Kentucky court clerk....

[Wheel Gun]

Very well said and something I have been hammering on for years. Even religious people have rights and that includes the right to protest as long as it is peaceful which is what this woman seems to be doing. I know some wish she would go away but then she does not get her say.

We all have rights and that includes the right of everyone here to speak our mind. You do not have to get hateful to make your point and be heard. You also do not have to get mad if not everyone agrees with you. Besides this is the internet, what are you going to do? Bust a caplock in their a$$?

Kudos, Rick.

 

[Hobbes]

Very well said and something I have been hammering on for years. Even religious people have rights and that includes the right to protest as long as it is peaceful which is what this woman seems to be doing. I know some wish she would go away but then she does not get her say.

We all have rights and that includes the right of everyone here to speak our mind. You do not have to get hateful to make your point and be heard. You also do not have to get mad if not everyone agrees with you. Besides this is the internet, what are you going to do? Bust a caplock in their a$$?

Well if you had a job I guess you could try refusing to do that job in protest and see where that would get you.

 

[donner]

Very well said and something I have been hammering on for years. Even religious people have rights and that includes the right to protest as long as it is peaceful which is what this woman seems to be doing. I know some wish she would go away but then she does not get her say.

Her right to protest does not make her free from criticism (especially related to being selective about which religious issues she chooses to protest/ her own hypocrisy). Nor does it make her free from repercussions from her protest.

What most people seem to be pointing out is that public servants should not be allowed to impose their personal religious views on others by denying equal access under the law. If she doesn't like an aspect of her job, she should quit. It's not her job to hold the rights of others hostage to her personal views. As many have pointed out throughout this thread, there are many examples of people who are not free to pick and choose who they help because of their personal views. Would people really be rallying to protect her religious freedom if she was refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples?

 

[RidgeHunter]

Nobody read Dave 70698's posts. You might actually learn something that's not blogosphere rhetoric, and then where would you be? Unable to argue a reactionary position honestly? Terrifying.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Very well said and something I have been hammering on for years. Even religious people have rights and that includes the right to protest as long as it is peaceful which is what this woman seems to be doing. I know some wish she would go away but then she does not get her say.

We all have rights and that includes the right of everyone here to speak our mind. You do not have to get hateful to make your point and be heard. You also do not have to get mad if not everyone agrees with you. Besides this is the internet, what are you going to do? Bust a caplock in their a$$?

Your religious rights do not trump the civil rights of others. If you find that the responsibilities of your elected position conflict with your morals, you should resign your position, not hold the lives of others hostage.

 

[donner]

Your religious rights do not trump the civil rights of others. If you find that the responsibilities of your elected position conflict with your morals, you should resign your position, not hold the lives of others hostage.

This.

Nothing like this woman saying her personally held views should trump the rights of everyone else.

 

[Eagle Eye]

I don't think RickN and company understand why there has to be separation of church and state...

Could you, RickN, or anyone agreeable with your position explain to us the logic behind of separation of church and state. Maybe use historic events as examples.

I have not seen any evidence of someone going after religion. I honestly think we all have a healthy respect for religion. But I can see how our point of view might be mis interpreted as being anti religion.

 

[Defnestor]

Sorry Rick, I know that when she was elected, the scotus hadn't ruled, and there was a ban, and then the rules changed on her. She could be impeached, but that's doubtful, as is a recall. The will of the people who voted for a ban on gay marriage simply will not allow her to be removed without outside interference.

However, I would direct you to Mark 12:17 "And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him". Not to mention "You cannot serve two masters." She should step down.

Of course, even the devil can quote scripture.

As far as comparing this to king osama not enforcing immigration laws, I'd rather compare it to not honoring his oath to defend the Constitution, but then we'd have to vilify most if not all politicians.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Nobody read Dave 70698's posts. You might actually learn something that's not blogosphere rhetoric, and then where would you be? Unable to argue a reactionary position honestly? Terrifying.

Pearls before swine.

 

[RickN]

Sorry Rick, I know that when she was elected, the scotus hadn't ruled, and there was a ban, and then the rules changed on her. She could be impeached, but that's doubtful, as is a recall. The will of the people who voted for a ban on gay marriage simply will not allow her to be removed without outside interference.

However, I would direct you to Mark 12:17 "And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him". Not to mention "You cannot serve two masters." She should step down.

Of course, even the devil can quote scripture.

As far as comparing this to king osama not enforcing immigration laws, I'd rather compare it to not honoring his oath to defend the Constitution, but then we'd have to vilify most if not all politicians.

While understand what you are saying and agree with much of it, if she steps down the issue will not be resolved because only someone harmed by the ruling has legal standing to file suit. To get it before the court she has to be removed or jailed which is what she seems to be trying to do.
She stopped issuing all marriage licenses to be fair until something happens, she is not just issuing them to straight couples.

On a side note, if removed she probably has a good chance to be elected to a higher office, depending on the makeup of her counties population.