KY - Rowan County clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt, 2015

[Donjeta]

Well, what would he have been blessing? Her divorces? Her fashion sense? Her contribution to the Catholic church, Georgia, or society in general?

Respectfully, this is written by someone who is an apologist for the pope. If the pope wanted to be critical of Kim Davis, he has had countless opportunities to do so.

There are also a million better people he could have met, or better things he could have done -- including betting on horses.

Was it even a personal meeting or did Kim Davis stand in line with a thousand other people he didn't know, and he said bless you be strong in your faith to all of them?

 

[bluesneakers]

Was it even a personal meeting or did Kim Davis stand in line with a thousand other people he didn't know, and he said bless you be strong in your faith to all of them?

This is what I suspect happened. Her handlers and lawyers did everything they could to make sure she got in there and are now free to twist it however they want to.

I really don't get why they're so hung up on the Pope though. Growing up Catholic I found Fundamentalists all too eager to argue with me, pray for my soul, tell me I was going to Hell, and ask if I would go to church with them (they'd get extra points, I think, for saving a heathen Catholic).

 

[kaen]

Vatican confirms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...iss-alleged-secret-meeting-with-pope-francis/

Francis met with Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis during the pope’s visit to the United States, the Vatican confirmed on Wednesday morning.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It is amazing to me that the pope could find time to meet with her but only spared a half hour to meet with 3 women and 2 men who had been victims of sex abuse by priests/clergy. (Another secret meeting, by the way) Many of the advocacy groups were upset and felt ignored. Kim Davis is not a Catholic and is in less need of the pope's counsel than the victims of abuse who have been denied and abandoned by the church for many years.

Just want to clarify what a Quaker would do. The Quaker reference is interesting to me as a Quaker. I may be conscientious objector and would not serve in war but Kim Davis sought a seat that could place her in conflict with her faith. A Quaker would reflect and get discernment and step out. From a Friend's perspective on creating change, the important factor is that one works for change rather than bullies for change. If Ms. Davis does not feel that her job requirements are supported by her faith, she should resign rather than go against the laws--- that is what a Quaker would do.

 

[magnolia]

Actually I believe they do match 100%. The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage, Kim Davis opposes gay marriage. I'm a little baffled why anyone would be surprised that the pope endorsed her position. They are both preaching the exact same message. If the pope doesn't defend the position of Kim Davis, then he can't defend the church's position on it.

Pope says defending traditional marriage is matter of 'human ecology'

BBM-I'm baffled as well. It should not be surprising that the Pope upheld a person's conscience objection as a human right. This is not a secret. He made this statement several times.

I have great respect for Pope Francis. I won't vilify him for meeting with someone that holds objections I may not agree with.

 

[KaaBoom]

100%? No. In what ways do the beliefs of Pentecostal Apostolic Christians and Roman Catholics match up? In what ways do they differ? I think there are too many differences for either Kim or Pope Francis to claim the other. She's certainly not going to be receiving Communion from him, and does she even know how to pray the rosary he gave her?

They both defend "traditional" marriage, and believe that gay's should not be allowed to marry. So why is it such a surprise that Kim Davis and the pope met and their ideologies agreed?

 

[EllieBee]

BBM-I'm baffled as well. It should not be surprising that the Pope upheld a person's conscience objection as a human right. This is not a secret. He made this statement several times.

I have great respect for Pope Francis. I won't vilify him for meeting with someone that holds objections I may not agree with.

If Kim Davis were truly a conscientious objector, she would not greedily pocket her 80k salary and still refuse to do the freaking job SHE IS PAID TO DO.

A person who was truly objecting on ethical grounds would have resigned her position and the tasty salary that goes with it.

As for the Pope, I agree that people who truly have a moral objection to an issue ahould be allowed to express that objection. But Kim Davis accepted a position, accepts the money she is paid to fulfill the duties of that position, yet refuses to do that job.

She is a fraud.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If Kim Davis were truly a conscientious objector, she would not greedily pocket her 80k salary and still refuse to do the freaking job SHE IS PAID TO DO.

A person who was truly objecting on ethical grounds would have resigned her position and the tasty salary that goes with it.

As for the Pope, I agree that people who truly have a moral objection to an issue ahould be allowed to express that objection. But Kim Davis accepted a position, accepts the money she is paid to fulfill the duties of that position, yet refuses to do that job.

She is a fraud.

