A bit of humor over Kentucky's favorite county clerk....

[none2_none2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14C3TZg6NQM

 

[Bramblethorn]

https://twitter.com/Tuphlos/status/641801010046894080/photo/1

 

[Bramblethorn]

or, even better: http://failnation.tumblr.com/post/128755529417/fabio-paving-the-way-to-social-deliciousness

 

[haurni]

or, even better: http://failnation.tumblr.com/post/128755529417/fabio-paving-the-way-to-social-deliciousness

I saw this one the other day and thought it was great.

The whole 'religious accommodation' thing in the US is fascinating (most things in the US are fascinating, in much the same way as is a four-car pileup on the highway). A recent article in the Washington Post does, I think, a pretty good job of laying out the issues here. In Kim Davis' case, the core issue seems to be that she simply doesn't want her name on those marriage certificates and otherwise has no major objection to her office issuing them as long as someone else signs off on them. There appears, however, to be no way for her to be 'reasonably accommodated' as everything issued by her office, whether personally signed by her or not, is issued 'in her name' as the county clerk. So, unless and until the state chooses to go through the process of changing how (and under whose name) licences are issued, she should resign or be discharged, demoted (i.e. swap jobs with one of her subordinates) or be transferred to another position if she can't do the job she was elected to do.

 

[none2_none2]

Her family has been tied to the local government for years. Her mother was the county clerk for 28 years. She had been working in her mother's office, and she just won the clerk position herself this last fall. (I believe her mother retired.) At least one of her twin son's now works in that same office.

They have so much tied to working for local government, that you would have to tear her claws out of her chair to get rid of her. She cannot be demoted or fired, as a county clerk position is an elected position. (Obviously, I cannot speak for all 50 states and all of their counties, but I believe it is the norm.) She could be impeached, but given the conservative nature of that part of the country, odds are that won't happen.

The reason that this idea that we should have religious exceptions is such a joke is that one there is no one religion in this country to solidify just what exactly they are opposing, and two those that do profess a particular faith are picking and choosing which things they are going to be appalled about -- namely "sins" that they themselves would never wish to do are fine to condemn -- while preserving the right to commit sins that they would or might commit in their own lives.

If one wants to be Biblical, there are plenty of things that would indicate that this pick and choose which sins to get ones panties all wadded up about is made up. Here are just 3 quotes:

a. "All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God."
b. "Judge not, lest you be judged."
c. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Regardless, it makes for good drama. This lady divorced her first husband, gave birth to twins after 5 months after that first divorce, married her second husband, divorced him, married her third husband who was the father of her twins, divorced him, and finally remarried her second husband who is her current husband...

I've read that some do not consider her earlier marriages valid because she was originally Presbyterian -- not some more evengelical denomination as she is now. (Interesting how they can come up with all sorts of excuses.)

I'd like to see how the religious right wing would handle a liquor license being denied because the person who has to approve it is Muslim, or a strict protestant denomination that is anti-alcohol. I would like to see a hunting licenses denied because the individual is Hindu. I would like to see a lisense to butcher pork to be denied because the individual is Muslim or Jewish. One can go on and on, but the bottom line is that a government official is supposed to work for all of the people.

Now on the other hand for private businesses, I still do believe that unless the business is somehow essential to life and well being, they should be left alone to be as obnoxious as they wish. If a business owner hates gays, they don't deserve a single penny of my money. Suing them and forcing them makes them look like martyrs for their cause which they don't deserve. One can argue all the laws protecting blacks from descrimination fall under the same requirements, but the history there is different. Thus the response was different. First for them, the majority were poor due to systemic keeping them "in their place". Thus plenty of times the choices to go somewhere else were limited. For gays, plenty of us can and should go elsewhere. A florist, a bakery, a photographer are from fluff sectors of the economy. Nobody dies or is physically at risk of harm if they don't do business with gays. Simply let them loose money from gays and allies, and realize that one day they will die, and the next generation most likely will be more tolerant. No sense making them into martyrs that could be used to make more laws to take back the rights we have gained so far.

Now if we are talking about medical care, etc. Those kinds of businesses should not be allowed to discriminate at all. Their descrimination could cause physical loss or even death if they are allowed to say that their religion prevents them from doing business with a certain class of individuals.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In Kim Davis' case, the core issue seems to be that she simply doesn't want her name on those marriage certificates and otherwise has no major objection to her office issuing them as long as someone else signs off on them. There appears, however, to be no way for her to be 'reasonably accommodated' as everything issued by her office, whether personally signed by her or not, is issued 'in her name' as the county clerk. So, unless and until the state chooses to go through the process of changing how (and under whose name) licences are issued, she should resign or be discharged, demoted (i.e. swap jobs with one of her subordinates) or be transferred to another position if she can't do the job she was elected to do.

I suspect a contributing factor is that quite a few right-wing "Christians" want her to be martyred as grist for politically-useful conspiracy theories. The Huckabees of the world don't want a peaceable accommodation that lets somebody else put their name on it, they want a headline.

A panel from Fox News (of all places!) had some pretty harsh things to say about the lawyer who was encouraging her stance:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/fox...that-kim-davis-lawyer-is-ridiculously-stupid/

Now on the other hand for private businesses, I still do believe that unless the business is somehow essential to life and well being, they should be left alone to be as obnoxious as they wish. If a business owner hates gays, they don't deserve a single penny of my money. Suing them and forcing them makes them look like martyrs for their cause which they don't deserve. One can argue all the laws protecting blacks from descrimination fall under the same requirements, but the history there is different. Thus the response was different. First for them, the majority were poor due to systemic keeping them "in their place". Thus plenty of times the choices to go somewhere else were limited. For gays, plenty of us can and should go elsewhere. A florist, a bakery, a photographer are from fluff sectors of the economy. Nobody dies or is physically at risk of harm if they don't do business with gays. Simply let them loose money from gays and allies, and realize that one day they will die, and the next generation most likely will be more tolerant. No sense making them into martyrs that could be used to make more laws to take back the rights we have gained so far.

I'm mostly OK with this idea in principle but I'm not sure it's a practical solution. There are cases where "let jerks be jerks" would only hurt the jerks, but also cases where it would leave LGBT people vulnerable. eg: if some bakery in New York refuses to sell cake to LGBT people, there are plenty of alternatives. But if the only bakery in a small rural town refuses to sell bread to LGBT people, it may be hard to go elsewhere.

So how do we write a law that distinguishes between those cases? Do we classify bakeries according to whether they're primarily selling "staple items" (bread etc) or sweets? Do we say "you can discriminate but only if another bakery within three miles agrees not to"? How do we deal with businesses that sell a mixture of essentials and non-essentials? Seems to me like a recipe for confusion and lawsuits.

 

[none2_none2]

Here is another funny video...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...5f81baee4b0c2077efbfd9e?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

 

[Bramblethorn]

Don't have the image at hand, but another one in the same series with Freddy Mercury: "Didn't Actually Like Fat-Bottomed Girls. Still Did His Job."