That is only because signing a field trip consent form is in fact giving your consent from someone you are responsible for. It's not the same thing as signing a marriage license. She is not responsible for the people getting married. All she is signing is a document that says it is legal for them to get married. Which it is.

This has nothing to do with religion or what she thinks is right or wrong. This has only has to do with what is legal. You can not be a public servant and violate the law you swore to uphold. Which is exactly what she is doing.

This is basicly the same as when County Clerks we denying marriage licenses to mixed couples. They didn't think with a black person should marry a white person. However, the law said they could. Once again, they either had to follow the law or resign their jobs. History shows, they either did their jobs or got replaced.

The county clerk's office is not the place to make a stand like that anyway. This was a ruling by the Federal supreme court. The only way to really make a stand against them is to make it with the federal government. Therefore, what she is doing makes no sense. She can't change the law from her position, and instead of working with the people that could change the law she is making a media circus and getting her name in the headlines. She want's her 15 minutes. Well, now she's had her time and nothing has changed. Except now people know how much of a bigot she really is.

The law will not change because it is in agreement with 14th Amendment. The only way to change the law is to modify the 14th Amendment. Which, by the way, would also take away women's rights. Are you sure you support her now?

In the US we have equal rights due to the 14th. You change the 14th and we no longer have equal rights. Sure, that would mean same sex marriage could be illegal. However, it also means black people would have no rights, the only people that could own land is white males, and the only people that could vote are land owners. That is what the constitution said before the 14th amendment was added. Why would anyone want to go back to that? Besides some white male landowners that is.

Over all what it comes down to is, if you don't like the law, changed it. Although, the day the US stops having equal rights is the same day I move permanently to another country where they do.

many changes have come through people protesting or contesting or 'going against ' the law

peaceful protests where blacks set where they were not permitted were against the law, and I admire MLK for his habit of leading them

and yes, I would admire a muslim if they entered a position in one capacity and then had to endure a change that directly contested their religious convictions with no opportunity for some interim compromise to acknowledge the reality that their job has changed from what they were to believe they would do when they applied,,especially if they have done that job well up til the point that the dynamics changed,,,

As I said it's perfectly understandable IF she made a mistake, she didn't.
This was made VERY CLEAR when she was compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do the DUTY SHE WAS ELECTED TO DO, which HAS NOT CHANGED. She was ORDERED nicely without being jailed to STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS AND DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She instead, DENIED ALL CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, as a LEGAL AUTHORITY OF Rowan County and the State of Kentucky for >HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS<.
No Muslim Jew Christian Hindu Buddhist or any other religion can make or DENY a LEGAL DOCUMENT to ANYONE for a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Not in AMERICA.

Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY.

A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows.

Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval.

she shouldn't have to sign to say its legal, if its legal no individual needs to attest to it,, it just is

in her view, she is signing to authorize/consent to the contract

in my view, she is signing just to 'witness' that the laws were followed

for her and her conscious to not be willing to compromise her values by consenting to an amoral behavior,, and because I believe that is her conscience, I admire her for standing up for her values

no legal document should REQUIRE ANYONES SIGNATURE< except those entering in a contract, to define its legality

especially if such person is not in agreement with the contract

and no lunch bar should be denying service on the base of color, but they did for YEARS, while the authorities compelled them to stay in their place , by actions ranging from compelling 'nicely'(whatever that is) to incarcerating


thank goodness they didn't just say , its the law so I will just follow it,,,or give up,,

but more closely to kim would be

'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position'

based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,,

Those who participated in the sit ins were not elected officials compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do LEGAL PAPERWORK. She isn't the victim, those being DENIED LEGAL service GUARANTEED TO THEM AS TAX PAYING CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and the SUPREME COURT LEGAL REVIEW THAT DID NOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES or HER LEGAL OBLIGATION AS ELECTED COUNTY CLERK. This IS NOT a peaceful protest. Her RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is not gone, she may practice her religion in any church she wishes to be a member. This is HIGHLY PUBLICIZED ONE WOMAN WAR ON THE SUPREME COURT AND SAME-SEX COUPLES seeking LEGAL DOCUMENTS and her (un)justification for denying EVERYONE seeking a marriage license they MUST AQUIRE to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS MARRIED BY THE STATE AND THE IRS is

