Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[ArcadiaGP]

I don't really see her in all that great of light. She has no right to prevent people from doing what is lawful. Her religion isn't the law. It's just her belief. And sticking to her belief is fine and even admirable. But she's taking it to the point where she's effectively making her religion the law over other people. That's not a "Molon Labe" situation. The law isn't hers to make. She's daring someone to take what isn't hers.

You're not wrong, and yeah... it wasn't a great comparison.

I say this knowing nothing of the woman... but on the surface it looks like she feels her religious freedoms/beliefs are being infringed on. She absolutely shouldn't have the job, or should find another job in the department if possible.

She can't win. She won't win. But I'm OK with people in these situations making a stand... even if they're ultimately wrong.


Edit: Starting to learn a bit more about her... Alright, she might believe she's Metatron. Or some sort of dextera domini

(AP) -- Kentucky clerk: Office is denying marriage licenses to gay couples `under God's authority'

 

[PistolBob]

I think she has every right to refuse...but she needs to also accept the consequences, which may be unemployment, transfer to another department, or what have you. Keep in mind when she started this job, homosexual marriages weren't an issue. Since she has been in this job the laws changed, and in doing so the law now forces her to make a decision to stay true to her faithful beliefs, which weren't a problem before, or face religious persecution for them. Legally you can not deny a job to someone based on their religious beliefs. No Jews. No Catholics. No Muslims. All illegal.

my my my what a tangled web we weave

 

[jamil]

I would agree with you had this actually been a duly enacted law and not populism and constitutional gymnastics done by SCOTUS to "make it the law".

Maybe the SCOTUS wasn't justified in their ruling. But that's not the case she's making. She saying this is an issue of religious liberty and that the newly minted gay rights are trumping her right to not participate. Her objection is that because of her personal beliefs she shouldn't have to put her name on it. If she can't put her name on it fine. Resign.

 

[jamil]

I think she has every right to refuse...but she needs to also accept the consequences, which may be unemployment, transfer to another department, or what have you. Keep in mind when she started this job, homosexual marriages weren't an issue. Since she has been in this job the laws changed, and in doing so the law now forces her to make a decision to stay true to her faithful beliefs, which weren't a problem before, or face religious persecution for them. Legally you can not deny a job to someone based on their religious beliefs. No Jews. No Catholics. No Muslims. All illegal.

my my my what a tangled web we weave

You can deny a job to someone who refuses to perform it. And it's not just a job. It's an elected office. She swore an oath to perform her duty. If the duty has changed such that it violates her conscience, she should resign.

 

[Woobie]

You're not wrong, and yeah... it wasn't a great comparison.

I say this knowing nothing of the woman... but on the surface it looks like she feels her religious freedoms/beliefs are being infringed on. She absolutely shouldn't have the job, or should find another job in the department if possible.

She can't win. She won't win. But I'm OK with people in these situations making a stand... even if they're ultimately wrong.


Edit: Starting to learn a bit more about her... Alright, she might believe she's Metatron. Or some sort of dextera domini

(AP) -- Kentucky clerk: Office is denying marriage licenses to gay couples `under God's authority'

I wear a lot of hats, and one of those is that I serve as a pastor of a small country church. I can't comment on her motives, as I don't know her. What God defines marriage as cannot be changed by the ruling of any court, the fiat of any king, or the legislation of any government. That is my belief, and I think the Bible supports that belief. If it didn't, I wouldn't believe it. I also think civil disobedience has a definite role to play in some issues. Thank God for Rosa Parks.

But I also don't believe government has a role to play in marriage, at all. I know that ship has sailed, but in my mind, if I want government out of marriage, is it then consistent to use government to control marriage?

Frankly, I feel like SCOTUS should have left the decision making at a lower level. You want to marry your boyfriend, sir? Go someplace that does that sort of thing. If the people of this county want a clerk that issues these licenses, then fix that at the ballot box. But that ship has sailed too. Is God the highest Authority? That is my belief. But if you are being compelled to disobey God by a lower authority, then maybe the best statement can be made by disassociating yourself with that entity, i.e., resign.

Here is my most serious rub with the whole thing: if we are to say that we will in her case issue marriage licenses, or in my case perform marriages, based upon the Biblical definition of marriage, then we had better be consistent. So has she ever issued a license for a marriage in which one of the parties has been previously married? Just because that is now the societal norm does not make it Biblical. Has she ever issued a license to a couple when one is a professing Christian and the other is not? These are things specifically talked about in the New Testament. We don't get to pick and choose what we will compromise. If one is a compromise, then so is the other, and just as wrong.

Sorry for the long post. I understand many will disagree with my beliefs, and that's ok. I wouldn't bother believing the things I do if it were a matter of popularity. It really is important to stand firm on your beliefs, just be consistent.

 

[PistolBob]

You can deny a job to someone who refuses to perform it. And it's not just a job. It's an elected office. She swore an oath to perform her duty. If the duty has changed such that it violates her conscience, she should resign.

She's being persecuted by her employer, for her religious beliefs. It's black and white. You have NO IDEA what oath, if ANY, she took for this clerk job. Get someone else in the office to issue the marriage license and stop the persecution.

