Kim Davis Returns to Court to Petition for Accommodation

Kim Davis (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Kim Davis
(Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage certificates after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, is back in court. This time, Davis has asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear oral argument of her case “due to the weighty constitutional and statutory issues at stake in this case.”

Defending her religious rights in the case is the Liberty Counsel, an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family. Since 1989, Liberty Counsel has provided pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

This morning Liberty Counsel released the following statement:

Cincinnati, OH— Late Monday, Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis filed a consolidated opening brief asking the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear oral argument of her case “due to the weighty constitutional and statutory issues at stake in this case.”

The Rowan County Clerk, who was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union because she refused to issue marriage licenses and was later sentenced to jail for following her conscience, is asking the Appeals Court to reverse the following district court rulings and orders:

  • Preliminary injunction against Davis on August 12, 2015;
  • District court’s denying a preliminary injunction against the State Defendants on August 12, 2015;
  • Expanded injunction against Davis on September 3, 2015; and
  • Contempt order against Davis on September 3, 2015.

From the outset of this case, Davis has consistently requested a reasonable accommodation for her deeply held religious convictions regarding marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The government is required to accommodate Kim Davis and other Kentucky citizens under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“In a rush to judgment that promoted expediency over due process, the district court’s original injunction trampled upon Kim Davis’s conscience,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “We look forward to having the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals review this case and resolve this conflict to protect religious freedom,” concluded Staver.

"I'll follow you over Kathy. I was probably in more sympathy with your point of ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"If you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Thank you, Mrs. Harris! Christmas blessings to you. I hope to see you over at ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."

Browse Our Archives



What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nathaniel

    Can I petition Liberty Counsel to protect my right to a government paycheck for not doing my job too?

    • Mikey0

      No one is stopping you. But I think you were just being snide.

  • Wally Noon

    Gay marriage is now a legal right in all 50 States. That cannot be denied.

    • PSdan

      The right to a reasonable accomodation for one’s religious beliefs is a legal right in the state of Kentucky. That cannot be denied.

      Happily, your statement and mine are not in any way in conflict. An accomodation can be granted to Kim Davis, and gay people can be married in Rowan County. And no, it doesn’t matter at all that she is a government official. They have rights under the Kentucky RFRA also.

      • radiofreerome

        She was offered an accommodation that would allow others in the clerk’s office to issue marriage licenses. She rejected it and tried to prevent others from issuing licenses. She has no right to force her religion on her co-workers or the people who pay her salary, which is exactly what she’s doing.

        • PSdan

          Yes, well, as I understand she objected to the license being issued in her name. A reasonable objection, and one that could probably be accomodated by reasonable people following the Kentucky RFRA.

          I understand that the other side fervently wants to paint her actions as “forcing her religion on her co-workers” etc. but the underlying fact is that Kentucky behaved in a lawless manner by not following their own RFRA.

          I suspect some thought it would do to string her up and make an example of her *pour encourager les autres*. It backfired, as lawlessness often does.

          • radiofreerome

            “Yes, well, as I understand she objected to the license being issued in her name. A reasonable objection, and one that could probably be accomodated by reasonable people following the Kentucky RFRA.”

            It is NOT a reasonable objection It is a tactic for forcing her religion on others.

            Forget the Kentucky anti-gay Jim Crow Law. Federal law trumps state law. You lost the Civil War. You need to be reminded of that

          • PSdan

            I don’t know KD’s faith, but it appears that it includes something like the Catholic concept of material cooperation, whereby someone who facilitates or contributes indirectly to some evil act (i.e. signs or permits her name to be used ot issue SS marriage licenses) may be deemed to be morally culpable.

            So she is not offering up some crackpot notion as the basis for her objection; it is based obviously on her faith’s view that SS marriage is intrinsically wrong together with this well-established idea of material cooperation.

            Whether this is deemed to be reasonable by a particular judge depends on the details of her argument and her actions and the Kentucky RFRA, so we’ll just have to wait to find out. It would seem to me that even public officials are covered by the free exercise clause in the first amendment, though.

            If in time it becomes clear that the courts wish to treat the first amendment as dead letter law, then we will be in for a very long and difficult fight against a tyrannical and lawless state.

          • radiofreerome

            Am I allowed not to cooperate with your Church’s evil in the mortal persecution of even celibate gay men and lesbians? I say “mortal” because as a cancer patient I require a partner to make medical decisions for me from time to time. it has been a matter of life and death for me and your Church’s support of laws which deny such rights is both lethal and irredeemably evil.