HOWEVER when she accepted the job this was not the mandate and according to kentucky law it still isn't. Only federal law.
The issue is can the federal govt trump the states on this issue? I say no. I believe in states rights too.
I don't like the way she has handled this from the start but I do believe in her right to think as she likes.
I think that the problem is that KEntucky has to say it is what it is and then she has no choice.

 

[EllieBee]

They both defend "traditional" marriage, and believe that gay's should not be allowed to marry. So why is it such a surprise that Kim Davis and the pope met and their ideologies agreed?

I have shared my experience being married into a fundie family and I can assure you, they think all Catholics (and pretty much everyone who isn't them) are going to Hell.

They refute most of the sacraments of the Catholic church, including MARRIAGE.

In fact, all Protestant religions recognize only two sacraments: baptism and eucharist (communion). Of the Christian sects, only Catholicism recognizes marriage as a sacrament of the Church. In Protestantism , marriage is a civil union.

So, yeah.

 

[bluesneakers]

They both defend "traditional" marriage, and believe that gay's should not be allowed to marry. So why is it such a surprise that Kim Davis and the pope met and their ideologies agreed?

I think they have this idea in common, but their other views are far, far apart. He met all kinds of people with similar and opposing views, but it's interesting how people will latch on to this one thing like it means something. As if by meeting her he's given her his blessing to go forward and continue denying marriage licenses. There's no divorce in the Catholic church, yet she's been divorced and remarried several times. Do you think they talked about that?

I think people are just going to see into this what they want, which is I suppose exactly what her Freedom Fighters were after. People who like the Pope are now free to like her, people who have issues with her can transfer them over to the Pope.

I heard Barack Obama met with Putin yesterday. Which is no surprise, since their ideologies match up so well.

 

[EllieBee]

HOWEVER when she accepted the job this was not the mandate and according to kentucky law it still isn't. Only federal law.
The issue is can the federal govt trump the states on this issue? I say no. I believe in states rights too.
I don't like the way she has handled this from the start but I do believe in her right to think as she likes.
I think that the problem is that KEntucky has to say it is what it is and then she has no choice.

If my job description suddenly changed to require of me tasks that I found morally repugnant, I would resign from my job.

Kim Davis cares more about drawing her salary and getting her hateful face on every front page and television program she can. This is not a person standing up for her beliefs, this is a charlatan who takes the money with one hand while giving the "finger" with the other.

 

[bluesneakers]

If my job description suddenly changed to require of me tasks that I found morally repugnant, I would resign from my job.

Kim Davis cares more about drawing her salary and getting her hateful face on every front page and television program she can. This is not a person standing up for her beliefs, this is a charlatan who takes the money with one hand while giving the "finger" with the other.

And loving every minute of it. How Christian.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If my job description suddenly changed to require of me tasks that I found morally repugnant, I would resign from my job.

Kim Davis cares more about drawing her salary and getting her hateful face on every front page and television program she can. This is not a person standing up for her beliefs, this is a charlatan who takes the money with one hand while giving the "finger" with the other.

Good for you however you should not have to until your job was reevaluated and the terms changed.
Everyone says what they would do, but would you walk away from a job that paid 80000 or would you fight and see if you could hold on to that employment?
It would be one thing if she was hired and that was the rule and she refused but she took the job with the job description based on the laws when she was hired.
I do believe she is making more of a stink than there needs to be but I think I may fight tooth and nail for my job if I was making a good living and someone changed the rules on me.

 

[Walk A Mile]

Good for you however you should not have to until your job was reevaluated and the terms changed.
Everyone says what they would do, but would you walk away from a job that paid 80000 or would you fight and see if you could hold on to that employment?
It would be one thing if she was hired and that was the rule and she refused but she took the job with the job description based on the laws when she was hired.
I do believe she is making more of a stink than there needs to be but I think I may fight tooth and nail for my job if I was making a good living and someone changed the rules on me.

So, to be absolutely clear, if your duties suddenly changed - that's suddenly rather than without warning, as you were aware before you took the job that there was a chance the duties could change - you would stop performing your duties, prevent your subordinates from doing their duties, and still continue drawing your paycheck? You would refuse to do the job, refuse to quit, and still expect to be paid, and you feel it's your right to be paid for a job you're not doing?

