a public office" but of course the same crowd rejoicing over her jailing is all for going after private business people in the wedding business for decades who simply don't want to cater to gay weddings. It doesn't matter if it is a public office or private one,  that is a ruse.

There is no ruse given the clear differences.   

First, being able to get married (or register a marriage) in a public office is a legal right.   That cannot be said of a private arrangement.

Second that is a very important right, which is why it is in the law.  Registering a marriage in public office makes numerous practical differences, which is why even people who have private arrangements (in church or wherever) will still get that official piece of paper and why gays have been fighting for it.   

Third, the word "office" is quite important.   If it was just a matter of being "opposed to personally participating in acts that clearly violate their conscience", then she could have let the deputy clerks do the job.     Right now those deputies are doing that, and a condition of her release is she not interfere with them.    Nobody is insisting that she personally issue the marriage licenses, so I don't see how it can be said that there is "very little accomodation is being given to religious believers". 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator,  How do you distinguish someone who refuses to perform a service out of prejudice and someone who refuses to do so out of her conscience formed by her religious beliefs? Or if you let your behaviour be guided by your beliefs on right or wrong that is prejudice and hideous?  I'm just trying to understand why you discount the notion that a person could actually refuse to do something simply because his religion tells him it's an evil thing. Why us it assumed that it just gas to be "hate" or prejudice. That in itself seems like a brand of prejudice and intolerance to me. The idea that nobody can sincerely act on his religious beliefs in the gay issue.

Religious accomodation to conscientious objectors is part of American legal system. It is crazy to equate that to an alleged theocracy as if public servants lose their own personal rights as human beings simply by virtue of working in public service. In this case,  there were other options besides jailing her. If a Muslim had to do something against his religion that he did not forsee when he took office,  he could be moved elsewhere and someone else take his place. I can't imagine jailing him because he won't do something that he did not sign up to do when he assumed the job if the thing violates his religion. That is tyranny.

Bella,

I have no doubt she did what she did out of her religious beliefs.  There might even be no ill will in her actions.  Discriminatory actions can be based entirely on a clean conscience.  I am sure you can come up with examples of that.

I don't think her prejudices should be accommodated.  Much the same way I want no part of the beliefs of a racist being accommodated while I continue to pay him.  While she may find ways to avoid providing those particular services, maybe by dashing off to lunch or the bathroom, it should not be accommodated any other way.

[veritas]

It's not prejudice but descrimination. Descrimination against customers and clients particularly in a public office carry penalties and jail time.

Her position as a clerk doesn't entitle her to decide whom she gets to deliver the post to or not. The only option she has is to quit her job without causing further descriminatory assault and negligence.

Christians who use religion to justify their callous actions are not christians. WWJD ? If Jesus was with us today he'd probably preach peace and tolerance. I can't ever recall Jesus belittling people for their sexuality preference.

[MOON Ki]

Re-reading articles such as these, and the numerous examples given, I'd be interested to know of views about "respecting religious beliefs":

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

[Bella]

Terminator,  How do you distinguish someone who refuses to perform a service out of prejudice and someone who refuses to do so out of her conscience formed by her religious beliefs? Or if you let your behaviour be guided by your beliefs on right or wrong that is prejudice and hideous?  I'm just trying to understand why you discount the notion that a person could actually refuse to do something simply because his religion tells him it's an evil thing. Why us it assumed that it just gas to be "hate" or prejudice. That in itself seems like a brand of prejudice and intolerance to me. The idea that nobody can sincerely act on his religious beliefs in the gay issue.

Religious accomodation to conscientious objectors is part of American legal system. It is crazy to equate that to an alleged theocracy as if public servants lose their own personal rights as human beings simply by virtue of working in public service. In this case,  there were other options besides jailing her. If a Muslim had to do something against his religion that he did not forsee when he took office,  he could be moved elsewhere and someone else take his place. I can't imagine jailing him because he won't do something that he did not sign up to do when he assumed the job if the thing violates his religion. That is tyranny.

Bella,

I have no doubt she did what she did out of her religious beliefs.  There might even be no ill will in her actions.  Discriminatory actions can be based entirely on a clean conscience.  I am sure you can come up with examples of that.

I don't think her prejudices should be accommodated.  Much the same way I want no part of the beliefs of a racist being accommodated while I continue to pay him.  While she may find ways to avoid providing those particular services, maybe by dashing off to lunch or the bathroom, it should not be accommodated any other way.

Just a bit earlier you said she acted out of prejudice and NOT out of her religious beliefs or conscience,  pure or otherwise. For that reason she was deemed hideous. Just putting that out there for anyone reading. In other words,  theres no principle at play here,  you were simply insulting religious people.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator,  How do you distinguish someone who refuses to perform a service out of prejudice and someone who refuses to do so out of her conscience formed by her religious beliefs? Or if you let your behaviour be guided by your beliefs on right or wrong that is prejudice and hideous?  I'm just trying to understand why you discount the notion that a person could actually refuse to do something simply because his religion tells him it's an evil thing. Why us it assumed that it just gas to be "hate" or prejudice. That in itself seems like a brand of prejudice and intolerance to me. The idea that nobody can sincerely act on his religious beliefs in the gay issue.

Religious accomodation to conscientious objectors is part of American legal system. It is crazy to equate that to an alleged theocracy as if public servants lose their own personal rights as human beings simply by virtue of working in public service. In this case,  there were other options besides jailing her. If a Muslim had to do something against his religion that he did not forsee when he took office,  he could be moved elsewhere and someone else take his place. I can't imagine jailing him because he won't do something that he did not sign up to do when he assumed the job if the thing violates his religion. That is tyranny.

Bella,

I have no doubt she did what she did out of her religious beliefs.  There might even be no ill will in her actions.  Discriminatory actions can be based entirely on a clean conscience.  I am sure you can come up with examples of that.

I don't think her prejudices should be accommodated.  Much the same way I want no part of the beliefs of a racist being accommodated while I continue to pay him.  While she may find ways to avoid providing those particular services, maybe by dashing off to lunch or the bathroom, it should not be accommodated any other way.

Just a bit earlier you said she acted out of prejudice and NOT out of her religious beliefs or conscience,  pure or otherwise. For that reason she was deemed hideous. Just putting that out there for anyone reading. In other words,  theres no principle at play here,  you were simply insulting religious people.

Bella,

Yes, I did say she acted out of prejudice.  And religious beliefs can lead to prejudice.  It is the actions on her prejudice that I am calling hideous.  Not her religious beliefs.  I am not trying to cover up what I said.  I have no need to insult religious people. 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Re-reading articles such as these, and the numerous examples given, I'd be interested to know of views about "respecting religious beliefs":

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

We tend to look down on the intelligence of the people from the colonial period in the new world.  But the guy who came up with separation of state and church, in a country that was at the time more or less 100% Christian, had some pretty serious foresight.