Best response to Kim Davis I've seen yet . . .

[markpkessinger]

. . . from a New York Times reader:

DT New York 3 hours ago

I am an Orthodox Jew. I can't eat milk and meat together as per my own personal beliefs. But if I were a county clerk, and someone wanted to open up a cheeseburger joint, I'd have absolutely zero right as a government official to deny that person his permit on the grounds of the rules of my religion.

[Raster]

1. Yep, saw that this morning. One thing I have noticed...

...we certainly have the lunatic, fundegelical element chiming in on the usual media outlets, but also a very, very large number of average Janes and Joes from both parties and from all over the religious spectrum standing up to say Davis is wrong.

Thankfully, this is not the atmosphere of the holier-than-thou days past.

[TlalocW]

2. The ones I've been using on my conservative friends is

Would you support a Quaker government official not letting you have a gun permit because his religious background of pacifism? Of course, they all say no, and I tell them that if you're supporting one person's stand based on their religious background, you have to for other people, or you're a hypocrite who wants special rules not just or Christianity but a special flavor of Christianity.

And while they were digesting that and trying to come back with something I finished, "And if you actually read your Bible, Jesus REALLY didn't like hypocrites."

TlalocW

[B Calm]

4. Good one!

[TBF]

11. ^ That is a great analogy -

also she is going against her own bible. She took an oath to do her job as an elected official when she took this job.

What does the bible say about keeping your word?

Numbers 30:1-2
Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the people of Israel, saying, “This is what the Lord has commanded. If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. That needs to be pasted to her Twitter or Facebook page. n/t

[Matariki]

39. And for those 'christians' who pick and choose from the Old Testament

Here's a New Testament quote that applies and she ignores:

1 Peter 2:13-17

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

I think it's a creepy quote, but I'm not a christian using that book to justify my personal bigotry.

[TBF]

42. Right?

They throw around their "supreme beings" and ruling book the Bible - but then can't be bothered to read what it says. I really don't care what they do on their own time, but their imaginary friends do not trump the US Constitution.

[TNNurse]

12. These rabid "Christians"

do not respect anyone's idea of religion except their own.

[Mr.Bill]

54. Most of them don't have the literacy skills

to interpret the bible. It's designed that way. That's why they have to go to an interpreter every sunday and pay them to do it for them.

I'm not sure if this or prostitution is the oldest profession.

[4lbs]

30. Boom! I like the way you think! I will put that in my "hypocrite" arsenal and unleash it

the next time someone argues "religious freedom supercedes US law" to me.

[IronLionZion]

44. Most of them are fine with hypocrisy and don't like Jesus that much

since he was a long-haired Jewish peacenik who hung out with sinners and threw money changers out of God's house

I'm sure they have strong opinions about Sharia law in the United States

[olegramps]

46. She shouldn't take a job that violates her principles rather than forcing her principles on others.

[Feeling the Bern]

55. They didn't read their bible, they read this bible.

And the "real" Bible needs these nutrition facts:

[hifiguy]

58. That one

I saved!

[hifiguy]

3. He/she GETS it.

[yuiyoshida]

5. and...there ya go!

[riversedge]

6. The reasoning is so simple --when explained as in the op.

[lobodons]

9. simple minded people

Red State fake Christians are just simple minded people who are just too ignorant to know any better.

[rhett o rick]

7. This really has nothing to do with her religion. She is just a self-righteous bully. nm

[daleanime]

16. +1

[uponit7771]

21. +1, she's been divorced 3 times

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

25. Soon to be 4 I'd wager.

[bulloney]

27. These fundies do this sort of thing more for their political, rather than religious beliefs.

They put them under the guise of religion, thinking they have a better chance of getting away with their crap.

[lobodons]

8. Mic Drop

F you Red State fake Christians.

[Chemisse]

10. Very good analogy. The only thing wrong with it is

The author probably doesn't despise cheeseburgers with a great passion - so much so that he never want's any other person to ever be able to eat them.

This really isn't about religious beliefs at all. This is about a woman's hatred and intolerance.