            Am I allowed to discriminate against Catholic couples to avoid participating in their marriages, because your church has attacked every basic human right to gays in order to support the Catholic marriage as an institution?

          • Betsypickles

            She should follow her concience and resign. That is how honorable people behave. She is greedy and selfish, period.

          • PSdan

            Would you say that Rosa Parks should have followed her conscience and walked? That she was greedy and selfish in demanding a seat on that bus?

          • Betsypickles

            No. Rosa parks was not refusing to do the job she was elected to do, paid by taxpayers in her state. She took an oath to follow the law. Her option is to resign. A private citizen who chooses to disobey civil law does so with the expectation of going to jail. No pne is allowed to cross her arms, say “no” and expect no consequences. How can you not see this!

          • GrFace

            A shameful and cynical analogy. She wasn’t Rosa, she was the bus driver. And Davis refused to let them onto the bus, period, and then callously told them to go to the next town where they MIGHT be served — unless the bus drivers there were as similarly inclined as her. You have an amazingly tone-deaf view of the civil rights movement.

          • GrFace

            Can a Jewish food inspector refuse to grant a license to a place that sells shellfish as an accommodation since his or her name will be on the paperwork? Is that covered by RFRA? Can a muslim judge discount a woman’s testimony over a man’s as an accommodation to his devout beliefs? Can a catholic clerk obstruct a building permit for a protestant church? Can a church-packed public school board insist that intelligent design can be taught in place of evolution in biology or require mandatory christian prayer in school as an accommodation to their faith that commands them to spread the good word?

            The answers to all of those are no. There is clear public policy justification to deny accommodation in those instances. Just as it is here. Playing RFRA as anything beyond a personal accommodation (kirpans, bears and peyote) is a smokescreen to discriminate and establish their religion onto the backs of everyone around them #Becausejesus.

            Every reasonable accommodation offered to her was rejected and she even doubled down to threaten to illegally fire employees who followed the court order before she was jailed. She acted as the straw men in the above cases would have tried and in this case as in the hypotheticals above, she was shot down for good reason. She is an elected official. She does the accommodating, not the citizens that would then have to do research to see what lunch counter… sorry… clerk office… around them would actually do their job and recognize their rights.

          • PSdan

            Your personal opinion about how the law related to the free exercise clause ought to work in this case is interesting (to you), but utterly irrelevant.

            Go read Eugene Volokh’s “When Does Your Religion Excuse You From Doing Part of Your Job” (WaPo, September 4).

            KD should prevail in making a claim under the state RFRA, according to Volokh. The “do your job or resign” argument has been rejected consistently by the courts. The laws have accepted the risk of insincere claims, so what you imagine about her motivations doesn’t matter legally. Furthermore, she has specifically put forth the idea of taking her name off the marriage licenses, something that requires action by the Kentucky legislature and which the Governor has refused to allow. It appears that this refusal cost him the election yesterday.

            The RFRA is meant to provide an accomodation if it does not create “undue hardship”, and a modification to the law related to marriage licenses (i.e., removing the county clerk’s name) is no hardship for the state at all. This is precisely why the RFRA was passed in 2013. And, I might add, the state RFRA applies to elected officials.

            In the 31 states that enacted bans on SS marriage, the average margin in favor of the bans was 68%. Politically speaking, then, the assertion that Obergefell also necessitates that the free exercise clause be set aside is simply an assertion that we can’t have a functioning democracy anymore because it displeases our intellectual elites (including the 5 lawyers on the Supreme Court). Everyone who is able to resist and oppose this should do so.

          • GrFace

            As the above scenarios demonstrate — given that I included proven court cases in the above list (eg Kitzmiller) — they most certainly ARE relevant. I’ve read Volokh’s opportunistic opinion on this. He’s a decent lawyer but a partisan hack and even a certain conservative supreme justice disagrees with you on the duty of public servants resignation when confronted with such delimas. And there IS most certainly case law dismissing using, ironically, the first amendment by public officials and citizens to deny civil liberties & equal protection and break constitutionally defendable law.

