Kim Davies (jailed clerk in no-gay license scandal) needs to simply resign or relocate.

[Tab]

God did not tap her on the shoulder and say, "come along, Kimmie, we need you to put out marriage licenses". In fact, no one tapped her on the shoulder, to my knowledge. It was a job she aspired and applied to, and won. She agreed to uphold the consitution.

I'll agree that at that time, the constitituion did not particularly run afoul of the bible, so it was a no-brainer for her.

A couple of years go by and now the law allows for same-sex marriages, and that does not sit well with Kimmie. She's the clerk, she can approve or deny marriage licenses, and so she does - for same-sex couples. We all know what happened next - jail time; her deputy clerk issuing licenses anyway in her absense.

It dismays me that the first reaction was to make the world revolve around her needs. Kimmie's name should be removed from all paperwork. Kimmie's signature stamp destroyed. Major modifications to "accomodate" her religious needs (of not being associatied with gay marriage).

Or, since circumstances have changed, Kimmie should give a deep think to it all and realize that she can no longer discharge the duties of her office, and she needs to change or move. Naw, I don't see that happening..

What I hate to see happen is us cave into an unusual pattern of "accomodating" religious needs for an employee when it impacts the service for the client.

Let's imagine shortly thereafter in another line is a place for issuing registering vechicles. The head clerk over there faces the black couple and declares that in his religion (whatever that is) women are forbidden to drive cars and thus to register them. As a result, they cannot register their vehicle just yet, and the event takes on the tone of Kimmiegate.

So, the defiant clerk, instead of being encouraged to find a job he could accept religiously, wants the state legislature to change the laws to that the state (not the county) issues the registration, thus taking taking Kentucky out of the question and relieving him of the need to do a religiously distateful task.

Anyone anywhere can be biased against blacks, whites, hispanics, muslims, asians, and so on and in this system they could force the court to rewrite itself at any time until we ultimately end up with laws that offend no one.

Is that what the Framers intended? Methinks not. If these people can't do the job they signed up to do (and granted, the job change, at which point so could have they) then those people need to resign or relocate. Otherwise we'll end up creating a religiously-neutral network of barely valuable laws, redacting not even necessary.

- t

[mnhtnbb]

1. Kim Davis took office in January 2015. Anyone with half a brain could see

the way marriage equality was trending and that the Supreme Court could, very likely,
decide that marriage equality was a civil right and not subject to states being able
to limit it.

Kim ran for office--and took office--knowing full well it could be an issue. She needs
to resign the office or just let her deputies issue the licenses and stop trying
to impose her religious beliefs on a governmental process of issuing marriage
licenses.

[PJMcK]

2. She won't resign - a test for the judge

Come on, folks. We all know Kim Davis going to go back to work today and will stir the pot. She's had a taste of the big game and she likes being in it. And, frankly, it's so much fun for us to watch partly because she's going to lose; her arrogance has blinded her to the nearly obvious outcome of her case.

For me, Judge David L. Bunning is a fascinating character in this grand opera buffa. He was appointed to the federal bench on September 4, 2001 by President George W. Bush when he was only 35 years old and confirmed by the US Senate in February 2002. He was opposed predominantly because his youth had not given him enough experience. None of Kim Davis' supporters can righteously claim that he's liberal. For those of us watching the proceedings of this case, Judge Bunning's rulings have been nearly impeccable. He has followed the letter and the spirit of the law, without injecting any Ito-like dramas, and he's given Ms. Davis ample opportunities to compromise in his attempts to fairly settle this case. Like any good jurist, he has avoided public comments and has limited himself to the specific issues heard in his courtroom. I'm not a fan of Republican judges but in this case, he's ruled exceptionally well.

If Ms. Davis behaves as we can expect her to, it will be fascinating to see what the judge has in store for her.

[Javaman]

3. she makes 80k a year, she ain't resigning.

they are going have to force her out.

[Tab]

4. Failure to do her job?

At some point you can't claim "religious beliefs" and fail to do your job yet still expect to be employed. She needs to find a position that suits her ideology. Granted, she likely won't, hence the circus, but eventually she'll have to (unless Kentucky wishes to exist in a nebulous position, which will just get worse the next time a librarian refuses to lend a book to a muslim, or a (something) refuses to serve a jew, or whatever.