Kim Davis-Am I the only one who thinks she's just greedy?

1. 60

   Live to Learnposted 9 years ago

   I see that the Oath Keepers are moving into Kentucky and claim they will keep Kim Davis from being incarcerated the next time she is found in contempt of court. I also see where she has vowed to ignore the judge's order to stop denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. So, it appears we'll soon have ourselves a Mexican standoff or a modern day Hatfields and McCoys.
   
   You'd think if she didn't approve she'd move on and get a job where she didn't have to contemplate what other people are doing. I suppose $80,000 is a lot of money in rural Kentucky and she simply can't fathom the idea of standing on principle hurting her pocketbook. I strongly defend the idea of freedom of conscience but I just don't see her actions as anything other than greedy and selfish. Does anyone have any positive spin on her behavior?

   replyreport
2. 89

   ThatMommyBloggerposted 9 years ago

   I have nothing positive to say about Kim Davis.  I think she's a selfish jerk.  It's fine to have strong religious beliefs, and it's fine to live a life that allows you to honor them.  However, if you're against gay marriage, then you can't be a court clerk.  You'd be better off working in a church or an anti-gay organization.  If you can't do the job you're hired for, then you don't deserve to keep that job.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. And that's what this boils down to.. If she can't do the job, then go do some job she can do. Don't just take taxpayer money and then refuse to do the work you are being paid to do.

      replyreport
3. 89

   ThatMommyBloggerposted 9 years ago

   Maybe Kim Davis can get a job with that rude chick who makes YouTube videos about how much she hates overweight people.  (I think her name is Nicole Arbour?)  They could have hours of fun spewing their hateful messages across social media.

   replyreport
4. 95

   wildernessposted 9 years ago

   Davis is on record as saying that she had considered quitting the job, but realized that if she did so she would lose her "voice for God".  In other words, she would lose the power to force others to follow her interpretation of a specific book of scripture.
   
   It's not about her doing something forbidden; it's about forcing others to her belief, then.  Establishing a religion through the power of her government job.
   
   As far as the oath keepers, someone is going to give.  And I'm betting it isn't the courts.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Well, her god appears to be her ego if she thinks she's somehow God's voice in Kentucky.

      replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   I don't particularly care if gays marry anymore , I used to believe that  it simply spoils the institution of marriage . my thought was ,  Why couldn't they just have settled for  civil unions ,  For one thing ,  to consider  someone  having to give up their  multi year or even decades old  career  for the sake of political correctness is  just as wrong too .     I say good for her !   She draws a  moral , ethical line that people don't seem eager to do anymore .    In truth she probably is  riding on the attention of it all -- but then so are gay people  rushing to  marriage ..

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes.  She draws a moral, ethical line.  One straight from her god and in direct violation of the Constitution and Supreme Court as she establishes a state religion in Rowan County.
      
      I don't particularly see that as a good thing...unless you would also root for Muslims in state positions forcing Sharia Law onto the general public.  I wouldn't.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      i hope you are saying that the gay couples attempting to obtain a marriage license where she works are 'rushing to marriage' and not gay couples in general.

      replyreport
6. 84

   rebekahELLEposted 9 years ago

   Ughh.  She's a liar, hypocrite and attention seeker.  The whole thing speaks loudly about religious zealots, any religion.  She's not any different from any religious extremist.  People like her do more harm than good.  They refuse to see their ignorance.

   replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   While I agree about her need to go  , I also  realize that the whole gay marriage issue is pretty new and deserves  scrutiny as to  a multitude of state and federal   laws .  Just because the Supreme Court has struck down opposition doesn't mean this issue is dead .   yes ,  she has to be fired or resign ,    But at which point does it become a legal issue  as to labor rights ?  This is a can of worms  in many issues of today , labor and  social  law , from transgender bathrooms  in your children's elementary schools , to  gay parenting  , childbearing rights ,  where does it end ?   Not quite  a black and white issue is it ? But as usual Americans never quite see the grey ?
   
   For instance near me a brand new bed and breakfast facility with a new  multi-faith cathedral  refused to have a gay couple Marry and  celebrate  there ,  A long legal battle ensued , forcing the gay couple to marry elsewhere and  breaking the bank of the new facility ?   End result gay couple marry elsewhere --- Owners financially devastated .   Because it went against their  religious beliefs ?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am afraid I think that a private business which performs marriage ceremonies should have the right to refuse to perform a ceremony if it is against their religious beliefs. Their refusal doesn't stop a couple from getting married. It's a shame that went to court and cost the B&B their business. Shame on the gay couple for being so selfish on that one.
      
      I've never heard of transgender bathrooms in elementary schools. I suppose that's somewhere in California?

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         That gets a little thorny when the ceremony is a religious one.  No one should have to marry, under God, a couple that God says should not marry.
         
         On the other hand, if the ceremony includes the legal aspects of filling out and filing paperwork to indicate a legal marriage it becomes a different matter.  ANY couple legally able to marry should have access to that service from ANY public business. 
         
         Perhaps those businesses refusing to marry any couple should lose the ability to form a legal marriage.  Carry out their religious ceremony, but a JP or other legal representative shall perform the marriage for legal purposes as opposed to religious ones.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            i don't think the ceremony is binding, in and of itself. I think we had to go get a marriage license from the government and then it was signed by the preacher after the ceremony. Without that, it would have just been a ceremony. Or, we could have skipped the religious ceremony and just gotten married at the courthouse.
            
            I think my point is that religious entities shouldn't have to go against their consciences within the confines of their church. I think they should still be empowered to sign the document after the ceremony. I think saying they cannot is going overboard.
            
            I can think of several sects who wouldn't perform a marriage ceremony for me. Catholicism being one of them. But, I'm not going to say they shouldn't be able to do it at all, if they won't accommodate me. That's religion. The state is an entirely different matter. Kim Davis isn't a preacher she's a court clerk. Big difference. We don't have to care what her religious beliefs are she simply has to be able to fill out forms properly and dispense them to the appropriate parties.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I'm with you, although I DO see possibility of Davis-type abuse by the church.  Churches should never have to do something outside their belief, although when they begin selling services it isn't nearly so clear cut (is it even a church, then?).  Nor is it only the preacher that protected within the confines of the church.
               
               Davis, on the other hand, moved her "church" into the clerk's office where she began enforcing the edicts of that church.  A very clear and unmistakable violation of our Constitution and legal system.
               
               And it goes beyond a clerk's office as well.  No public business should be able to force their beliefs on the public by discriminating against any group.  Arctic Circle, for instance, refusing to serve anyone that drinks coffee.  Or Chick Fil A deciding not to serve gay couples or Cakes By Melissa refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage.

               replyreport
8. 78

   colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

   Kim Davis is not the only government official who is refusing to issues same sex marriage licenses.
   
   USA Today:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … /71770124/

   replyreport
9. 58

   Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

   Obviously her attorneys are not that "Swift" either ~ They neglected to obtain permission from the band "Survivor" to use their mega-hit song "Eye of the Tiger" at her little "I break the Law & Blatantly Discriminate" ralley ~
   
   The band had planned to file a "Cease & Desist" letter with local jurisdiction in an effort to distance themselves from this narcissistic cretin ~ Just more inherent trouble for Mike Huckabee and what's left of the republican party ~

   replyreport
10. 82

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Some stand up for their beliefs no matter where they are for the sheer thrill of it.
    http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 … lefts.html

    replyreport
    1. 95

       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Or for political expediency.  Although I have to say that it's odd how firmly held beliefs change with the political winds...

       replyreport
       1. 82

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          almost (exactly?) like wild fire.

          replyreport