Clerk Jailed for Refusing to Give out Gay marriage licences

[BadFish]

A slightly strange turn of phrase there BF. The law had changed, it is exactly that point she should have been putting her religious convictions to one side to do her JOB ..... or resign.

As is appears she refused any kind of compromise on the situation then i tend to agree with you. Still thinking throwing her in jail seems a bit harse. Surely as she was breaking the law and her not doing her job she could be got rid of some how?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Bloody religionists, the cause of ALL the troubles in the world.

"Scientists read hundreds of books and think they know nothing, religious people read one book and think they know everything"

 

[dingodan]

Not that aware of but denying a marriage licence on grounds of race, gender, sexuality, nationality, number of legs - all the same as far as I'm concerned.

If she didn't like the idea of issuing licences for gay people to marry she should have resigned.

Being religious and being part of the KKK are not comparable to a reasonable person.

 

[dingodan]

All very laudable but when their actions have consequences and impact on the lives of others then it isn't that simple, as we know (to take it to an extreme) in the case of one or two Ayatollahs.

You mean inactions, not actions. I actually think that is important in these kinds of cases. She didn't do anything, her "crime" was passive. I can't think of anyone who I think should be forced to do anything.

I'm not defending this womans beliefs, I would have thought she would be fired, and I wouldn't have that much to say about it, but actually I think when people cheer her going to prison it's because she has views they don't accept and can't understand (nor can I incidentally) and that makes her seem like the most kind of dangerous and awful person of all. But that mentality is the same mentality which at one time put homosexuals in prison. In both cases it's ignorance, then fear leading to intolerance.

People are saying that this woman is not being imprisoned for who she is or her beliefs, but for not doing her job or being in contempt of court or whatever. But when homosexuals were imprisoned it was often said that they were not being put in prison for being gay, but for the homosexual acts that they had committed - as though there was a difference.

 

[gregbrighton]

Being religious and being part of the KKK are not comparable to a reasonable person.

Unfortunately the KKK's justification for their racist and homophobic violent activity has Christian roots.

You can be sure if Mrs Davies refused to give marriage licenses to mixed-race couples and was ordered to by a judge, she would have equally been thrown into prison for contempt of court.

Religious beliefs or ('laws') should not trump civic law. Religious beliefs and laws should only be accountable to those religious people who wish to abide by it. My guess that many of these gay couples are not Christians so she should not be inflicting her beliefs on them.

The separation of church and state in the legislature and government is there for a very good reason.

 

[drew]

You mean inactions, not actions. I actually think that is important in these kinds of cases. She didn't do anything, her "crime" was passive. I can't think of anyone who I think should be forced to do anything.

I'm not defending this womans beliefs, I would have thought she would be fired, and I wouldn't have that much to say about it, but actually I think when people cheer her going to prison it's because she has views they don't accept and can't understand (nor can I incidentally) and that makes her seem like the most kind of dangerous and awful person of all. But that mentality is the same mentality which at one time put homosexuals in prison. In both cases it's ignorance, then fear leading to intolerance.

People are saying that this woman is not being imprisoned for who she is or her beliefs, but for not doing her job or being in contempt of court or whatever. But when homosexuals were imprisoned it was often said that they were not being put in prison for being gay, but for the homosexual acts that they had committed - as though there was a difference.

The point is she didn't do her job. If she didn't like what was being asked then she should relinquish her position but by not doing so she is blocking someone else from doing that job properly. That said, she has probably got what she wanted, publicity.

 

[dingodan]

Unfortunately the KKK's justification for their racist and homophobic violent activity has Christian roots.

So in your view being religious and being part of the KKK are comparable?

You know, UK law protects religion and race in the same breath.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/introduction

Because according to UK law hating religious people is comparable to hating black people.

Thought you should know as you were coming accross a bit "KKK".

 

[dingodan]

The point is she didn't do her job. If she didn't like what was being asked then she should relinquish her position but by not doing so she is blocking someone else from doing that job properly. That said, she has probably got what she wanted, publicity.

Come on, fire her. Or if not, even easier, get someone else to sign it.

