why is this thread still going? do y'all care that much?

Many of her constituent's and or hillbilly cousins are just as dumb or disillusioned as she is. They think they have the right to make everyone think (or not think) the same way they do. You might hate your neighbor, you might even have a harassment lawsuit against them but that doesn't give you the right to kill their dog threaten them or their family burn their house down etc. If they live near you, you have to live with it. If people could stay out of eachothers business or personal LEGAL matters you'd hardly notice them. I don't recall hearing any LBGT protests at Davis' home like the dentist that hunted Cecil (since they don't have time to look who the guide was or his credentials and practices). If people were harassing her, she could call a few cops I'm sure she knows a few and have the person arrested or removed from her property. The couples haven't stooped that low, they just want what their taxes and the constitution say they can have. The supreme court reinforced the constitution with their legal review. Separation of church and State, original unchanged 1st and 14th amendments, original unchanged oath of office for Kentucky County clerks, I understand the other side but I can't see blatant disregard for the Law the constitution, the oath of office, being compelled by the Supreme Court, and COMBINING church and State halting the LEGAL service she was elected to perform as behavior becoming of an elected official.

That a huge assumption on your part...speaking of dumb. They have every right to their beliefs as you do...whether you agree with them or not.
She doesn't represent you, she represents the voters who voted for her....and if she runs again, it'll be interesting to see if she's elected again.

christians are supposed to go by Gods laws FIRST,, and if mans laws ask them to disregard God,, they are to resist mans laws,,

breaking the law also shows a trust in God, look at how many have been jailed in the name of keeping Gods law (when Gods laws conflicted with cultural law) ,even to the point of being thrown into a lions den(Thats not because of following the law,,,,,,but breaking it)


it shows the faith that God will get you through,,whether its unemployment or legal consequence,,,

I agree with this,, she is,, but it may be because media keeps making her choice a big deal,,,kind of like they do the whole 'coming out' deal ,

When asked under "whos authority" does she deny the issuance of marriage licenses, her reply was "Gods authority"

Last I heard, God did NOT vote her into this position so she doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO.

Civil disobedience comes to mind, we as a society cannot tolerate such unilateral decision making on any public level. it's absurd and illegal and that's enough for me.
Enough with the whackjobs trying to scuttle the laws of the land.

Separating Religion from State affairs is a must, remove her at once!

Stone her!

...that's kinda what I was trying to say... I have my issues with the bible...seems a lot of it is easily twisted to justify ones actions...it's like everyone is real quick to condemn homosexuality and nobody is respecting the part where God says not to judge one another...if this gal was being true to her faith she would have to give up her job or stay in jail...but she wants to keep her job...

Yep! Everybody reads it to mean a little something different. The overall message is "good will towards mankind!" but the nooks and crannies get a little convoluted.

You have a good perspective!

but God didn't say not to judge ,, he said to judge with JUST judgement

I believe being true to her faith will not allow her to SIGN the document if IN HER HEART she believes it to be a religious 'marriage' and not strictly a civil 'contract'

if she has been doing her job and earning her paycheck, I don't see why she should have to go to being jobless, if there are other options

which there were,,,in fact, just letting go of a job doesn't do a lot to open the door for others in that predicament,,, standing up for the right to do her job AND have her religious convictions is the better cause,, in my opinion,,

its not unilateral, its individual,, and it should be one of the possibilities we revere about being 'american'

actually he did, many times tell us not to judge, and even warned us that we will be judged the same way we judge others.


the 'just' judgment you are talking about is reserved for other Christians.....we are not to judge unbelievers, which is what ms Davis was doing

he does not tell us not to judge,,,,



"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."



judgment of PEOPLE is for the LORD< however having judgment about our own actions and behavior is the PURPOSE of the BIBLE, we are given the inspired word of God so that we may know how he has designed his creation and why,,,,,,,in Kims case, she is making a judgment about what SHE will or wont do,,,,,she is judging no one else by doing this,, she is simply determining what she will or will not be a part of HERSELF....she is judging a BEHAVIOR, and ACTION,, not 'people'

I believe individualism is alive and well in America, what you're promoting here is that the "individual" in a position of power should be encouraged to infringe and abuse on the rights of others based on their personal beliefs, that makes no sense at all in a structured society, promoting this only shows how divided things have become, we're willing(you) to sacrifice what is right with what we believe to be right as individuals. The revered possibilities you speak of (in this clerks case) are contrary to the normal functioning of society. Mrs Davis is out of line.

If she's good at her job, there should be no problem finding other employment, instead of doing the right things and resigning, she chooses to dig in her heals and sow division in a very Non Christian way.

and you're propping her up?

"It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities and establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any citizens. And by the very same principle, the government has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments". A man's rights are not violated by a private individual's refusal to deal with him." Ayn Rand

HINT:guess who Kim Davis works for?

Last time I checked if you break mans law you go to jail...laws of the land are to be respected by all people of the land...we do not get to pick which one we will abide by...if your job is one that requires you to do something by law your faith is against you need to walk away from your job..if she can pick and choose what laws she will or will not respect...why can't we all...a Christian teacher can't pick who she wants to teach because of her faith...and this gal shouldn't think she can pick who she will issue a license to...laws are laws...many faiths have differences but if all people in government positions could pick and choose what laws they would respect based on their beliefs...this world would be a joke...hmmmm...oh..wait...hahaha

The logic being used by Kim Davis and her supporters is flawed.

What Davis is doing is refusing to issue a government document which says that two people have met the government's requirements for getting married.

The other county clerks in the USA who are Christians see that flawed logic for what it is.

yes, I am


since when is losing ones livelihood 'right'? if we take the LGBT agenda out of it


lets say, Im a christian, and my job starts requiring its employees to wear pants, and due to my religion, I am not able to wear pants,,,,,,,,is it the 'christian' thing to just therefore quit?

or is it just as 'christian' to allude to the supposed right to my religious expression by seeking an exception ?


what is the purpose of 'religious exemption', which is a real and LEGAL thing,, if its not aceptable as an alternative to being unemployed,,,?

its not flawed just because you dont agree

christians havent unilaterally agreed on anything since inception because they are HUMANS first

some agree and some dont,,,,



the same way they have double printed many official documents in spanish, to assist a minority

it is not any more difficult, in my opinion,, to have a line on these licenses clarifying the signer as a 'witness' only,,,,then there is no implied cooperation or consent on the signers part,,,

I didn't assume the constitutions 1st and 14th amendments, the oath she swore to, the supreme court legal review, or. who the supreme court justices were. It doesn't matter if her or her constituents get dumber or more disillusioned between now and the next election. If she doesn't meet her obligation and continues to openly defy the Courts orders she'll be in jail or prison where she belongs for subversion treason and malfeasance of office.