[LiberalAndProud]

36. This really isn't about religious beliefs at all.

Excuse me but that is unmitigated bullshit.

[Chemisse]

40. What a compelling line of reasoning you presented here.

Seriously, if you're going to post, try adding something to the discussion.

[tkmorris]

50. He/she added PRECISELY as much as you did

Or perhaps more, because despite not posting a lengthy argument to justify their position, the poster is correct. This is about her religious beliefs. They may not be beliefs you share, but they are her beliefs nonetheless.

[LiberalAndProud]

53. I cannot imagine the intellectual disconnect required to make such a blatantly false assertion.

How can it be that religion can be separated from the text and the pulpit? How does one manage to live in modern society and not at least acknowledge that the opposition to equality is fucking religious?

You can't defend the assertion, and what's more, you know it.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. The reasoning starts from the knowledge that

religion is "good" and then rejects all evidence that contradicts that knowledge.

[LiberalAndProud]

59. You do know that said reasoning has nothing to do with reason, right?

Of course you do.

I'm equally unamused when the religious point to good things to prove the existence of God. The mindset is related.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Actually I disagree.

Once you have accepted the assumptions the line of reasoning makes sense. The religious worldview starts from an assumption of knowledge. It is not evidence based. Religions know how things are, but that knowledge is revealed and immutable. Once an individual has accepted that worldview, reasoning based on those assumptions are rational *within that framework*. I just reject the framework and the worldview. The assumptions are the problem.

[LiberalAndProud]

62. There is nothing reasonable about rejecting all evidence in favor of a worldview.

It is something apart from reason just as other ways of knowing must be.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. I agree that the assumptions are irrational

my only point here is that rational thinking can follow from those assumptions. For example this woman in Kentucky is following quite rationally the tenets of her religion, even if her religion, like all religions, is based on irrational assumptions.

Are you sure that evidence based reasoning, the scientific worldview, does not also start from assumptions that are not evidence based, that do not fit within the requirements of testable repeatable hypothesis?

The difference of course is that the assumptions of the scientific worldview are minimal whereas the assumptions of the religious worldview are maximal. However both worldviews start from irrational assumptions.

[Chemisse]

61. Religion is only an excuse, something to hide behind.

People who are bigoted use their religion to justify their intolerance of LGTB people.

The Bible says lots of contradictory things. People and churches and communities pick and choose those that bolster what they want to believe.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this clerk is not a religious martyr with a direct line to god. She is mean-spirited and narrow-minded and is using her religion to feel good about herself.

[LiberalAndProud]

63. I invite you to contemplate from whence the intolerance springs.

Is it our nature, or is it our fervently religious nurture?

To believe that this is not religiously rooted.You have had to reject Ms. Davis' testimony. You have had to discount the fact that her lawyer is a former Seventh Day Adventist pastor. And you have to utterly ignore the fact that her position is supported by sacred text.

She absolutely believes she is being martyred for her faith. Her pastor and her Bible tell her so.

[Chemisse]

64. I would believe this is all about her religion, if she was equally adamant about all other tenets of

Christianity.

Funny how these bigots get snagged on this one issue yet never get around to following some of the key 10 commandments. If she was a really spiritual person, and took all aspects of her religion just as seriously as this one, then I would give her some credit for following her ideals.

Instead, she is part of a culture that despises homosexuality. It may be a church-based culture , but that doesn't give it the legitimacy of a religious belief. They just happened to find a few nuggets in the Bible that backed them up.

These people tend to be racist as well. It's not likely they can find justification for that in the Bible, but the feelings of intolerance are the same. If we were in the 1950s, she could just as easily have been denying marriage licenses to racially mixed couples. And that would have been no more about religion than this is.

It's possible that when we say 'about religion' we mean two different things.

[LiberalAndProud]

65. You mean when we say 'about religion' we are talking about the good kind of religion, right?

The Bible is multiple choice with no correct answer key. She's standing on her Christianity. That's a religion.

If she chooses the wrong verses from a multiple choice book, it's because of her religion.