            As for using the RFRA to obstruct equal protection under the law or other second party liberties, if RFRA was active in the civil rights era we’d have seen strong religious objections (RFRA spectrum, even) to cases such since the Loving and Brown decisions in which the unconstitutional ban on mixed race marriage and separation of races fell back on dishonest religious fig leafs. As for undue hardship, you and Davis have turned the principle on its head. Accommodations were indeed offered to the extent that they could be. She rejected them and her argument that she was personally endorsing SSM goes against yet more constitutional law, Garcetti — Davis’ signature was governent’s on the license not an that of a Kentucky Apostolic Christian. Moreover, the pressing need to afirm the rights of same sex couples under equal protection to gain the marriage rights and protections that the rest of us take for granted must take priority over a religious bigot with government power lest anyone’s rights are forfiet to people abusing state power #BecauseJesus. The matter couldn’t wait for the legislature to haggle for political points, and asking couples to research where in the republic they could get to by plane, train or automobile so their affirmed rights would be recognized to accomidate a single religious zealot going against her own county attorney’s legal guidance is a perversion of RFRA (or is it a “feature”?) and an open violation of church-state separation. The only way you and Davis can have religious freedom to negate the rights of citizens is for your particular religion to be the dominant one and dispose of that pesky establishment of religion line. You are demonstrating the writing on the wall. RFRA is going to have the same fate as DOMA if people like you continue to use it to obstruct people’s rights.

          • Betsypickles

            Federal law trumps state law. Always. And once the lawsuit against her progresses she woll be jailed again for violating the court order. Good!

          • PSdan

            Obergefell did not invalidate state RFRA laws. Obergefell does not trump a state law that is about religious freedom. Go read Eugene Volokh’s (a prominent first amendment scholar and not even a Christian as far as I know) commentary on this at WaPo.

            Kentucky can comply with Obergefell and grant KD a reasonable accomodation. They just chose to ignore their own law. Note that you don’t hear about KD-type situations in Utah and North Carolina, for example — these states put mechanisms in place to protect religious freedom while complying with the Supreme Court ruling.

            The issue is not federal vs. state law, it is Kentucky’s disregard for state law. I see that Kentucky’s Governor who refused to do enforce the state RFRA has been turned out of office. Good!

          • Angel And The Wolf

            Religious freedom cannot be exercised in public office. Her only legal way to refuse to do her prescribed duties was to resign.

          • Angel And The Wolf

            What “lawlessness” was demonstrated by the Judge when he found her in contempt?

      • Chris

        Actually it can as it directly interferes with the rights of others.

      • The Doctor (6th)

        Well, there is one thing.
        She could have been accommodated by letting her deputies issue the licenses, but she prohibited them from doing that – even though there were deputies that would have done it.
        She crossed a line by doing that.

  • radiofreerome

    Having Liberty Counsel as representation is an excellent indication that a plaintiff is a fool. Liberty Counsel always loses.

    • GrFace

      I think they won only once but it was a low hanging fruit case over an off duty teachers activities on school grounds. But yeah. Their record, including Staver’s and LUs misconduct in Miller v Jenkins doesn’t put them at the top of my rollidex.

  • Al

    ” She was later jailed for following her conscience”. What a load of crap. She was jailed for “failure to follow a lawful order issued from the court”, ( who would also be her boss).

  • Mikey0

    May God bless Kim Davis and her family. If her faith cannot be accommodated, we will all lose.

    • Angel And The Wolf

      Then, you all lose.

  • Angel And The Wolf

    Kim Davis is not above the Law. The Judge was satisfied with Brian Mason’s modification, which simply removed “Groom”, “Bride”, and Kim Davis’ name. She was released on the provision that she not interfere with issuing of those licenses. She immediately interfered by radically modifying the licenses to the point that her modified licenses may not be valid. I hope the Judge re-jails her for contempt, and orders a return to Mason’s version.

    • The Doctor (6th)

      Just to be clear on this…
      “Bride” and “Groom” had already been removed by the governor when the Supreme Court ruling came – that was a non-issue.
      The new licenses had been changed to have “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” (or something similar) in their place.

      • Angel And The Wolf

        Thanks, Doc. Didn’t know that.
        My point is, she could have just hid herself away in her “Do Not Bother ME” corner, but she just HAD to mess with things. I hope she goes back to jail.

        • GrFace

          I don’t. She learned nothing from it the first time.

          • Angel And The Wolf

            Jailing her is not to teach her. It’s to get her out of the way so she can’t interfere again.

