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.
If that reasoning were practiced universally by every elected and appointed criminal, , our present country would be an infinitely better place.
You may not have noticed, but important laws have been deliberately ignored for a generation... and counting, with no consequences..
[[Fiorna IS DONE, as far as any Christian voting for her should go]]
Don’t bet on it- because it’s pretty clear “Christians” voted for current president twice judging by the margins he won by
This country is changing- ‘Christian’ doesn’t mean what it used to these days- Heck- some even support abortion now
Thanks, sometimes I can control myself.... Sometimes not so much :-)
....”They are there just to peel off votes”...
Yep..and that’s most of them....and why the GOPe put so many in the race...just like they did before...it assures them that if they play the media where they want the then when it’s time they’ll usher their man to the front...rememeber Romney said very little ...it was always the “fights’ between other candidates while he went from one debate to the other....never saying much at all...
We know the props they’re using ...and how...nothings changed much except the names and faces
That would be my position.
So now the only question is, do I resign or do I force them to fire me. And that probably depends on how I feel about it. I've done nothing wrong. I might just make them fire me.
I don’t like this better than anyone else on principle. But if the clerk refuses the judge’s order she will be jailed. I think “inappropriate” is rather mild. What is Carly supposed to say? Refuse and go to jail. Is anyone else willing to be jailed over this? Stand up and be counted. A lot of big mouths spouting off here who have no skin in the game. They aren’t the ones who are going to be thrown into a tank with real criminals. Can we get real for a change?
Why? Carly did not suggest that Davis should just abdicate her principles and issue the licenses in violation of her beliefs. She merely suggested that if her beliefs were in conflict with her duties, maybe the solution was for her to find a job where that was not the case. She is not attributing the state a higher ethical authority than God. She is saying that if you cannot perform the duties of the job, for whatever reason, and the duties are not illegal, you should find another job. You can disagree with her, but that is not an unreasonable or even an unconservative position to take.
Let's look at this from a different perspective. Let's say that as a Christian, I own a bakery, and I choose not to make wedding cakes for gay weddings. One of my employees is not a Christian, and thinks gay weddings are just fine, and decides to accept an order for a cake for a gay wedding. Should my employee be able to sue me to keep her job, even though she is not following the business policies I have established? Or should she find a job at a company that has policies with which she agrees?
This is a very different case than a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding or a photographer refusing to shoot a gay wedding. In those cases, as business owners, they have a right to run their businesses according to their faith. Davis is not the employer here. While I agree that what they are asking her to do is immoral, it unfortunately is not illegal. I hope Davis can win in court, but I doubt it. So she will probably be faced with the choice Fiorina is suggesting - find another job.
I suspect that the people of the County would back this "elected official."
You try to simplify the issue, here. Clearly the Courts are not supporting the official. But the absurdity of issuing a license for a marriage that is from the moment of its execution, legally subject to annulment, because it is incapable of consummation--as that act has always been understood;--should give pause to any thoughtful person.
You seem to be one of those types of people who think Christians should leave God in a box under the bed and only bring Him out at Church behind closed doors.
Which would make you no different than the militant secular hedonists who demand Christians be expunged from the public square.
In 1954, Kentucky law required that schools be segregated. SCOTUS struck down that law as unconstitutional. Did that mean the schools could not be desegregated until Kentucky passed a new law? Because that's not what happened.
Wrong argument. She was not subjected to a religious test - no one questioned her about her religious beliefs before she was hired. She has raised her religious beliefs as a reason she cannot do the job for which she was hired.
The question becomes whether or not the county has a reasonable way to accommodate her beliefs while still allowing the licenses to be issued. Normally, that could be accomplished by allowing someone else in the office to issue the license. However, as county clerk, I believe her signature is on all of the licenses issued, regardless of who actually issued the physical document. If there is no way for the county to issue the license without her signature, I am not sure there is a reasonable accommodation available.
The issue with Hobby Lobby was forcing them to violate their religious beliefs. The same with the bakers. The same with the Christian schools.
You cannot declare someone unqualified for a public office because of their religious beliefs. That means you cannot hold their SPECIFIC beliefs against them.
I’m going to forget Carly Fiorina now. She shows her true colors when it comes to basic morality.
As long as the law provides for someone else to step in when a clerk opts out,that would easily pass constitutional muster. But Kentucky hasn't passed such a law.
That’s only the way it worked out. What do the laws say now?
“Dereliction of duty” is what it is called. As an elected official I don’t know how she would be removed.
Imagine an elected sheriff decided he wasn’t going to issue gun permits cause of his personal beliefs. Then ignored a court order to do so.
Do we agree with his actions since he’s following his beliefs, just like Holly Lobby? Or do we think he’s derelict and should be removed.
It really helps to clarify issues if you flip the script. Or is it just about your side winning and not about Rule of Law?
They are working on it, and this clerk is evidently waiting on that.
“Its settled law. Lets move on.”
Appointed to the bench by W.
Excellent and succinct.
Kudos!
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.