[trotsky]

48. Um, she says HERSELF that she is following her "god's law."

Unless you can read her mind and see that she actually just hates gay people, then it really IS about religious beliefs. And how they can so firmly fix people's stances, sometimes for good, but sometimes for very, very bad.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. The source documentation of the abrahamic faiths includes

Multiple references to their God hating, despising, etc, the 'abomination' of same sex relations, so no, it's not a stretch that it's directly related to her evangelical, abrahamic/Christian faith.

[Goblinmonger]

56. What more does it take for this to be about religion.

SHE SAID it was about religion.

But you know it isn't about religion even though she claims God is the reason she was doing this.

[AlbertCat]

68. This is about a woman's hatred and intolerance.....

.... nurtured by her religious beliefs.

[SheilaT]

13. Ms Davis's intransigence is rather amusing,

aside from the genuine pain and inconvenience it has caused people, given her own marital record.

[Ineeda]

43. Amen!

#1 -She took an oath of office with her hand on the bible.
#2 -She made a sacred, "binding" promise to first hubby.
#3 -She made a sacred, "binding" promise to second hubby.
#4 -She made a sacred, "binding" promise to third hubby.

So we know how seriously she takes her "religious" commitment.

[smirkymonkey]

14. Bravo!

[TeamPooka]

15. The law is only for Christians silly people. Jews, Muslims and Hindus etc don't count.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

26. Dont forget the atheists, agnostics, and just 'spiritual' folk!

[Geronimoe]

17. More possible obsurdities

Jewish clerk refusing to issue marriage license unless male is circumcised.

Mormon clerk issuing multiple marriage license to same husband.

A Christian from Niger clerk might refuse to issue marriage license unless prospective wife has female genital mutilation.

[Stonepounder]

28. Or even an Evangelical Christian

refusing a marriage licence to a couple where one or both of them were divorced. Think of all the trouble we would have saved it that had happened to Mrs. Davis.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

41. That would apply to a Catholic clerk

According to the Catholic Church, someone who is divorced and does not have an annulment is an adulterer if he or she remarries.

"I'm sorry. Since you were married before and your previous spouse is still living, it offends my religious sensibilities to issue you a marriage license."

One thing about Ms Davis: She is expecting others to live by her religious beliefs, whether or not they share them. As I keep saying about social conservatives, when they say "I believe in the right of the individual to live as he or she pleases", what they actually mean is "I believe in the right of the individual to live as he or she pleases, but only insofar as he or she is doing what I, personally, approve of". Or, to put that more simply, "I do not believe in the right of the individual to live as he or she pleases".

[ProfessorGAC]

45. One Nit To Pick

My mom worked as a transcriptionist for the canon lawyers for the diocese. An annulment is only possible if the marriage was never consummated. If that has occurred, the marriage is never annulled. They call that dissolution.

Just picking a nit based upon personal understanding. I agree with everything else you said.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

67. Non consumation is one reason for granting an annulment.

There are others. For example, if any party to the marriage is acting under duress -- think "shotgun wedding" -- that is grounds for annulment. There is a decent article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)

[lostnfound]

47. Absolutely a valid example. And not far from reality, either, as ca couple decades ago.

The prohibition against divorce in Catholicism was strong, and I am sure there were many Catholic clerks refusing to issue divorce decrees.

[OnionPatch]

18. Exactly. She needs to do her job or find another one.

She has every right to refuse issuing marriage licenses..... and turn in her resignation at the same time.

[DesertRat]

19. I like this one too

[SoCalDem]

22. or if one were a truly observant Catholic who did not believe in divorce

L'il Miss Kim would never have been able to marry FOUR TIMES

[Demobrat]

24. That doesn't count. It was all before she was saved.

That's how it works.

[brush]

35. Yep, those recently converted religious freaks tend to be ridiculously over zealous . . .

with their eagerness to impose their newly discovered faith on others.

Especially the ones who didn't live too righteously before, like thrice divorce/four times married little miss Kim.

