Didn't Kim Davis trample the religious freedom of the gay couple first?

[DetlefK]

What if the gay couple had the deeply religious belief that they have the right to marry and should marry? Has anybody ever checked up on them about that?

Wouldn't that mean that Kim Davis were preventing the gay couple from entering a form of relationship (marriage = legally committed couple) that is religiously more preferable than their current form of relationship (purely socially committed couple)?

[mnhtnbb]

1. If they are members of any of the religions (including Christian denominations)

which support marriage equality, the answer is yes, and there are lots of them: many more main stream than her denomination.

But the Constitution protects the rights of everyone--including those with no religious affiliation--
so regardless, she is trampling on their rights. Period.




http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/02/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/

[RKP5637]

3. K&R!!! n/t

[unblock]

2. but hers is the one true god, see....

the rest of us heathens are all going to hell, so, that's that.

[mnhtnbb]

4. Fortunately for the rest of us, she doesn't get to make that judgment, which is why

she is now cooling her heels in the slammer.

[unblock]

5. the situation is almost amusing.

her office can perfectly reasonably accommodate her (insane, bigoted) religious objection anyway, simply by doing what it's doing already -- having other people in the office handle the marriage licenses while she find some aspect of her job she doesn't object to.

her stance is no just that she shouldn't have to do something she objects to, but also that no one in her office can do what she objects to on religious grounds even if the deputy clerks don't object to it.

[mnhtnbb]

6. People who are delusional can often be amusing, but also completely incable of

understanding the humor.

[WinkyDink]

7. No. Religion need not be part of the issue in any way whatsoever.

[TlalocW]

8. Also, apparently now that she's in jail, and the department is issuing certs to "teh gayz"

Her underlings have no religious qualms about doing so, so wasn't she treading on their religious freedoms when it came to how they felt about marriage equality? Where were the people standing up for their religious rights?

I said this in a snide remark to a religiously conservative friend who got upset and replied with, "But she's in charge of the department." To which I said, "So the person who is in charge dictates what goes on when it comes to what their underlings can and can't do in regards to religious freedoms - so then the judge was not only within his rights, but he was absolutely right to send her to jail for not following his 'edicts.'"

TlalocW

[SwissTony]

9. But then she also trampled on the religious freedom of opposite sex couples.

I'm sure many opposite sex couples also had the deeply religious belief that they have the right to marry and should marry.

Wouldn't that mean that Kim Davis were preventing the opposite sex couple from entering a form of relationship (marriage = legally committed couple) that is religiously more preferable than their current form of relationship (purely socially committed couple)?

And, yes, I copied and pasted DetlefK's text because it so neatly summarized my feelings on both same sex and opposite sex couples being hugely inconvenienced by this silly woman.