I’ve blogged about embarrassing atheists before. These are the sniveling, perpetually offended pimples, who are never satisfied just being atheists, but they insist on ensuring that their precious, sensitive corneas are never pointed directly at any kind of religious symbol, and their fragile sensibilities are never exposed to anything remotely having to do with faith, because SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
There’s this Newdow moron, who has declared a personal fatwa on anything that even implies religion. His pathological compulsion to get rid of anything having to do with God has taken him down the road of targeting schools for for allowing students to stand silently, during the Pledge of Allegiance, because it contains a reference to God, and trying to rid money of “In God We Trust.”
For the record, I think it’s a waste of energy. There’s nothing coercive about the Pledge. Students are allowed to sit it out, but are obligated to be respectful of those who don’t. That’s a respect issue. It’s teaching someone to be the type of human being who allows others to do what they do without being rude shitsticks. And having that phrase on money doesn’t bother me either. As an atheist, I just have better things to do than get chafed labia over some words on some currency.
There’s some Special Snowflake who was SHOCKED! at seeing a cross. APPALLED, in fact! As if it burned its odious presence into his soul through his eyeballs APPALLED!
And then there’s this asshole. Mikey Weinstein has declared jihad on Christians. Jonn has blogged on him numerous times. You can read it all here. Weinstein’s latest crusade targets some poor schlub of an Air Force officer who had the unmitigated gall “harboring and encouraging a truly abhorrent example of First Amendment civil rights violations.”
Wow! That sounds really bad. A truly abhorrent example of First Amendment rights violations? What could it have been?
Did Maj. Steve Lewis force his subordinates to attend church?
Did he counsel them on their lack of faith or administer non-judicial punishment based on biblical law?
Did he encourage them to read the Bible?
Nope. Maj. Steve Lewis committed the egregious crime of having an open Bible on his desk.
Mikey Weinstein claims this is egregious and outrageous, because the desk belongs to the US Army, and therefore anything religious that touches said desk will cause burns, which is destruction of government property, and service members are scared… Yikes!
Shit, if they’re scared of a fucking book, I can’t imagine how they’re going to fight ISIS! They’ll just duck and run, I suppose. All ISIS has to do apparently is pelt them with pages from the Koran. What kind of stupid is that? That’s like saying you can’t say “God bless you” to someone after they sneeze in a government space!
The atheist site Patheos picked up on the story with all the zeal of a squirrel hopped up on steroids. Except they’re idiots with an agenda, so let’s fisk them real quick, shall we?
If a lance corporal was said to be out of line for putting unlabeled Bible verses all over her workspace, then surely having an open, highlighted Bible at your desk is even worse.
Except the reason the Lance Corporal in question was out of line is because she was sharing a desk with others and was spreading her religious shit all over it, and then refused to obey a direct order to remove said verses, earning her a bad conduct discharge. It wasn’t about religious freedom, but rather because it wasn’t her personal space to decorate. Lewis had the book in his own office on his own desk. But by all means, let’s compare apples to Vagisil, because it fits our agenda!
It all began with an email from someone who deals with Lewis on a regular basis:
“It certainly gives the appearance of favoritism toward one religion,” says a Peterson military member who insisted on anonymity for fear of retribution. “I’m a Christian myself, and it’s concerning. I don’t think people should be promoted or given opportunities based on whatever [religion] they are. It should be about your performance.”
Much like reading Monster Hunter International books in my office gives the appearance of favoritism toward one author, right? And because the author is the International Lord of Hate, it must be removed at once! Otherwise, Special Snowflakes will get their tender labia chafed at the thought that someone might like something they don’t, and we just can’t have that!
Other than the anonymous emailer’s quivering lips, is there any evidence that Lewis discriminated against any of his subordinates based on religion? Were there any complaints lodged against him? I’m sure if there were, Weinstein and Patheos would be all over them like Oprah on a baked ham, screeching about how Lewis actually violated others’ rights, instead of quoting an anonymous snowflake’s butthurtery. But since that’s all they got, they’ll beat that drum until their little hands get bloodied raw.
That’s right: A Christian blew the whistle on his also-Christian commanding officer.
Maybe you’re having the thought I had when I first heard about this story: What’s the big deal? As long as he’s not proselytizing, this shouldn’t be an issue, right?
Not exactly. Unlike at civilian jobs where personal religious paraphernalia might go unnoticed or unchallenged, the military is far more strict about anything that might hurt cohesion and suggest religious favoritism.
See, the mere suggestion of religious favoritism (which for them, apparently is anything they find objectionable) vice the actual practice of it is enough to make these snowflakes soil their frilly panties!
Has there been any evidence that whatever Lewis has in his office hurt cohesion? Has he been disciplined, counseled, or even reported for favoring Christians over non-Christians? Has he treated anyone improperly, or even been accused of such acts? No?