 

[EllieBee]

Good for you however you should not have to until your job was reevaluated and the terms changed.
Everyone says what they would do, but would you walk away from a job that paid 80000 or would you fight and see if you could hold on to that employment?
It would be one thing if she was hired and that was the rule and she refused but she took the job with the job description based on the laws when she was hired.
I do believe she is making more of a stink than there needs to be but I think I may fight tooth and nail for my job if I was making a good living and someone changed the rules on me.

Her job requires her to obey THE LAW. This is not a job in a private sector, this is a governmental position.

Yes, the laws changed during her tenure. And she was free to seek other employment more palatable to her discerning tastes. She chose, however, to keep on cashing those paychecks and refusing to do the job she was paid to do. That is fraud and theft. Also stuff that Jesus said was not cool.

Again, I assert that anyone who truly had an objection based on moral or ethical grounds would not have such a hard time walking away from the oh-so-saintly MONEY,baby!

 

[Hope4More]

BBM-I'm baffled as well. It should not be surprising that the Pope upheld a person's conscience objection as a human right. This is not a secret. He made this statement several times.

I have great respect for Pope Francis. I won't vilify him for meeting with someone that holds objections I may not agree with.

He was also asked, directly, if the right to object extended to governmental employees, and his reply was YES.

Either the Pope was misinformed about what Davis did as a governmental employee, or he knew precisely what she had done and was encouraging her to continue, which is what Davis said happened.

Either way I'm totally unimpressed, and my opinion of him has absolutely changed. Not because I disagree with him on gay marriage and many other issues, but because I think it was morally inexcusable that he met in private, in secret, with a lawbreaking bigot and her husband who is proudly anti-gay, arranged by a verifiable hate group, this on a tour where his theme was tolerance and open dialogue.

 

[Hope4More]

I think they have this idea in common, but their other views are far, far apart. He met all kinds of people with similar and opposing views, but it's interesting how people will latch on to this one thing like it means something. As if by meeting her he's given her his blessing to go forward and continue denying marriage licenses. There's no divorce in the Catholic church, yet she's been divorced and remarried several times. Do you think they talked about that?

I think people are just going to see into this what they want, which is I suppose exactly what her Freedom Fighters were after. People who like the Pope are now free to like her, people who have issues with her can transfer them over to the Pope.

I heard Barack Obama met with Putin yesterday. Which is no surprise, since their ideologies match up so well.

Please don't equate Obama with Putin.....that is so wrong on so many levels, EEK!! including bringing in the nasty of politics .

 

[bluesneakers]

Please don't equate Obama with Putin.....that is so wrong on so many levels, EEK!! including bringing in the nasty of politics .

Just a snarky way to point out people in the public eye often end up meeting others in the public eye and it's not because they share beliefs or warm, fuzzy memories. It's all a stage and handlers everywhere are doing what they can to get people up there together. The Pope meeting with Kim is not the same as Huckabee meeting with Kim, just like Obama meeting with the Pope isn't the same as Obama meeting with Putin.

 

[i.b.nora]

The term 'conscientious objector' refers to serving in the military. It has nothing to do with someone being paid to work in the county clerks office, which falls in the category of the seperation of church and state.

The concept is really quite simple. She can believe in whatever god or religion she wants to believe in but those beliefs may not interfere with her legal duties and obligations in the performance of the government office of the County Clerk. She may not interfere with the law of the land. It just doesn't work that way here. Maybe the Pope and his minions were confused about the proper terms and duties and laws, etc. She is not a conscientious objector. She is a bigot.

 

[EllieBee]

The term 'conscientious objector' refers to serving in the military. It has nothing to do with someone being paid to work in the county clerks office, which falls in the category of the seperation of church and state.

The concept is really quite simple. She can believe in whatever god or religion she wants to believe in but those beliefs may not interfere with her legal duties and obligations in the performance of the government office of the County Clerk. She may not interfere with the law of the land. It just doesn't work that way here. Maybe the Pope and his minions were confused about the proper terms and duties and laws, etc. She is not a conscientious objector. She is a bigot.

Beautifully stated. Well done, you!

 

[IzzyBlanche]

HOWEVER when she accepted the job this was not the mandate and according to kentucky law it still isn't. Only federal law.
The issue is can the federal govt trump the states on this issue? I say no. I believe in states rights too.
I don't like the way she has handled this from the start but I do believe in her right to think as she likes.
I think that the problem is that KEntucky has to say it is what it is and then she has no choice.

BBM for focus.

The Constitution says yes.