The only way it would be Fascism is if you started jailing people because you don’t like them or don’t agree with their policies. That’s really all you are interested in.
September 4, 2015 at 9:49am
“This is about losing freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution.”
The freedom to not do your job if you don’t want to? She has plenty of freedoms. She is free to exercise her religion in any way she chooses. However, if her personal beliefs interfere with her sworn duties, she must resign.
As far as I know, there are no oaths of office that let you swear to do your duties unless you happen to disagree with them.
September 4, 2015 at 9:47am
This woman is using her position of power to limit the rights of others. You think that “sanctuary” applies to blatant abuses of power?
September 4, 2015 at 9:44am
This isn’t what happened. You are literally creating a fantasy scenario and then pretending that it’s real. There are a lot of terms for that, such as insanity or delusion.
But let’s talk about persecution. She is a person in power, who can grant or deny a privilege to someone else. If two people whose religious beliefs endorse same sex marriage want a fully legal marriage license, and she is overruling their own religious beliefs with her own, as the person of power, she would be the one doing the persecuting. She would be the one infringing on the other people’s freedom of free exercise.
 September 4, 2015 at 9:40am
Not only is your analogy insane, but it’s genuinely insulting to Holocaust survivors. People who survived the Holocaust were not victims because they refused to do their jobs and refused to resign. Holocaust survivors couldn’t just go work at Walmart. Furthermore, no one was a victim of the Holocaust because they disapproved of who someone else wanted to marry.
Conservatism used to be about respect for virtue and sacrifice, now it’s about trivializing Holocaust survivors.
September 4, 2015 at 9:35am
If she hates same-sex marriage so much, she could easily resign, and then same-sex marriages wouldn’t affect her in the least. No one will force her to be married to another woman, and she can just mind her own business.
[-1] September 4, 2015 at 9:33am
Haha. Yes, religion was so important to the founders that they included only one mention of it in the entire Constitution that they forgot to mention it.
And sure, the word “creator” and “nature’s God” are in the Declaration of Independence, but if they meant Christian or even Judeo-Christian, wouldn’t they have said that? They provide the most generic possible terms for a deity. It is much more than a drastic leap to say that the word “Creator” in the Declaration (which does not establish the law in the US) means that US law must follow a specific interpretation of Christian scripture.
September 4, 2015 at 9:29am
The problem with your “freedom of religion” argument is that you really just mean “freedom to enforce your version of Christianity.” If other Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. hold a sincere religious belief that a higher being will sanctify a same-sex marriage, then it is a fundamental infringement of their religious beliefs to have a government official force a compliance to a different religious belief.
If Kim Davis can not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it is against her religious beliefs, what would stop her from denying marriage licenses to Jewish, Muslim or Hindu couples who do not believe in Christ?
 September 1, 2015 at 1:07pm
“The law of the land is the Constitution and according to the Constitution the tenth amendment makes it very clear that decisions like these are up to each State.”
No, since the 14th Amendment says explicitly that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This is why states cannot make laws that, for example, make it illegal for black people to vote, and it’s also why the courts ruled that states cannot outlaw same sex marriage.
“AND for all you people saying “Federal Law trumps State Law” Then please explain to me, What is a sanctuary city?”
Different issue, since that one has to do with enforcement, not an individual’s exercise of their legal rights. But then you tell me: are you in favor of sanctuary cities then?
I hope that this clears a few things up for you, since you are just making a fool of yourself contorting logic in order to justify this woman’s refusal to serve the taxpayers who pay her salary.
August 21, 2015 at 1:30pm
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”
Hmmm. Seems like a pretty clear-cut case. Perhaps you don’t know what you are talking about.
And actually, the “fellow citizens” I was talking about was the babies being born in the United States. They are born citizens, and they do not deserve to be treated as second class. I pity you if your idea of “presidential” includes calling babies derogatory names.
August 21, 2015 at 11:46am
Really? Presidential? Willing to denigrate and insult his fellow citizens to score petty political points?
Not only is this big guy stooping to insulting babies, but he’s attacking born American citizens as less than American. The law is clear on this, and birthright citizenship has a long and proud history, which includes the destruction of slavery and race-based “second class” citizenship.
August 14, 2015 at 1:14pm
“If you go to the White House and demand that Obama cook you lunch because you are a taxpayer and you pay for his house and his salary, does that mean he’s required to cook you lunch, just because you have money?”
That hypothetical is so absurd that it’s hardly worth commenting on. When you were writing this, did you actually think you were making a relevant point? The White House is not a restaurant, and the President does not provide this service to the public.
“We live in a Free Society. And in a Free Society, you can tell anybody you want to get out of your business, for no reason at all.”
You have an odd idea of how the law works. Let me explain. When you open a place of public accommodation like a restaurant or bakery, you are required to have a business license. This license means that you have to follow all proper laws, regulations and requirements. These include anti-discrimination laws, as were applied in this case.
So, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your silly, simplistic and childish assumptions about what a business can do in a “free” society are wrong.
August 14, 2015 at 1:01pm
“All I’m suggesting is that we use the same weapon that they use: Lawfare. ”
First of all, “they” are not using any kind of weapon. What percentage of gay folks do you think are suing people for discrimination? How representative do you think this group is?
Second of all, if anyone is using “lawfare,” it’s you folks. For decades you used laws to ban same sex marriage–to deliberately impede someone’s pursuit of happiness–just because you don’t like it.
August 14, 2015 at 9:30am
“Zero need to be a fascist and force people to be involved in something they want no part of.”
Fascist? Like all those “fascist” black folks that insisted on being served at white lunch counters? What fascists!
 August 14, 2015 at 9:29am
Nonsense and you know it, but don’t let that stop you.
August 14, 2015 at 9:29am
I won’t be needing any wedding cakes Avenger. I’m a happily married man. I suspect you won’t be needing one either, unless some woman with extremely low standards just happens to wander into your parent’s basement.
 August 14, 2015 at 9:27am
We are a nation of laws, including non-discrimination laws. You don’t just get to choose which laws you follow based on your religious belief.
August 14, 2015 at 9:26am
Fortunately, only the laws of men apply here, so we don’t really have to care what your God says (or what you think he says).
And it’s the height of irony that you accuse me of a straw man argument, and then imply that consensual sex between homosexual adults is somehow comparable to lying, murdering and stealing.
 August 14, 2015 at 8:50am
requiring a place of public accommodation to serve a member of the public is not slavery. I suspect that you have no idea what slavery actually is, or you wouldn’t make such ignorant comments.
August 14, 2015 at 8:48am
Then you’d have to prove that they are unconstitutional. You missed that important step.