The county clerk position isn’t designed to serve as a platform for those holding it to advocate for policy or law. Davis was elected to perform administrative functions per settled statutes. If she wants a voice in policy she needs to run for an office that allows for that. I don’t run for dog catcher in order to dictate how pet stores market puppies. You want a say in policy and law, get elected to a different position. Otherwise STFU and shuffle your various applications and permits through the pipeline as the rules dictate.
17 Likes
I don’t think it’s in her job description to have a voice on political issues. So it sounds like she needs to find a new job if she wants to do that. Her job is to serve, not preach.
3 Likes
Not so much her voice she’ll lose as her ability to push her beliefs onto other people.
3 Likes
“I’m only in it for the money”.
1 Like
Interesting logic. And you have Supreme Court precedent on your side! 
2 Likes
Speaking of which: I’ve read some speculation about the degree of support she has from the voters in her county, but considering how little attention most people pay to local politics, Davis was likely elected by people who had no idea who she was or what her views were–just another name on the ballot.
(She may even have run unopposed–I obviously haven’t seen the ballot.)
Chances are that anyone who runs against her (or another Davis–they apparently run the office as a combination sinecure and full employment program for their family) would have an excellent chance of winning.
4 Likes
Sorry, did you say “job I’m good at”???
4 Likes
TPM:
“If I resign I lose my voice,” Davis said …
… prompting millions of Americans across the country to ask, “And this would be a bad thing how?”
8 Likes
Davis also told Kelly that she would not issue a marriage license to her own children if they were gay.
“I would love them because I love all people, but I would not write them a marriage license,” she said.
Yes she loves her children, the ones she made with her third husband while being married to her first husband. Morality and responsibility right there.
2 Likes
I don’t think she’s getting bad advice necessarily. Her lawyers are political/social activists and their agenda isn’t necessarily to win the case (since it’s really unwinnable) but to get her and their cause maximum attention, perhaps in hopes that the Kentucky legislature will vote to protect her. The attorneys have likely explained all of this to her, including the risks, and she’s undoubtedly on board with them.
I think there’s a certain amount of, shall we say, disengenuity involved here. The Federal District Court judge offered her a fair accommodation–she doesn’t have to personally issue licenses so long as she doesn’t interfere with her staff in issuing licenses. However, she seems intent on interfering by insisting on doctoring the marriage license form to the point where it might well be invalid. She’s not just removing her name (which I could understand from her perspective), but she’s removing the county name, etc. The intent here may well be to force another confrontation with the judge and go back to jail on another contempt citation.
3 Likes
Aside from everything else, where on earth did Davis (and assorted bakers and photographers) get the idea that forcing people to hear your unsolicited opinion of what you imagine their sex lives to be was anywhere in the same universe as polite, civilized behavior?
Also, exactly how effed-up do you have to be to reduce matrimony entirely to sexual activity? How would these people feel if someone took that position about their parents?
1 Like
OK, not a lawyer and if you are please correct anything I’ve misunderstood, but this accommodation business is interesting. The gummint isn’t supposed to inhibit your right to freely practice your religion, and it’s supposed to accommodate that practice UNLESS UNLESS UNLESS it has a compelling interest not to. Compelling as in no human sacrifices, like that. If your religion says you have to wear a beard, and you’re a firefighter in a company that says no beards, they can and should accommodate you. But the government seems to me to have a compelling interest in treating citizens equally under the law, in having county employees perform their jobs as required, in having state instructions to clerks and court orders from federal judges obeyed. It seems like a case of a particular religious group challenging the general rule of law, and if it’s not in the compelling interest of the government for the rule of law to win out I guess I don’t know what is.
7 Likes
When she says, “It just comes back to, they can accommodate for all sorts of other issues, and we ask for one simple accommodation, and we cannot receive it.” What I am betting she is referring to is accommodations for people with disabilities.
Because, of course, county clerks in wheelchairs have always been allowed to refuse marriage licenses to people not in wheelchairs. Nearsighted county clerks have always been allowed to refuse marriage licenses to those with 20/20 vision. And, of course, county clerks on the autism spectrum have always been allowed to deny marriage licenses to those not on the autism spectrum.
Someone needs to fire the person responsible for her talking points.
3 Likes
Maybe after all there is a satin!
This lady needs to go through deprogramming or an Exorcism.
Which Republican Presidential Candidate will choose Kim as his/her running mate? Vegas needs to add this one to the board. Odds on favorite - toss up between Carly the eyes Fiorina and Marco the anchor baby Rubio.
First time I’ve ever heard that a job resignation causes laryngitis.
“It just comes back to, they can accommodate for all sorts of other issues, and we ask for one simple accommodation, and we cannot receive it.”
All we want to do is deprive people of their civil rights, and we just cannot get a simiple accommodation to do that. Eat shit and die, Kim Davis. Eat shit and die. People like you are why my brother’s life ended prematurely.
6 Likes
Afraid of losing your voice ?? — Yea, all 80,000 of it —
1 Like
Not a lawyer either, but her religion seems irrelevant. She is not in a position to serve a religious function; she’s there to duly process and record applications and hand over a piece of paper to members of the public.
She’s not there to perform a wedding ceremony or bless a marriage. She does not serve a church, temple or mosque, but holds a government position within a civil, secular, non-sectarian society.
No one is trying to abridge her religious freedom, but she does not have a constitutional right to be a county clerk. And she has no right to make others bear the burden of her religious beliefs.
9 Likes
I Can’t Resign Because I’ll ‘Lose My Voice’
Bull Shit, you’ll lose $80,000 and benefits… nothing more, nothing less.
1 Like