I hereby predict she will now become a wingnut welfare recipient, receiving speaking and appearance fees from Fox News and a host of right wing radio and other media outlets. If she has to resign her job to do it, so be it, since she was not doing that job anyway (hence the whole reason she got jailed in the first place).
Judge Bunning has released her with this order because her deputies are issuing marriage licenses for the County. The Judge has said through this Order that if Ms. Davis does anything to interfere with her office’s issuance of these licenses, her ass shall find itself back in jail. And her deputies are to report to his Chambers every 2 weeks to inform him of the office’s continued and uninterrupted issuance of marriages licenses to all citizens, for the foreseeable future.
I like it. I denies Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee their photo ops, and it ensures her office’s continued compliance with the Constitution.
![Tuesday Open Thread [9.8.2015]](https://delawareliberal.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DL.Thumbnail.3-150x105.png)
Hopefully God (and her publicists) will tell her that it is her duty to interfere.
(Almost) local angle: the judge is the son of former Phillies pitcher Jim Bunning, who wore number 14 before Pete Rose and pitched a perfect game against the Mets when they were about as pathetic as the Phils are today.
She’ll be heading back to jail – which is what she wants. Can’t wait until fundamentalists (of all stripes) working at Motor Vehicle start denying women driver’s licenses.
If these idiots ever got their own country, can you imagine what a tremendous shit hole it would be?
I’ve always said if heaven is filled with those miserable bores I’d rather not spend eternity there anyway.
Not even worth commenting.
Evil Simon
And yet, Simon, you did comment. Explain that.
well, OK; and thank you.
I think the ‘silent majority’ is sitting back, letting the ‘progressives’ make fools out of themselves. It is totally wrong to force a person (or persons) with convictions to make a fool out of themselves. And, I’m not even ‘religious’. The constitution protects freedom OF religion, as well as freedom from an official STATE religion.
It also protects freedom FROM religion. See how that works?
Oh, I get it. It was part of your plan to let Obama win two terms. Good strategy you got going there.
@simon…. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Silent majority. You guys love your Nixon.
Simple Simon appears to be Kim Davis’ last supporter. Even Fox News has jumped ship:
‘zactly, Pandora; freedom from the ‘official’ state-enforced religion we fled in Briton; why we fought the red-coats. why we fought for independence. For freedom of the religion of our choice (or lack of).
You are ridiculous, Simon. So, according to your rules, a fundamentalist, of any stripe, who works at Motor Vehicle can deny a woman a driver’s license? Christian waiters/waitresses can refuse to serve shellfish? A clerk at Macy’s can refuse to sell certain fibers?
Flesh this out for me, Simon. What religious “laws” should we follow as a nation?
Britons? Given the time frame I think you meant Brits – as in British.
Britons??
that comments just proves that Fundamentalism and Ignorance are a match made in heaven…..
when they couple they actually do produce something………hypocrisy
see how that works Simon???
Wot’s a Briton?
The Christian Taliban of the day…. Now known as the puritains, left England because they weren’t allowed to marry preteens to old men
We fought the British Crown to enforce particular individual religious beliefs on the legality of contracts. That’s a novel one.
I love having a live one on the hook… so, since you’re new here I’ll offer a pleasant one, in your honor, one-time-only deal.
Religion is meant for the confines of your mind and your personal practice of customs. In your private home you do as you wish. Go to church, eat kosher, pray salāt etc., etc.. but don’t make the rest of us do it too. In fact you’re forbidden by law to make the rest of us do it.
Thanks fucking goodness for that.
Sorry for the typo- I not no eglish to mutsh
but in her defense, it was not part of her job to marry gays when she was elected to that office. Do you think she would have run for that office, given her beliefs? I really thought being ‘liberal’ (I hate labels) meant tolerance and acceptance. Room for people that are different. Diversity. All that good stuff. Can somebody explain the hate for this Woman?
Don’t play dumb. Being tolerant doesn’t mean tolerating criminal behavior and I think you know that.
Nobody hates this woman. Her personal supernatural beliefs have no place in the execution of her public duty. Her argument is childish and misinformed. There is defense for it. The idea that saying so is illiberal and intolerant is ridiculous. Your comments show an incredible misunderstanding of the laws and culture of our country.
I get that you think if you just use the word diversity out of context it means something. It doesn’t. You’re just making it worse for yourself.
And notice how Simon avoids the questions above about denying licenses to women, serving shellfish, etc.
But I really like this one: “but in her defense, it was not part of her job to marry gays when she was elected to that office.”
Oh my. Do you really believe this, Simon? According to that logic elected officials wouldn’t have to enforce any law enacted after they were elected.
Hi, Pandora; But you could cut her some slack for that not being in her job description, no? And, I believe her offense was civil, not criminal. She is not charged with a crime. I applaud her for taking a stand. It’s about time.
Look, if you don’t want me here, I will go away. I have better things to do, anyway. Like work.
Thanks, all (I think)
Hi, Pandora; But you could cut her some slack for that not being in her job description, no? And, I believe her offense was civil, not criminal. She is not charged with a crime. I applaud her for taking a stand. It’s about time.
Look, if you don’t want me here, I will go away. I have better things to do, anyway. Like work.
Thanks, all (I think)
Sorry, Simon, but her job description includes following the law, current and future. She works for the government not a church.
Why don’t you get this? And why won’t you answer my questions? Should fundamentalists be allowed to not issue women drivers’ licenses? Should Christian waiters be allowed to not serve shellfish? Should the Muslim flight attendant be allowed to not serve passengers alcohol?
Simon- she ran for the office because it was the easy thing to do. Her mom was the elected clerk for decades and the daughter her deputy. When her mother gave up the office, Kim Davis ran, got elected and hired her son as her deputy. The clerk is paid over $80,000 a year for a job she obviously does not have to perform to get paid.
Her new found faith came along the same time her campaign for office did.
Three divorces… four? She is a real biblical scholar.
@ Pandora. I understand your example of Drivers License, servers & flight attendants. But, you can’t ask about religious beliefs in a job interview.
Now, when it comes to Kim Davis. She should uphold the law, but that was not the law when she was elected. Don’t know how long she has held this office.
Since when do elected officials get to not enforce new laws? Seriously, think what you’re saying through.
That argument is absurd. Next.
Jason/Pandora: Let me restate; she should uphold the law.
She thinks it wasn’t when she took the oath. So, she should step down. IMHO.
Yes, she should step down if she can’t do the job she was elected to do – and that job includes following any new laws that are enacted during her term.
What if the age of when you could marry was legally changed to a lower age. Could she say, “Oh, this wasn’t the law when I was elected so I don’t have to issue those marriage licenses.”
What about people in law enforcement/court elected positions ignoring Colorado’s marijuana law? Can people ignore that law if they were elected before it became legal?
This argument is complete nonsense.
Die old white hayseed theists die
Four marriages… She probably only stopped getting married because she ran out of cousins.