Posted on 09/02/2015 8:30:34 AM PDT by xzins
GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina told the Hugh Hewitt show on Tuesday that it was “inappropriate” for a Kentucky clerk to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“Given the role that she’s playing, given the fact that the government is paying her salary, I think that is not appropriate. Now that’s my personal opinion,” said Fiorina.
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, an elected official, vowed not to resign Tuesday under threat of fines and jail time after deciding not to issue marriage licenses to any couples - straight or gay - rather than be forced to comply with the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage nationwide.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court affirmed that order. The Supreme Court refused to intervene Monday, leaving her no legal option to refuse. She faces a potential misdemeanor charge of official misconduct for refusing to perform her duties, the Associated Press reported.
“And let me close our conversation by throwing a hard one at you. There’s a Kentucky county clerk today. She’s refusing to issue licenses to same-sex marriage couples. She’s in comtempt of court in essence. What would your advice be to her?” Hewitt asked Fiorina on Tuesday.
“First, I think that we must protect religious liberties with great passion and be willing to expend a lot of political capital to do so now, because it’s clear religious liberty is under assault in many, many ways. Having said that, when you are a government employee, I think you take on a different role,” Fiorina said.
“When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government, and while I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear,” she said.
“And so I think in this particular case, this woman now needs to make a decision that’s [about] conscience: Is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as a government employee,” the former Hewlett Packard CEO said.
“You don’t counsel that she continue civil disobedience?” Hewitt asked.
“Given the role that she’s playing, given the fact that the government is paying her salary, I think that is not appropriate. Now that’s my personal opinion. Others may disagree with that, but I think it’s a very different situation for her than someone in a hospital who’s asked to perform an abortion or someone at a florist who’s asked to serve a gay wedding. I think when you’re a government employee, you are put into a different position honestly,” said Fiorina.
Actually, I don’t think she can constitutionally be subjected to a religious test to keep her public job. In any other era of America, that would have been a sufficient argument.
However, the ‘lack of legislation’ argument is also valid, and so are the indications that the Kentucky legislature will entirely change the law and the process.
“Carly will be a UNIPARTY nominee, should she make it.”
It will be interesting to see if the GOPe “switches horses” to Carly when they finally realize that ¿YEB? is a cooked goose! The rest of the GOPe stalking horses are no longer a viable alternative, since they are all down at 1% or less. I guess I hope they all hang on and pi$$ away a bunch of “their Chamber of Communist master’s” money.
Yes a principle is tested when pushed to extremes. No I'm not equating Carly to a Nazi, but exposing her reasoning as similar to all immoral totalitarian regimes. She is attributing the higher ethical authority to the state over God. This is a most dangerous trajectory and if followed to its natural end would justify Auschwitz.
What “religious test?”
If she refuses to do her duties, then she needs to resign. It’s the only honorable thing to do.
If she were an office worker who could be accomodated by having other workers handle these cases, fine.
But she’s the elected official. The boss. The head honcho. Her job is to see that the duties of the office are fulfilled.
I have a suspicion that Fiorina has been ‘consulted’ by the Establishment. Her sudden inclusion in the upcoming debate as well as her RINO response in this instance has the alarms going off.
I think she is a polished politician - NOT a true Conservative. I think the Ruling Class establishment is shopping for whomever will carry their water - and are happy to find another trojan horse to spring on the base.
Who cares?
You are evidently either senile and ignorant, or under 25, ignorant, and believe that history began the day you started to exist, when your mother took you home.
Bears repeating.
You point by absurdity demonstrates why the state intrusion into the redefinition of ethics and the upheaval of social norms is problematic.
They (for the most part) can't see it because they are ignorant of history.
Since Roe v. Wade, I guess it was ‘inappropriate’ for all those state and federal laws that went contrary to the SCOTUS’s decision? Likewise the Dred Scott decision??
So Carly, an illegitimate supreme court decision(whose 2 justices already showed their bias before the case), makes an edict and all of us have to follow or else??
The Freedom marches in the South were about freedom and justice. They were technical violations of the law, but they were nonviolent and morally strong.
A clerk following her beliefs can be polite and civil disobedience.
First, there is no legislation at the moment, so all she’s refusing is an illegal order. However, if she was fine on 20 May and she’s not fine on 20 December, and the only difference is a provision that is abhorrent to people of her religion, then this is no different than Hobby Lobby which the court said was a violation of religious conviction.
There is no Constitutional prohibition against mixed race couples in my copy of our Constitution.
The geriatric demented subculture strikes again.
I am often embarrassed to be among geriatric citizenry.
My rejection of Fiorina is based on her Ruling Class RINO-esque view that this Christian clerk should ‘do her job’ and violate her religious liberty and conscience by complying with an unConstitutional edict that established abomination as a Constitutional right by the decree of five justices in black robes who have decided behaviors are now deemed to be inalienable rights.
Fiorina demonstrated she champions the edicts of ideologues rather than the rule of law and the Laws of God.
Same sex couples' licenses simply should be transferred to whomever issues dog licenses.
No offense to dogs intended.
Hobby Lobby is a private company, right? This is a public official. Apples and oranges.
If granting licenses to gag couples is now part of the office, her choices are do it or resign. She’s not entitled to the office regardless of her willingness to do the iob.
Just sell them out of a vending machine in the lobby.
....”Carly apparently uses the “progressive” library for her view of muslim history, or the Saudi and other sandmaggot-supported propaganda subversive groups and madrases in the U.S.”...... Of course she does....she’s simply play acting the roll she needs to in order to gain the prominence she needs and covets....but she’s already in the pocket of the GOPE ...way in..and they will continue to promote her as an “outsider” when in fact she’s in Carl Roves pocket and part of his creation....
I have given her a chance because sometimes she is on point. But what I have noticed, is that when it comes to social issues she says the right things, sort of, but she “wordsmiths”, choosing her words very carefully. That always raises my antennae. If you are a believer, you’ll tend to make flat statements. She talks like she is leaving an out, maybe on only a lawyer could find, but its there.
I don’t know what you are talking about “geriatric.” I’m probably younger than you.
Either you support the right of a person in a public office to run the office at the whims of her beliefs or you don’t.
Sad how many FReepers don’t support principles of impartial governance. They just want to win. This is why my counter examples fall on deaf ears.
What if a Muslim refused to grant liquor licenses? What if an “old time” southern Christian decided not to grant mixed race licenses?
Does the office belong to the people or the whims of the elected official? Or does the answer depend if your side wins?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.