Her own mistaken belief that she can make or deny LEGAL decisions for the couples, the IRS in the name of ROWAN COUNTY and THE STATE OF KENTUCKY for

HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF. She's wrong. She has NO AUTHORITY to impose HER RELIGIOUS BELIEF on ANYONE for ANY REASON at ANY TIME as AN ELECTED LEGAL CLERK.

no, based upon this first sentence

"a devout hindu becomes the head of fda,,,,to him the cow is holy'

he took a job knowing the job and knowing cows were part of it WHEN HE STARTED, by accepting the job he accepted it WITH THAT JOB DESCRIPTION




but more closely to kim would be

'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position'

based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,,

Ah but that is not really the case here. What the Supreme Court did was realise that same sex marriage has been legal since the 14th amendment was established back in 1868. Therefore, her job always included signing same sex marriage licenses. Kim's job did not change or get redefined. The only change is that everyone became aware of the fact that part of her job included signing said licenses.

The 14th amendment HAS NOT CHANGED.
Her SWORN LEGAL OATH for LEGAL OFFICE HAS NOT CHANGED.
She IS NOT in a position of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.
She IS NOT performing RELIGIOUS CEREMONYS, she isn't performing ANY CEREMONYS.
Her OBLIGATION is LEGAL.
Her office is LEGAL.
Her work is LEGAL.
Her title is LEGAL.
Her 'boss' the COURTS, are COURTS OF LAW.
Her RELIGIOUS BELIEF doesn't supersede ANY LAW IN ANY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES.

tell me, rug, whose signature is on your license

my license only has MINE,, the person entering the obligation,,,

that's my point

having a document attesting to legality is enough without having a PERSONAL signature to further make it legal,,,,

the drivers license manages to be valid without a need for anyone to SIGN IT(except the driver)

its not bigotry to believe an action is wrong,, people confuse being against behaviors with being against people,, they are separate matters..

what other ways, outside of civil disobedience, do you suggest for 'protesting' an unjust law..? just curious

are you unable to admire the people who sat at lunch tables that were segregated,, against the law,, or those people who served 'coloreds' against the law and against their jobs expectations?

I don't admire terrorist, because they go BEYOND refusing to participate in things that are against their values,, and cross over into physically HARMING others to force them to also abide by their values

I don't admire ANYONE who uses the threat of VIOLENCE against others,, this has NOTHING to do with that,,,

what is bigoted or hateful or illogical about her belief?

Except THAT LAW has not changed. No new "Same-sex marriage Bill" has been passed so that HAS BEEN her job all along. All the supreme court did was issue a LEGAL review and compel those who were RELIGIOUSLY opposed to ALLOW THE PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND RIGHTS under THE SAME CONSTITUTION THAT APPLIES TO ALL OTHER CITIZENS. Had they not done so, they would CONDONE the COUNTIES STATES AND IRS to not recognize these PEOPLE as HUMAN BEINGS and as COUNTIES STATES AND A COUNTRY AS AUTHORITY OF LAW to DENY THEM THEIR FREEDOM RIGHTS AND PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

LAW

not religion. Not personal belief. Not homphobia. U.S. Law applies to all citizens. Even ones we don't personally agree with. There is nothing on the marriage LICENSE that says I agree that these two people should be together in HOLY MATRIMONY for all the days of their life and if they conduct ANY SIN to include a SINFUL SEXUAL ACT that I (Kim Davis) will be personally responsible for said sin directly to God even though I was not present and did not encourage or participate in THAT sinful sexual act, payable with my soul's eternal damnation in the hottest of the fires in all of hell for eternity.

Straight people commit RELIGIOUSLY sinful sexual acts too.

it sure doesn't, and those Christians who found slavery amoral didn't have beliefs that SUPERCEDED law either, or those who struck out against segregation and jim crow,

but thank God they made the sacrifices and stood up to those laws even to the point of breaking them,,,,,

fighting a system that made certain people feel they had to CLOSET 'who they are' by just pushing some other group there instead is WRONG,, whether its 'legal' or not