She didn't need to go to prison, and I recon it hurts the cause of those people fighting for gay rights, I think it's a step back for everybody. Would have been a good opportunity to show tolerance, to show what the intolerant are lacking. Instead we just show the same old intolerance back the other way.

 

[Coxovi]

This whole episode is mind boggingly stupid. How can the media fall for such a hair brained story that issuing Marriage licenses is against someone's religious beliefs. Religious freedom has never meant the ability to restrict others rights to prevent them from sinning. if it did, then she could also refuse to issue liquor licenses because drinking alcohol is a sin, or not certify divorces because that is a sin. No one is forcing her to marry a woman! The judge should never have sent her to prison as this is exactly what she wanted, just ordered the others to issue the licenses.

 

[Diego Napier]

You mean inactions, not actions. I actually think that is important in these kinds of cases. She didn't do anything, her "crime" was passive. I can't think of anyone who I think should be forced to do anything.

I'm not defending this womans beliefs, I would have thought she would be fired, and I wouldn't have that much to say about it, but actually I think when people cheer her going to prison it's because she has views they don't accept and can't understand (nor can I incidentally) and that makes her seem like the most kind of dangerous and awful person of all. But that mentality is the same mentality which at one time put homosexuals in prison. In both cases it's ignorance, then fear leading to intolerance.

People are saying that this woman is not being imprisoned for who she is or her beliefs, but for not doing her job or being in contempt of court or whatever. But when homosexuals were imprisoned it was often said that they were not being put in prison for being gay, but for the homosexual acts that they had committed - as though there was a difference.

I understand your thought processes but they do seem to be inadvertently obfuscating the real issue. Really isn't it quite simple, it's immaterial what I think or you think or what other people may think; she refused to carry out her job, she refused to authorise her deputies, she refused to resign, she therefore refused to act in a reasonable manner, she was consequently jailed.

 

[gregbrighton]

So in your view being religious and being part of the KKK are comparable?

You know, UK law protects religion and race in the same breath.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/introduction

Because according to UK law hating religious people is comparable to hating black people.

Thought you should know as you were coming accross a bit "KKK".

Are you really that stupid, dingodan? Have a bit of a word with yourself....

 

[drew]

Come on, fire her. Or if not, even easier, get someone else to sign it.

She didn't need to go to prison, and I recon it hurts the cause of those people fighting for gay rights, I think it's a step back for everybody. Would have been a good opportunity to show tolerance, to show what the intolerant are lacking. Instead we just show the same old intolerance back the other way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-clerk-marriage-licenses_55e5c2d5e4b0c818f619224c

 

[drew]

I understand your thought processes but they do seem to be inadvertently obfuscating the real issue. Really isn't it quite simple, it's immaterial what I think or you think or what other people may think; she refused to carry out her job, she refused to authorise her deputies, she refused to resign, she therefore refused to act in a reasonable manner, she was consequently jailed.

Not entirely true. She was jailed for contempt fo court. Effectively the same as the court had ordered her to do her job.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Not entirely true. She was jailed for contempt fo court. Effectively the same as the court had ordered her to do her job.

Then do it, resign or be fired.

 

[Triggaaar]

She'll turn in prison.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Come on, fire her. Or if not, even easier, get someone else to sign it.

She didn't need to go to prison, and I recon it hurts the cause of those people fighting for gay rights, I think it's a step back for everybody. Would have been a good opportunity to show tolerance, to show what the intolerant are lacking. Instead we just show the same old intolerance back the other way.

The court has no powers to fire her. She was elected to her position and the courts have no powers to overthrow the results of an election, without going through the full process of impeachment, which is very time consuming.

 

[albion534]

Groom

Ignorant bitch

 

[Stat Brother]

One of Washington DC's biggest lawyers Abbe Lowell talks a little about the case here.
It's not the biggest segment and treated in a very 'matter of fact' way.

He then goes on to talk through the recent NFL ball tampering case, if anyone happens to be interested in both cases.

http://stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=65&c=580&f=4797143

 

[drew]

Then do it, resign or be fired.

I agree entirely. I was just pointing out to our dingo friend why it wasn't a simple case of just sacking her.

 

[gregbrighton]

Interesting discussion (especially with the human rights guy) about this case and religious authority.