[Demobrat]

23. I wonder what will happen when (and if)

she has to make a choice between her religious beliefs and the cushy $80,000/yr job she got through nepotism. It seems she would rather sit in jail than quit, which says a lot.

Specifically, I wonder which commie liberal government benefits she will sign up for.

[Javaman]

29. she gets her check from the government as an employee of said government, so as a result..

their rules.

if you don't like the rules, then stop taking the governments money and quit.

I find her "righteous" mission to be full of holes as well as shit.

[tclambert]

31. And The Lord, thy God, sayeth Thou shalt not eat bacon double cheeseburgers!

No, Ceiling Cat! Say it isn't so!

[Oilwellian]

32. It's good to see it from a business perspective...

because realistically, how many businesses would allow a religious zealot to dictate what they can and can't sell? In this country, that is not going to happen. This latest fundy tantrum is being nipped in the bud as we speak.

[azurnoir]

33. Exactly K&R

[Liberty Belle]

34. Here's another, touche, on the anarchy if all govt. workers could defy the law:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027138701

[senz]

37. I think Kim Davis playing a game of "hot potato" --

that's where no one wants to hold the potato so they toss it to someone else. She was holding it and so she tossed it to gays and lesbians. According to U.S. News,

"she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second."

And now she's on her fourth husband. As a fundie, then she would feel a little strange about her own adultery, multiple marriages, and out-of-wedlock children. So now she has someone she can feel holier-than-thou toward: those "sinning" gays and lesbians. Plus, she's receiving money from anti-gay Christianists, so she probably wants to do the martyr bit and soak up as much money as she can.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times

I don't think she's sincere about any of it.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

38. This is all thanks to that Hobby Lobby bullshit

Now every right winger who has a job wants to flout the law on religious grounds. Of course, when the Muslim supermarket checker didn't want to sell anyone pork- well, that was different...

This can of worms brought to you by the Roberts Supreme Court.

[grahamhgreen]

51. The best is war. I am morally opposed to our wars, but god forbid I stop paying for them.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

52. Then what about this?

Alderman to Chick-fil-A: No deal

Moreno tries to block restaurant that opposes gay marriage from opening in his Northwest Side ward
July 25, 2012|By Hal Dardick, Chicago Tribune reporter

A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A's plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain's top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.

Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A's effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy's remarks last week that he was "guilty as charged" for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. ... "If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don't want you in the 1st Ward," Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday.

Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy's "bigoted, homophobic comments" in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. "Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward."

The alderman has the ideological support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel. ... "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," the mayor said in a statement when asked about Moreno's decision.

It's up to them to determine where people can eat? That's now part of their job? The ACLU of Illinois had it right:

Statement on Chick-Fil-A matter

July 26, 2012 7:02 pm

In recent days, various media reports revealed that Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno was exercising his “aldermanic discretion” to block the construction of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant in his ward. Alderman Moreno repeated to several media outlets that his objection was based on recent statements by the restaurant’s President, Dan Cathy, opposing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. The American Civil Liberties Union of strongly opposes blocking the placement of the restaurant on the basis of the company’s President’s statements. The following can be attributed to the ACLU of Illinois:

Alderman Moreno’s single-handed actions are wrong and dangerous. The ACLU of Illinois strongly supports full recognition and fair treatment for LGBT persons in Chicago and across Illinois. Indeed, our strong support for the LGBT community led us in May to file a lawsuit challenging the state ban in Illinois on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. At the same time, we oppose using the power and authority of government to retaliate against those who express messages that are controversial or averse to the views of current office holders. In this instance, the Alderman is using his governmental authority to exclude a business from opening its doors simply because the corporate leadership has expressed anti-LGBT views in the public. This use of government authority simply is not permissible under our Constitution.

We also are concerned how this practice might be applied in the future. If the government is permitted to deny entrance into a Chicago community to Chick-Fil-A based on statements about public policy, then government elsewhere will have the power to exclude the expanding number of businesses who support fairness for LGBT people. Over the longer term, such government censorship would undermine the growing success of the LGBT rights movement.