It's a political thing - they lean neither to the left nor to the right.
Just kidding. IDK.
Ha ha ha!! Pretty good!
What in the world does she hope to ACCOMPLISH with her refusal to issue the licenses? Seriously, what does she think will happen? Her actions are not going to change the law, so what is her ultimate goal?
If her only objective is to adhere to her beliefs, then she needs to resign because the job requires her to issue licenses.
What exactly is the procedure to fire this woman? She currently is not showing up for the job - at what point does that disqualify her from holding the Clerk position? I certainly hope she is not drawing a paycheck while sitting in jail.
But, seriously, she does realize the law is not going to change because of what she's doing, right?
Impeachment. And yes, she still gets her paycheck.
The liberal thing to do would be to find a way, if possible, to accommodate her sincerely-held religious beliefs. It is what a big-hearted society normally does.
http://www.getreligion.org/getrelig...vis-is-in-jail-hint-investigate-kentucky-laws
First of all, it is not a "liberal thing" to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief. It's a constitutional thing. People on both the right and left have championed the rights of people who are seeking exemptions or special privileges due to such beliefs. And liberals will always side against those practicing discrimination. And please don't tell me forbidding a person from discriminating against a whole class of people is discrimination against that bigot. It is not. That's not how it works. Forbidding a person from discriminating is not treating a class of people DIFFERENTLY from others. Instead, it is treating such a person the same as everyone else.
Second, her beliefs are not sincerely held. Otherwise, she would deny marriage certificates to people who have been divorced. She is conveniently not doing that even though adultery is listed in the ten commandments and neither gay marriage nor gay sex are. And she is angry, rude and not Christ-like in her dealings with the gay people seeking marriage certificates. So this is about hate, not God.
Third, the Supreme Court has determined that sincerely held religious beliefs can exempt people from following certain laws, like the draft, but it doesn't allow people to violate certain laws if to do so would be to discriminate against a class of people.
Yes, we can argue that the Hobby Lobby case does indeed allow corporations to discriminate against women, but the Hobby Lobby case did not address the free exercise clause of the first amendment which is at issue here. Instead, it side-stepped that and decided the case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act which does not apply to state employees. In any event, in that decision,it was stated that one could not cite a sincerely held religious belief as a means of discriminating against a race of people. One would think, based on the recent SCOTUS decisions that that would apply to sexual orientation as well.
Further, if we are looking at the Kentucky law which allows for exemptions from certain laws if the states compelling interest in upholding the law is mitigated by a less restrictive means of upholding that, all she is being asked to do is to sign a marriage certificate. Having people go elsewhere for another clerk's signature is not the "least restrictive". And having a marriage certificate not endorsed by a clerk would possibly render the certificate invalid.
Moreover, Kim Davis refused today to not interfere with her deputy clerks if they issued the certificates in her stead, which would be a less restrictive option, allowing her to not issue the certificates herself, but allow her office to do so. That was an offer of the court.
Finally, SCOTUS has directly responded to this specific case. In a one-line decision, SCOTUS denied her lengthy request for a stay of the contempt case or of the order that she comply with the law, pending her appeal: "The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied."
It's pretty clear where the Supreme Court stands on Davis' exemption from the law, or lack thereof.
