Kim Davis Has No Right To Impose Her View of Marriage on Others

Townhall ^ | 09/09/2015 | Jacob Sullum

[cradle of freedom]

So, I guess we are just supposed to flip a coin as to which judge to obey.

[Paladin2]

Use the inner compass.

[The_Reader_David]

The author’s view is creating a religious test for election or appointment to certain offices.

[Jim Noble]

Kim Davis Has No Right To Impose Her View of Marriage on Others

Oh, and, by the way...the view in question is NOT Kim Davis's view, it's the view of the people who make the laws for Kentucky and for the United States.

The question we need to start asking, urgently, is "Do the People of the United States have the right to impose, through legislation, their views on those who disagree"?

[fwdude]

It’s a disingenuous statement for a homo-fascist to say that in the “private” sphere you can do what you want in ways that you can’t in public service, when they are trying to passed EXACTLY these laws nationwide to take away from private businesses their rights to follow the dictates of their religion and conscience.

Therefore, I don’t believe them.

[dbehsman]

And this is why I'm not a libertarian. The idiot who wrote this column doesn't tell us what law Kim David broke, he says that the Supreme Court “expanded” liberty (which is a complete falsehood), and he ignores the fact that liberals are ignoring our national immigration laws and drug laws.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The question we need to start asking, urgently, is “Do the People of the United States have the right to impose, through legislation, their views on those who disagree”?

The question in the title shows a mis-understanding of the idea of “imposing one’s view”. It also shows an unstated premise — that only certain persons have the “right” to “impose” his or her view and others therefore, have to meekly submit to that imposition.

Every single law that is passed, every single decision made by a judge, is in a sense “imposing one’s view” of something.

In this particular case, it is one’s view of marriage.

So, the question can be turned around — Does Justice Kennedy have the right to IMPOSE HIS VIEW of marriage on 310 million Americans, most of whom are Christians? A huge number of whom are DEVOUT Christians who believe that marriage is ordained by God to be one man and one woman?

So, who has the right to IMPOSE whose views?

If Kim Davis doesn’t ( as the author implies ), why do we give power to Kennedy to impose HIS VIEW of marriage on others?

The above question of course is not answered by the author, he simply assumes that Kennedy has the right.

You and I of course REJECT that premise.

[livius]

I just read that two gays flew in from San Francisco just to get married in that office. What a pack of vindictive, spiteful little creeps they are.

[goldstategop]

Funny, liberals managed to get the US Supreme Court to impose their view on marriage on the country.

But the rest of us have no right to object to it?

It turns out Jacob Sallum and other libertarians are as unprincipled and hypocritical about freedom as liberals are.

[madprof98]

Five Supreme Court Justices have no right to impose their view of “marriage” on others.

End of story.

[Amagi]

I'm assuming the law changed while Kim Davis was clerking.
I see no evidence that she was trying to force her view of marriage on others.
She was trying to do her job and was suddenly forced by law to be in a position to make a choice to violate her religious principles.
She chose not to violate her faith.
The Gaystopo could have taken their request to another clerk but they chose to attack Kim Davis on her faith.
I'll wait for the author to write a similar article about the black lesbian judge who refused to perform straight marriages, but I won't be holding my breath.

[NetAddicted]

Yeah, sounds like he did absolutely no research. Worthless article.

[NetAddicted]

Incredible point. Barf on Townhall.

[NetAddicted]

I’m just starting to realize they are Satanic, along with vindictive, spiteful and creepy.

[usconservative]

So, the civil rights act of 1964 which specifies that religious accommodation, which is: A reasonable accommodation is one that eliminates the employee's conflict between his religious practices and work requirements and that does not cause an undue hardship for the employer.

Is only muslims, the little darlings of the left, and not for Christians?

Do I understand this right?

How about the fact that Kim Davis was elected prior> to gay marriage being stuffed down the country's collective throat (no pun intended there!) by the five extreme, left-wing progressive liberals on the US Supreme Court?

How about the fact that Kim Davis made repeated attempts to have the State Legislature adopt changes to the law so that the County Clerk's specific names weren't on the marriage license?

Or how about all the other things Kim Davis did to raise awareness as to why she had reservations about her name being on marriage licenses issued to homosexuals?

Even better: How about the fact that Kim Davis and her staff issued ZERO marriage licenses to ANYONE? That's not even discrimination.

This woman gets demonized by the progressive liberal left in the media (and here on FR....you all know who you are) because FACTS DON'T MATTER to them.

Disgusting.