 

[BADWOLF]

My Grandmother was married three times, and was widowed three times. How is that funny?

I know its a stretch, but the sign was not aimed at ( the death of a spouse ) it was aimed at those in the community that get divorced and get remarried at the drop of a hat. Then have the audacity to sit their and scream sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman at the top of their lung's.

 

[Woobie]

She's being persecuted by her employer, for her religious beliefs. It's black and white. You have NO IDEA what oath, if ANY, she took for this clerk job. Get someone else in the office to issue the marriage license and stop the persecution.

I would be shocked if an elected official did not take an oath to uphold the laws of the county, state, nation when they came into office. And she can't have someone else do it if she is the clerk. It will be her name on the license. If she is a hired employee, then that is different.

 

[PistolBob]

I would be shocked if an elected official did not take an oath to uphold the laws of the county, state, nation when they came into office. And she can't have someone else do it if she is the clerk. It will be her name on the license. If she is a hired employee, then that is different.

We need more facts...too many ifs

 

[BADWOLF]

But now on current topic. Her behavior would not even fly in private business. Elected elected or not, sworn or not. She has and must perform the duties of her office with out fail and to the letter of the law. This situation in its self is how the new law was intended to be used. scotus said that that the new law was aimed at and to be applied to government entities only and not private businesses such as the wedding chapel in Idaho. Government is in its self a secular entity and should in this case issue marriage licences to any lawful couple wanting to get married. Now its up to individual churches, mosks, or temples whether they will perform the marriage or not.

 

[jamil]

She's being persecuted by her employer, for her religious beliefs. It's black and white. You have NO IDEA what oath, if ANY, she took for this clerk job. Get someone else in the office to issue the marriage license and stop the persecution.

She's not being persecuted by her employer. She is not a clerk in the sense of a secretary. She can't just get someone in the office to do it for her. She's the *elected* county clerk whose name goes on the paperwork. And she's being asked to do the job she was elected to do. Part of which is issuing marriage licenses in accordance with the law. By refusing she is effectively writing her own law.

And the oath for a KY county clerk is not hard to find.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ______________________, according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State, nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
​

First, it appears the KY oath of office should probably be updated. I don't think people duel anymore, not even in KY.

Second, she's not faithfully executing her duly elected office of County Clerk. She's refusing to issue marriage licenses to lawful applicants. Like I said. I'm fine with her protesting for her beliefs. But she doesn't get to make her beliefs the law.

 

[PistolBob]

She can't be fired, as she is an elected official...so there are legal remedies that must be taken in order to relieve her of her elected position. The people voted her in, then they will need to legally remove her from office...IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT.

She's not done anything worse than Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or Shiela Lee Jackson...

From a story posted online today....regarding her husband..... "He pointed to the gay rights protesters gathered on the courthouse lawn and said: "They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won't accept our beliefs and our ways."

 

[BADWOLF]

(Kentucky Oath of Office)

(Jamil) Beat me to it...

 

[HoughMade]

She can be impeached by the Ky House, tried in the Ky Senate and removed from office. No vote in the County necessary.

 

[PistolBob]

She can be impeached by the Ky House, tried in the Ky Senate and removed from office. No vote in the County necessary.

If that's the method to remove her then that's what they'll have to do. Should take about 6 months.

 

[BADWOLF]

But now on current topic. Her behavior would not even fly in private business. Elected elected or not, sworn or not. She has and must perform the duties of her office with out fail and to the letter of the law. This situation in its self is how the new law was intended to be used. scotus said that that the new law was aimed at and to be applied to government entities only and not private businesses such as the wedding chapel in Idaho. Government is in its self a secular entity and should in this case issue marriage licences to any lawful couple wanting to get married. Now its up to individual churches, mosks, or temples whether they will perform the marriage or not.

 

[PistolBob]

But now on current topic. Her behavior would not even fly in private business. Elected elected or not, sworn or not. She has and must perform the duties of her office with out fail and to the letter of the law. This situation in its self is how the new law was intended to be used. scotus said that that the new law was aimed at and to be applied to government entities only and not private businesses such as the wedding chapel in Idaho. Government is in its self a secular entity and should in this case issue marriage licences to any lawful couple wanting to get married. Now its up to individual churches, mosks, or temples whether they will perform the marriage or not.

Remember though, she's not just denying homosexual couples, she's denying all couples.

 

[jamil]

Remember though, she's not just denying homosexual couples, she's denying all couples.

I think she's being a douchebag. This isn't about molon labe, it's about her personal little temper tantrum. Unfortunately they'll probably have to remove her from office the hard way.

 

[HoughMade]

Remember though, she's not just denying homosexual couples, she's denying all couples.

So she is equaling refusing to perform her duties.

 

[PistolBob]

So she is equaling refusing to perform her duties.

I'm waiting on her to make a statement that marriage is not under the control of the state. That marriage is a holy union formed by one man, one woman, and God almighty. In my church marriage is a vocation, and requires those three things. In her church it may be something different but since she is denying the issue of marriage licenses to anyone, perhaps she doesn't believe the state has legal right to do so. Regardless...if the people want her gone, it's going to take some time and a whole lot of money...a win win for lawyers...a lose lose for the taxpayers.