Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[Jose Fly]

Looks like this has backfired on Kim Davis and her supporters...

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Tuesday has found that the majority of Americans believe that Kentucky clerk Kim Davis should be required by law to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and said that equality under the law trumps a person's religious beliefs when the two come in conflict.​

But before Kim Davis became a national headline, the numbers were a bit different...

The poll also found a near-even split over whether local officials with religious objections should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 47 percent saying that should be the case and 49 percent say they should be exempt.

Overall, if there's a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it's more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.​

Right after the Obergefell ruling, the country was split over the issue, with a slim majority saying that government officials should be able to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples due to their religious beliefs. But once Kim Davis actually did it and the public got to see what that looks like, opinions dramatically shifted towards equality for same sex couples.

Oops! :chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

Right after the Obergefell ruling, the country was split over the issue, with a slim majority saying that government officials should be able to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples due to their religious beliefs. But once Kim Davis actually did it and the public got to see what that looks like, opinions dramatically shifted towards equality for same sex couples.

Oops! :chuckle:

Oops indeed.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Then I'm not really being ignored am I? :rotfl:

I'm addressing your ignorance, not you.

I hate to say it, but, you're a "Knucklehead!" You have me on ignore, so you won't see this.

 

[Angel4Truth]

So you think 10 minutes is acceptable. What about 30 minutes? 60 minutes? Do you have a line?

yes, especially for the gays that drove in from another state to get it there.

My line is that there should be reasonable accomodation, it should always be allowed that someone else in the office does it if someone objects. Reasonable.

But in this case I don't think it's really about the practical burden. This isn't a private business that is turning them down and someone just has to walk down the street to another business. It's the local gov't and it is supposed to represent the people who live in the county. Like it was already mentioned, the couples being turned down pay taxes. They pay Davis' salary. They should be able to get a license in their own county.

These days the pc police are telling businesses what they can sell, whats the difference?

 

[quip]

But in this case I don't think it's really about the practical burden. This isn't a private business that is turning them down and someone just has to walk down the street to another business. It's the local gov't and it is supposed to represent the people who live in the county. Like it was already mentioned, the couples being turned down pay taxes. They pay Davis' salary. They should be able to get a license in their own county.

These days the pc police are telling businesses what they can sell, whats the difference?

.....[will of] the people who live in the county.

 

[Angel4Truth]

.....[will of] the people who live in the county.

The majority of people in her county agree with her and elected her partly for her stance on it.

Seems shes doing their will just fine to me.

 

[quip]

The majority of people in her county agree with her and elected her partly for her stance on it.

Seems shes doing their will just fine to me.

You mean the loud ones?

 

[Angel4Truth]

You mean the loud ones?

No, the ones who voted her into her position, shes doing their will just fine.

 

[quip]

No, the ones who voted her into her position, shes doing their will just fine.

Yes, the ones damned proud to be carrying the torch! :rain:

 

[Granite]

Yes, the ones damned proud to be carrying the torch! :rain:

Because as we know elected officials always reflect the will of and carry out the wishes of the people.atrol:

 

[kmoney]

The majority of people in her county agree with her and elected her partly for her stance on it.

Seems shes doing their will just fine to me.

Are you saying she campaigned on a platform of only issuing licenses to straight couples? Or that her belief in traditional marriage was part of her campaign?

 

[chrysostom]

Are you saying she campaigned on a platform of only issuing licenses to straight couples? Or that her belief in traditional marriage was part of her campaign?

are you saying you support same sex marriage?

if so

what is it based on?

 

[kmoney]

yes, especially for the gays that drove in from another state to get it there.

Because they couldn't get it where they live? Or they just wanted to try to force her office to issue one?

My line is that there should be reasonable accomodation, it should always be allowed that someone else in the office does it if someone objects. Reasonable.

We keep going around on this. An accommodation was granted that she rejected because her name was still on it in some fashion. So really you wanted more than someone else doing it in this case.

These days the pc police are telling businesses what they can sell, whats the difference?

What example(s) do you have in mind?

 

[chrysostom]

Because they couldn't get it where they live? Or they just wanted to try to force her office to issue one?


We keep going around on this. An accommodation was granted that she rejected because her name was still on it in some fashion. So really you wanted more than someone else doing it in this case.


What example(s) do you have in mind?

you keep arguing around the edges

why don't you tell us why you support same sex marriage?

 

[kmoney]

you keep arguing around the edges

why don't you tell us why you support same sex marriage?

You can't force people to have the discussion you want to have, chrys. Maybe you should go have a beer. :cheers:

 

[Rusha]

You can't force people to have the discussion you want to have, chrys. Maybe you should go have a beer. :cheers:

and a pop tart.

 

[kmoney]

are you saying you support same sex marriage?

if so

what is it based on?

It's based on the idea that ultimately the prohibition against civil same-sex marriage is rooted in a religious belief and that the gov't should remain open on that.

I actually am somewhat open to the type of argument you make about what marriage laws are intended to do and why gay couples aren't included in that, but I think those fail at a certain point as well.

 

[kmoney]

and a pop tart.

Yum. :TomO:

 

[chrysostom]

It's based on the idea that ultimately the prohibition against civil same-sex marriage is rooted in a religious belief and that the gov't should remain open on that.

I actually am somewhat open to the type of argument you make about what marriage laws are intended to do and why gay couples aren't included in that, but I think those fail at a certain point as well.

the argument is not based on religious beliefs
it is based on protecting the child
at what point does that fail?

 

[chrysostom]

You can't force people to have the discussion you want to have, chrys. Maybe you should go have a beer. :cheers:

you are free to ignore me
but
I cannot ignore your support for same sex marriage
and
it is my job to make sure no one else does