Your views on the clerk Ms Kim Davis, who purportedly claims to be a christian, and is a bad role model, who denied marriage licenses to gays...

Your views on the clerk Ms Kim Davis, who purportedly claims to be a christian, and is a bad role model, who denied marriage licenses to gays...

Your views on the clerk Ms Kim Davis, who purportedly claims to be a christian, and is a bad role model, who denied marriage licenses to gays...

Your views on the clerk Ms Kim Davis, who purportedly claims to be a christian, and is a bad role model, who denied marriage licenses to gays...

She's awesome!

I consider her a criminal. She is breaking the law of the land.

If you have a moral imparities that preclude you from doing a job then you have enough courage and commitment in your beliefs that you find another job.

If you do not change jobs then you are lying to put yourself in the position to break the law which is just breaking another commandment. People who apply their religion selectively are frauds.

I personally believe there are products that should not me sold and I have resigned from jobs where that was and issue. Was it easy? No but you do not get to rewrite laws that you do not agree with.

I feel she is commendable for standing by her religious values


its hard in a world where we are told we must leave them at home when we walk out our door and 'conform' to the worlds rules


perhaps its a step towards a minor change that would not demand Christians sign their name to a legal document supporting a sinful lifestyle

much like drivers licenses have had changes to their format and requirements,, the same can be done with marriage licenses,,,

Sorry Msharmony but no it can not due to the very clearly written separation of church and state. By that constitutional law, the government (all levels) can not put in place any law that promotes or denies a single religion, which means any government employee can not refuse to do something based on religious belief, because they are acting on behalf of the government when performing their duties. Thus the ONLY option the government has is to require all clerks to issue marriage licenses, or remove the law requiring marriage licenses in the first place. Me personally, I would rather they went with option B and stopped requiring licenses to get married as the only reason for that process to be in effect is to bring in revenue for the government.

No, very simply, if a persons religious beliefs prevent them from doing something that a job would require them to do, then they need to find a different job. T here is no harm in doing so and they are not being denied the job to begin with.

which religion is being promoted? several religions oppose the lifestyle as well as people who have NO religion


church and state clause is that CONGRESS can pass no law respecting or PROHIBITING exercise of religion

modifying a document would not be doing either, it would be making its purpose and wording practical ,


there is a lot of undue hardship on someone who has done their job faithfully to provide for their family to start back at zero,,

The judicial branch has already deemed many times over that"Congress" means NO branch of government or government employee when it comes to separation of church and state. This is why so many people tried to have the government change the wording of it to Civil Union instead of marriage and leave the term marriage to the church. So basically, a government employee, (judge, clerk, justice of the peace, etc) would be authorized to sign off on a Civil Union but not a marriage, and clergy could sign off on marriages but not Civil Unions. They are the same identical thing, just two different names.

Now in the case of Mrs. Davis, this still would not help her as she would still be required to provide the signature for the Civil Union (which would violate her religious beliefs). In her specific situation, the best thing would be to create a different job or position equivalant to what she already does that would not conflict with religious issues, such as marriage. Or to state that the head clerk (Mr.s Davis) was not authorized to sign off on any marriage licenses, only regular clerks could.

But int he end, an individual has to accept that laws may change and if they do and your religion prevents you from performing it, you no longer qualify for the job and have to find a different one. Same as you or I would have to if we worked as a fireman and lost one of our legs. It sucks that we are no longer capable of doing the job, but life sucks sometimes lol

the problem in this case is as head clerk Davis was not allowing any of the other clerks to sign a certificate because it required her to stamp it afterward.

As far as I am concerned there should have been a special session that removed her from her office when she went to jail for refusing to do her job (and she should not have been released until she agreed to do her job or quit). but htat's just me

again, this presumes that the only objection to same sex is religious, which is not true,,,

and providing a signature for a civil union would not violate anything as a CIVIL union would only be for purposes of LEGAL amenities that same sex couples claim to want and would not in any way be predicated upon SEXUAL relations,,,

and there is something called being 'grandfathered' which should be used to allow those who signed on with CERTAIN expectations from their job to remain in their position with those same expectations,,

and yet the state did allow them to issue the certificates and her lawyer did offer that she would continue with STAMPING but not applying her name,,,