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.
Well, there is some truth in that. As long as this country continues to be so sick and twisted as to recognize fag-marriage, I’ll indeed be happy to see it die and moulder in its grave.
Muslims who don't see a problem in owning a dog will reference a passage in the Holy Quran about a group of young believers who resisted pressure to worship others beside God, and took refuge in a cave with a canine companion. The dog guarded the entrance and kept them out of harm’s way. In this passage, the Quran refers to the dog as a soul and spirit as well as a loyal companion to human beings. In modern times, many can interpret the story to mean that dogs are a good source of protection in a household. The Quran also mentions using a dog to aid in hunting. It states that any prey caught by hunting dogs may be eaten without any need for further purification. Naturally, the prey of a hunting dog comes into contact with its saliva, which could contradict the argument that their saliva is impure. http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_8249/The-doggie-debate:-Muslim-dog-owners-debunk-stigmas.html
Let’s see if Hannity asks Carly whether she thinks that the Ky. woman should resign for holding office as a committed Christian. Time is running out.
Why would any fool hire a Mooslim if his job was to dispense liquor licenses?
The answer is NO. Hannity spent the last few minutes of interview time praising her to the hilt. I love and admire Hannity, but these softball interviews waste my time.
Actually it is sad to say that no I don’t believe the SCOTUS is a court of law that needs to be obeyed. It is 5 people who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal wants and needs. And 4 others who abide by the Constitution and lose to every new liberal paradigm.
While I agree with you in principle an outlaw court has thrown principle right out the freaking window.
Thanks, I appreciate the thoughtful answer.
It’s a hypothetical. Why not answer it instead of looking to evade?
If it helps, imagine the person just converted to Islam. Or became a hard core Baptist. Whatever.
Should a public official be allowed to refuse to do his duties because of his religious beliefs?
No, the prior law which did not require segregation was reinstated. There is no pre-existing statute that allowed homosexual marriage, so at this point in time there is no legal authority for the clerk to issue any license at all.
If there were no law previous to that then there would be no authorization for segregation and the schools would have to treat all children the same. No new statute would be necessary. That's not what happened here. The Kentuckly law authorizing county clerks to issue marriage licenses has been stuck down.
Are you ok with the judicial tyranny we are witnessing?
There are people who don’t particularly like Christians and will enjoy seeing them face a bit of humiliation.
Sadly, that number is growing.
Not everyone draws the line, the one they won’t cross, in the same place. When you see someone forced to cross their red-line, be aware that its them today, it will be you tomorrow. If you have a red-line.
I could probably issue a liquor license with no damage to my conscience, although I don’t drink. Another person couldn’t do it, and so should not seek a job in that office.
If issuing a marriage license to homosexuals will violate your conscience, and the job requires you do it, you should not seek employment there. But if you already work there, and are ordered to do it by an unelected judge, or even an elected judge, you have a decision to make. His order violates not only your conscience, it would violate his if he had one. And it violates the law you were elected to administer. It violates 10,000 years of human tradition. And it violates the constitution.
So are you faithful to your conscience? To the people who elected you? The law in place when you were elected? The constitution? Or an outlaw judge in an outlaw court?
The judge’s ruling rejects law. I don’t know how this is going to turn out. But its going to get worse before it gets better.
I think accommodation in this case would be good, too, but I think that instead of letting herself be manipulated into a confrontation (with the television cameras just waiting, of course), she should have appealed first for some legislative support for a law permitting that type of accommodation. I think she would have gotten more sympathy that way and would have seemed more reasonable.
Naturally, the reporters and the gay lobby wasted no time in trashing her.
It’s a condition of employment to dispense licences. I guarantee you that if a Mooslim refused to bake a Christian wedding cake, it never would have made local news, let alone national news. This case is all a scam to horsewhip Christians.
Should she have the right to deny THREE? How about brother and sister, or mom and son? It is no more bizarre and creepy than two same-sex people getting “married”.
Did the people of Kentucky vote to affirm same sex marriage? You seem to be overlooking the fact that the people were left out of the Supreme Court’s ruling. As has been pointed out several times now, she is not in violation of state law. And if the 5 Justices had any integrity and understanding of and desire to follow the constitution themselves, they would have also issued a stay on new gay marriages in the holdout states to give those states sufficient time to draft and pass new compliant legislation.
Immaterial according to those who argue that an unconstitutional ruling by an activist court is ‘law’ that MUST be obeyed, while other laws the Agenda deems unworthy (i.e.: immigration law) can be ignored wholesale.
The spurious argument espoused by Fiorina and those defending her on this thread is that she should just ‘do her job’ or resign.
You know ‘follow orders’, no matter what those ‘orders’ are if they are deemed to be ‘the law of the land’.
It’s how genocides are made ‘legal’ and everyone is just ‘following orders’ and ‘doing their jobs’ - even if the action is wicked, evil, immoral and heinous.
Immaterial is right. At what point should people of faith stand up against this madness? Under Dave’s thinking, only rabid scumbags such as Obama could serve as government officials. I say that time is long past for pushback. Bob
We are waaaaaay past time to stand up against this wicked madness.
It may already be too late to stop the consequences of where all of this goes.
See, what most refuse to understand or even acknowledge, is that tyranny is incompatible with liberty, because sin is incompatible with righteousness. Sin and tyranny (one and the same) will ALWAYS seek to dominate and eventually ERADICATE anyone and anything that will not comply with it.
The problem in rectifying this is that we now exist in a time that scripture foretold to the letter: that wickedness wold abound and sin would be celebrated as right and good, while righteousness would be declared an evil and a tyranny.
Witness this entire issue to see that fact played out before our eyes.
If we as a people cannot agree on what constitutes morality - then the rule of law and liberty are forever doomed in this land and the freedom we once knew is forever lost.
And there are some who prefer it that way, because they see you and I and the scriptures as an evil that needs to be kept in a box and away from the public square and acknowledged and practiced only in private away from everyone else.
Pithy and wise remarks, Sir. I wish I could argue with what you’ve said.
Scotus has changed the law or struck down the law. Doing NOTHING is the proper response. The Supreme Court did not rewrite the law. That is a legislative function.
* * *
Congratulations! That is the FIRST reasonable thing I’ve read on this matter. Kudos to you.
Buh-Bye Carly. I knew her liberalism would come out.
Right. And Reagan hardly every used “I” or “My” as in ‘my plan’, etc.
It was always “We” and “Us” and “Americans”.
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.