          • GrFace

            Trouble is that they can’t and shouldn’t throw her into a supermax so schadenfude over her discomfort is as unluckily as it is in poor taste. And thanks to Staver’s bragging that she would not be impacted be any fine, that avenue is down. (He did that specifically to have his “client” thrown in jail for the publicity and donations). If jailed again she would become a bogus prisoner of conscience for Staver to milk for donations. I fear that Staver and Davis have hockeychecked Bunning and Rowan County administration into keeping her free and lame ducked with “her voice” as she calls it for gullible fools like Harris and PSdan here until she’s voted out since the legislature won’t have the will to impeach her. And I suspect the report on the licenses will be seen as valid since they were issued in good faith and, IIRC, only the married parties can challenge the validity of a marriage in KY, charges of bigamy and such aside.

            Methinks the best we can hope for us for orientation to be added to the protected classifications at the federal level (an inevitability) and for dishonest RFRA statutes to be stricken down or defanged as a way to violate second party rights.

          • Steve Karper

            offers her many opportunties to muff dive. Lets face it – 4 marrages, 3 so far failed. needs to try a lesbian relationship

    • Mrs. Harris

      Kim Davis is not above the law…and the courts are not above the natural Law or the moral law. So loving and tolerant of others lifestyles that some people hope she gets thrown in jail. I wonder what will happen to those who show contempt for Gods law when they stand before Him? One Nation Under God. God Bless America!

      • Angel And The Wolf

        She needs to be re-jailed for her contemptuous actions so the judge can have her Deputy began to issue his modified licenses again without her interference.
        AND: One Nation where each individual is free to find his or her own ultimate personal truth.
        Your god is but one of many possibilities.
        Yes, Natural Law trumps Man’s Law for personal issues, but when we interact with others, Man’s Law must be Supreme. Kim Davis interacts with others in her elected post, and must follow The Law Of The Land.

        • Mrs. Harris

          Dear Angel, you are incorrect. My God has made himself known. All people whether they believe or not, will face the final judgement of God and he Reigns over all. This is not a matter of One’s opinion, since Jesus Christ has made known the face of God, to all people. No person or government has any competence or authority to try to oppose his created order and no court or government either. Man’s law is far from supreme and Kim Davis is not your subject. Furthermore no competent authority has taken away her office, which she was elected to by the people she serves, and in a state where the people upheld the traditional meaning of marriage. Thankfully, you are not the mediator of the natural law or moral law and do not get to dictate when it applies. Your statement about “personal truth” is illogical relativism. No person is bound to follow the “law of the Land” when that law is immoral. And be careful the judgement you issue to Mrs. Davis, wanting her to be jailed for contempt, for you will be judged by your own standard before the Highest court.

          • Angel And The Wolf

            I know you think you have to try and make others believe what you believe, but I don’t.

            We have a system of laws that we have, more or less, arrived at through a method of consensus defined in the US Constitution.

            You may not agree with all of the Laws, or rulings, but you, I, and Kim Davis are bound by them.

            Kim Davis was ordered by her Governor, and more importantly, by a Federal Judge, to obey the US Supreme Court’s ruling that every couple, whether opposite-sex, or same-sex, be issued a marriage license. She refused, and was jailed for contempt.

            One of her Deputies began issuing licenses with his signature in place of hers. The Judge was satisfied with that, and had her released with the provision that she not interfer with her Deputies.

            I understand how Davis believes she can’t issue the licenses, and no one is asking her to. The Judge has said her name can come off the license, and that she doesn’t have to sign them.

            She could have let her Deputy take care of that part of the job, but she went and altered the licenses to be issued only to same sex couples by removing the name of the County and the authorizing statement.

            Her Deputy has asked the Judge to rule on the validity of those licenses, and he has directed the Governor to issue a formal document on the validity.

            There is a new Governor now, and it may fall to him to respond to the request.

            I expect he will deny the validity.

            This will prove Kim Davis interfered, committed an act of Contempt of her release provision, and should be sent back to jail.

            Then the Judge can direct her Deputy to begin issuing licenses in the same form that he did before Davis was released.

          • Mrs. Harris

            “I know you think you have to try and make others believe what you believe, but I don’t.” And yet…there it is.

            “You may not agree with all of the Laws, or rulings, but you, I, and Kim Davis are bound by them”. This is what I find so illogical about modern politics.
            If I am bound by these laws regardless of whether I agree, then why are you and everyone else not bound by Gods law whether you agree?

