We definitely should be debating this. I know right wingers are saying this is about Kim Davis's right to impose her religious beliefs and make them supercede the Supreme Court and constitution, but let's here it. Go ahead - tell us how Kim Davis is being persecuted by not being allowed to persecute others.
I was surprised when i came here last week and this wasn't posted yet. If your job requires something of you that's against your religious beliefs, get a new job. If you are unable to perform your job, for any reason, your company should fire or demote you to a role you can perform. If you are court ordered to do something and you do not comply, you should go to jail or pay a hefty fine.
Hasn't this chick been divorced 4 times and cheated on one of her husbands? Oh, but she found God AFTER all that happened so we shouldn't judge HER.....
There is nothing to debate. She is entitled to her opinion, she is entitled to her faith, she is entitled to protest and do everything she can legally to change the law. There is no law against being a bigot. However, her position/job is to uphold/exercise the current law. If she fails to do so, she should be hired and replaced.
The truly "courageous" thing for her to do would be to step down and let somebody who is capable of carrying out the laws of the country assume the position. But, when the choice is between your $80,000 per year salary and actually taking a personally principled stand, it's easy to choose the former and allow a bunch of, normally, "law and order conservatives" to rally around your GoFundMe page.
I feel like there are other instances where people use religious freedom as a reason for abstaining from some aspect of their government job. Is that not the case? I could be wrong, but I feel like I've heard of exceptions being made with regards to holidays, dress code, and other things.
Except those actions aren't being imposed on anybody else. By citing her faith and refusing to issue licenses to homosexual couples, Davis is, as an agent of the state, using her government position to impose her beliefs onto others. Her failure to realize that she works for the government, and not a church, is why she's in prison.
No such right to IMPOSE religious beliefs. That in itself goes against the freedom of religion. Not everyone shares the same religion.
The only thing I disagree with is that she isn't allowed bail Thats an american right Unless she is a physical harm risk to others or a flight risk she should be allowed bail and not doing that is as shameful as what she has done
I'm really enjoying the comparisons to slavery and "attack on religion" narrative. Gotta cling to relevancy somehow, right Huckabee?
Bail is for someone awaiting a trial - she's not awaiting any kind of trial. She's simply in contempt of court. Bail would serve no purpose here and doesn't even make sense for that situation. It's not like there's a hearing where she's expected to show up in court.
She'll parlay this into a book deal, countless appearances on Fox News, photo ops with people that think they're running for President, etc. Not only will she profit from this experience, but the Religious Right now has their "martyr". Somebody that they have the audacity to compare to Rosa Parks. And the worst part? There are people out there that will actually drink the Kool-Aid on this.
She not only compared herself to Rosa Parks, she said Rosa Parks had it easy. Can someone remind Mike Huckabee that gluttony is a sin?
It's like the Muslim lady who refused to serve drinks as a flight attendant. You have a job to do. Do it or get canned. This lady should have been fired a while ago.
It's not about religious freedom, it's about Christian privilege. Conservatives don't seem to know the difference. If a Hindu waiter refused to serve them steak because of his religious beliefs, they'd want him fired. If a Muslim tried to make anyone do anything in accordance with their religion, they would absolutely lose their ****. It's only "religious freedom" if it's something they agree with.
