consultants are sandburs

Friday, September 04, 2015

Sometimes the wrong people, with the wrong mindset about fairness and rights, get into public office.

What part of PUBLIC SERVANT don't you understand, clown?

Mugshot image from here. In jail is where this self-anointed town scold belongs, not in a job requiring respect for others and for the law. And the law has finally caught up with notions of civil rights for everyone, not just in line with however arbitrary, "badge-heavy," ignorant people holding office want things. Next, leave reproductive choice rights alone, since family liberty is not to be unreasonably constrained by any nonsense attempted impositions of favored mythologies of unreasonable people assigned power over others. Things wrong and oppressive should be stopped, and this clown in the slammer is a fine start toward a public's demand for good civil SERVANT behavior.


Anonymous said...

Sometimes the wrong people, with the wrong mindset about fairness and rights, get into public office.



Anonymous said...

I believe she holds the same views on marriage that Bill Clinton, Hillery Clinton & Brock Obama held until a few years ago. The only difference is she is true to the rights of religious freedom. The rest of you dirt bags lack any coherent ideology.

eric zaetsch said...

"Brock Obama?" Sure. Well reasoned, well thought out. Then -- Have a long look at who the mentioned people had as opposition in our two party - guess at the lesser evil system. Fault whoever you choose, but I choose to fault each party; especially how each and both together have jiggered state laws to make independent candidacies impractical.

Wes Volkenant said...

Anonymous - there is NO issue of religious freedom in the case of Kim Davis. Religious freedom means she has the right to hold her religious beliefs and her right to WORSHIP is protected. I happen to find her form of Christianity troubling for its wrongness and tyranny towards others. But she gets to be that type of stupid, ignorant Christian.

What she doesn't get to be as an elected official, who took an oath of office to uphold the law, is a Christian. The law is blind to religion. It is color blind. It is gender blind. It is politically neutral.

Her job is to issue the residents of her County their legal paperwork, including licenses for marriage. She DOESN'T get to decide which licenses to issue based on her personal beliefs. She doesn't get to prevent anyone who LEGALLY has the right to marry from obtaining the proper paperwork. She doesn't get to say that to "be fair" she won't issue any licenses to anyone. Her job is to issue legal paperwork, not to prevent issuances based on her personal beliefs.

In her church, in her home, in her bar, she can hate gays all she wants. She can't condemn the Supreme Court for upholding the right to gay marriage. But she does not get to do so in her OFFICE.

There is no issue of religious freedom for government workers - elected, appointed, hired - to serve the public. Counties protect the right of worship, they do not protect the right to put religious belief in the way of carrying out governmental responsibilities.

eric zaetsch said...

Thanks, Wes. One difficulty.

The ignoramus wing of the Roberts Court, did Hobby Lobby to the nation, and each in that infamous majority should hang his head in shame.

You, in a few cogent tightly written paragraphs explain why their sophistry in the Hobby Lobby majority opinion in the case is bunk. If the RFRA statute allows their outcome, then the statute, read that way and in that part, is unconstitutional. Anon is a Hobby Lobbyist; as is Kim Dotcom, Kim Whatever Her Last Name Is, the clerk who, having taken the oath and wanting to continue collecting the pay, refuses to do the job.

An allowable act of faith would be for her to resign. Soon would be nice. She has that right and nobody could stop her resigning as an expression of her faith.

The Constitution protects against any interference by anyone, that way.

Unknown said...

As you might gather, I found the Hobby Lobby ruling to be disgusting. But the delineation for the Court here is the difference between private employer Hobby Lobby using personal beliefs to inappropriately, say I, impact employees on a matter deemed within the the employers pervue - sort of a Gilded Age, not Progressive Era mentality VS a representative of the non-religiously-affiliated (we think) governmental agency. Her religion has no standing as an Administrative governmental official. If she was a Lawmaker, like our own Abigail Whelan,undoubtedly her Christianity would influence her voting choices, and like Tara Mack, perhaps even her behavioral choices. But, I stick with my retort to Hobby Lobbyist Anon - they don't have a Legal Leg to stand on as there is no religious freedom, no religious liberty battle to be won, here.

eric zaetsch said...

Last comment, after moderation, as posted saying "UNKNOWN," yet it was submitted by Wes. Why it went up as UNKNOWN is a mystery of Blogger.

What was the line from the Bobby McGee song?

"Conscience" just another word, for "Bigotry in me," Me and my Bobby McGee?

Probably best to find it on YouTube, and check lyrics.