            You actually want someone to go to jail for failing to respect “the law” when the people who are trying to make her do so, are even more wrong and are disrespecting “the Law” and you aren’t asking that they go to jail, are you?

            What are the terrible consequences of her “crime” of not wanting her name on these licenses? Inconvenience? Oh terrible day! Not inconvenience! “Send her to jail”, they say. So loving and tolerant.

          • GrFace

            Which god’s law would we be bound by again? Yours? Mine? The person down the street? Whose interpretation. Yours? Mine? Or the person down the street. We are a secular nation with secular laws and that is a very good thing even when you belong to the dominant faith. If you don’t like it consider how you’d feel if you were suddenly plucked up and dropped into the middle of Saudi Arabia or Iran as a religious minority.

          • Mrs. Harris

            Are you imagining it’s better that we be ruled by your beliefs? Another person’s beliefs? A group of people’s beliefs? How is that any better? It is randomness. Why should you have the right to impose your beliefs on me? Isn’t that what people are always complaining about? Why is your made up morality better than my God’s?

          • GrFace

            Why should YOU have the right to impose YOUR beliefs on ME? Why is your made up god’s morality better than that derived from reason and logic (or for that matter any of the other gods out there)? Secular law in the US protects the faithful as much as the unchurched, arguably even more so given history’s treatment of heretics.

          • Mrs. Harris

            Why should you have the right to impose your beliefs on me? I don’t believe in your secular religion.

          • GrFace

            Yet you think that you have the right to force your religion on everyone. Davis is certainly doing that in Rowan County.

          • Mrs. Harris

            And yet you think you should impose your beliefs on me. How is that any different?

          • GrFace

            How am I doing that? I am not making you marry a lesbian. I am not making you like kd lang or Melissa Etheridge. If you don’t like LGTBs, you are not required to have them as friends or soulmates anymore than if you don’t like blacks or asians. You just have to do what that bible says and live and let live and respect the civil government’s secular laws that protect believers as much as non-believers.

          • Mrs. Harris

            Well then how am I imposing my religion on you? I’m not making you pray, or go to church, or read the bible. If you don’t like Christians or Christian music you are free to hang out with others and listen to someone else. Your arguments don’t hold water. You just have to Let me live as I want and respect Gods laws that protect believers and unbelievers alike.

          • GrFace

            Keep your eye on the topic. It is Davis who is imposing her religion on others by obstructing access to the civil right to the marriage protections that you and I take for granted. And there are a LOT of them! It’s not about kissy kissy in front of family members that don’t approve of their lifestyle. Davis has actively obstructed those rights no differently than the the Commonwealth of Virginia did in the Loving case and is using bogus religious privilege as a government official to justify it.

          • Mrs. Harris

            The topic is you claiming that I and Kim Davis are attempting to impose our beliefs on others while at the same time not seeing that you are doing the EXACT SAME thing.

          • GrFace

            No the topic according to the header is “Kim Davis Returning to Court to Petition for Accommodation” when as a government official she has little latitude. You and Davis are the ones insisting that there is a higher unconditional religious law over secular law that can take precedence and can be leveraged against those who don’t subscribe to it. In Davis’s case it was a direct violation of their civil rights. Reasonable Accommodations for religion are acceptable so long as third or second parties are not impacted. In her case her explicit insistence for accommodation was to obstruct the rights of others since she rejected any capital-R Reasonable Accommodation offered to her and even broke employment law to enforce her religious views on the office and county.

          • Mrs. Harris

            You are insisting that your secular law can take precedence over the natural law and the moral law. What proof do you have that your belief is better than mine or Kim Davis’s? What proof do you have that recent secular law is superior to the natural law and to moral law?

          • GrFace

            That would be Romans 13. The Bible tells us so. As for natural law, it is based more on enlightenment principles than biblical law that can’t get the basic physics, astronomy or biology right. Likewise nondenominational and secular derivations of why stealing, murder and fraud are bad for the human condition abound, are based on the natural state of the human condition, empathy & solidarity with your fellow humans, and beat the old argument that it’s written on stolen tablets somewhere. Religious laws are manageable for personal relationships between a person and their higher power. But when they start to interfere with other people’s rights, especially those who don’t subscribe… Then for your case lucky for you that you are part of the dominant religion… But it sucks to be anyone else — or you if you were to be uprooted to a country where you were a disfavored minority. Hence, religiously neutral laws protect you as much as the other guy.

          • Mrs. Harris

            No, sorry. You are misunderstanding several things. First, the verses in Romans tell us we are to obey legitimate authority, that is only when it accords with what God has already commanded as regards good and evil. We are never permitted to do what is immoral, even when commanded to do so by those in power. This comes from the fact that all legitimate authority comes from God and so, no legitimate authority can oppose God. We would not be permitted to kill people, or sleep with numbers of people etc.

            Second, the natural law is not based on enlightenmentt principles. It is based on the natural order created by God and observable by man.

            Third, your last point falls apart given that we are both human beings and we do not agree about what is right and wrong. You keep trying to tell me that secular law is superior, but have provided no proof that it is. Nondenominational and secular derivations disagree all over the place.

          • GrFace

            ” Nondenominational and secular derivations disagree all over the place. ”

            And there is agreement on natural law and god’s will among the worlds religions?!?!?! Come on.

          • Mrs. Harris

            That’s exactly my point. They don’t agree. How can anyone claim that they are right based on “human condition” unless they can demonstrate an objective truth, say… written on stones for example? Or revealed to human beings by God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ? I find it fascinating, too, that you at first claim that my God is made up and then try to justify your position using the bible. How does that logic work? If you can prove my God is made up, go for it. Surely you must have hard evidence to be commited to such a belief, otherwise you would just be operating out of “unproven faith” and we know that would never fly. When you provide me with proof I will reconsider.

          • Angel And The Wolf

            “Why am I not bound by god’s law?”

            That’s easy. I don’t believe your god is real, and furthermore, IF he is, he has no place in our governmental procedures.

            Davis is bound by REAL laws made by REAL people.

            She has been authorized to take her name off, and I have no problem with that, but all the marriage certificates issued by her office should come off the same stack, gay and straight alike. She has created a special license for gays, alone, that may not be valid. If they aren’t, she has broken her terms of release, and if she won’t rectify the problem, she should be sent back to jail where she can’t interfere further.

            Oh, and your “The Law” exists only in your mythology.

          • Steve Karper

            she needs to rectumfry her own problem

          • Mrs. Harris

            So if I, inspite of all evidence, merely claim that you are not real and the government is not real, then I can be not bound by your laws? You don’t believe my God is real, mythology you say. Yet historical evidence demonstrates that Christ was real, and that the Israel’s history is real. The church is here, yet the empires that have tried to destroy her are gone. You would not exist if it were not for my “mythological” God, nor would anything else.

            Did you create yourself? Did you establish the workings of the world? Do you have such wisdom, that you devise right from wrong by your words alone?
            Such foolishness.

            As far as I know, you don’t exist. I can’t see you. Prove you exist.

            You will one day be judged by the God who is real. You are not the first to play this game, lots of rulers and cultures who did not believe, have tried their hand, and now they are gone. The church remains. History remains.

          • Angel And The Wolf

            Empty arguments, Mrs. Harris.
            You have your beliefs, I have mine.
            Further discourse is fruitless.

          • GrFace

            Uh… Saudi Arabia is real. So is India. Does that make Islam and Hinduism real?

          • Mrs. Harris

            I’m really not clear on your point.

          • GrFace

            Israel is here.. so is Saudi Arabia and the Islamic tradition. For that matter so is Iran, India, Japan, Taiwan, Utah, Africa and Hollywood. Which is true again and true enough to justify it being the law of the land? Islam? Judaism? Christianity? Bahaiism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Shintoism? Mormonism? Tribal Animism? Scientology? So many to choose from… or we can have a secular system based on a human condition by which all of the above can coexist. That’s only possible under secular law.

          • Mrs. Harris

            Saudi Arabia, India, Islam and Hinduism are not Gods.

          • GrFace

            Israel has Judaism with Yahweh, Saudi Arabia has Islam with Allah. India with Hinduism has gods aplenty. You can pick the one you want for your own life. You can’t make their rules everyone else’s as did Davis.

          • Mrs. Harris

            Well then, why do you get to make your rules everybody else’s?

          • GrFace

            This is what sets me off almost more than her violating the rights of those people petitioning for their licenses. She threatened to illegally terminate employees should they refuse to follow the law. She then altered archived documents after filing as a custodian of public records. (Oh and first we were told by her lawyers that they were invalid… Then when they felt the gravity of their lost cause, they flipped…) And all of this is OK we are told because of “religious freedom”. Try that in any other scenario and see how that flies. This farce has to come to an end.