From the very Air Force Directive these fuck weasels so carelessly bat about:
2.11. Free Exercise of Religion and Religious Accommodation. Every Airman is free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from your own. Every Airman also has the right to individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs, to AFI1-1 7 AUGUST 2012 19 include conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs, unless those expressions would have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment.
2.11.1. Your right to practice your religious beliefs does not excuse you from complying with directives, instructions and lawful orders; however, you may request religious accommodation. Commanders and supervisors at all levels must fairly consider requests for religious accommodation. Airmen requesting accommodation will continue to comply with directives, instructions and lawful orders from which they are requesting accommodation unless and until the request is approved.
2.11.2. If it is necessary to deny free exercise of religion or an accommodation request, the decision must be based on the facts presented, must directly relate to the compelling government interest of military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment, and must be by the least restrictive means necessary to avoid the cited adverse impact.
Weinstein claims the mere presence of the book violates these regulations. Except it doesn’t, and until he proves that it has, it’s just so much petulant whining.
Has Lewis disrespected others’ viewpoints because they differed from his own?
Has he denied accommodation in any way to those with differing beliefs?
Have the personal, religious items in his office adversely impacted “military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment?”
Whose rights were violated? Is there a right not to see a Bible?
No account has shown a “yes” answer to any of the above, as the perpetually offended haven’t mentioned anything but the presence of a book that they find so triggering.
But Patheos presses forward claiming the military officer somehow violated the last part of that regulation.
That last bit is key. Military officers cannot, in any way, promote religion while on the clock. A teacher at a public high school might be able to get away with this (provided no proselytizing was occurring) but a military officer plays by different, stricter rules.
A Supreme Court case from 1974, Parker v. Levy, even said as much:
This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections… The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.
So the case law and precedent are on MRFF’s side, even if their position is bound to be extremely unpopular.
Actually case law and precedent are not. What Weinstein and Patheos haven’t proven is that morale, discipline, health, safety, or mission accomplishment have been in any way impacted by the mere presence of the book. And since the Supreme Court plainly said that members of the military ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE PROTECTION GRANTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, unless discipline and good order are somehow impacted, case law and precedent in this case are clearly on Lewis’ side, and his rights are protected by the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.
It’s an “and” not an “or.” If a member of the military practices his or her religion AND causes damage to military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment by doing so, then yes, they’re in violation of the regulations.
The mere presence of a book doesn’t constitute said damage.
As it stands, the Bible has been removed from Lewis’ desk as an investigation into the matter takes place.
Lewis has not yet been punished for his actions. It’s unclear if he will be.
You can almost see the writer of this piece rubbing his grubby little paws together hoping for a bit of discipline for this officer, whose only “crime” appears to have been keeping a religious symbol on his desk. It doesn’t appear as if that will happen, though. Commander of the 310th Space Wing Col. Damon Feltman says the incident is being reviewed, and confirms what I said above.
“As long as he’s not doing something excessive, the existence of a Bible or the Koran or the Torah or some other religious article is not prohibited,” Col. Feltman said. “It’s what you do with it when you have it.”
As to the precious little Snowflake who was so outrageously outraged at the existence of what atheists essentially believe is a book of fairy tales, perhaps the military is not the place for them. After all, if this chafed ass cheek is so traumatized by a book on someone’s desk, can you imagine it on deployment?
These sniveling, piss-swizzling dick flakes make me ashamed to have anything in common with them!
Pope Francis was in DC these past couple of days, and the news cycle could talk about nothing else. Literally. I resigned myself to turning TV news off for good and focusing on foreign media and the Wall Street Journal. Traffic was a bear, so I took an admin day in which I sat around the house all day in my pajamas, blogged, and marveled from my balcony at the beautiful day we were having!
I keep wondering if the area was such a nightmare for a papal visit, how the hell does anyone think DC could handle the 2024 Olympics?
But back to the Pope. The visit has, of course, caused numerous discussions about the nature of the Pope’s political views. Is he a socialist? Is he a communist? Should he be using the Catholic Church as his own, personal bully pulpit from which to pressure national governments to implement his leftist agenda? Blah blah blah.
I’m hardly a Catholic, and I’m not religious. So maybe looking at said Pope from the outside, so to speak, I can offer my somewhat more objective opinion.
In his historic address to the U.S. Congress, Pope Francis urged the politicians to cooperate and exercise basic kindness to others – especially those in dire need of it – immigrants, the poor, and the earth. The political tone was unmistakable: allow immigrants from Latin America to take advantage of the opportunities America offers, take steps to avert “the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity,” share those fruits of capitalist labor…
I wouldn’t mind the message so much if he stuck to delivering it to the people, rather than to those who hold the monopoly on government force. Of course, we need to be kind to others! Hell, the United States is a hugely charitable nation! Inherently there’s nothing wrong with that. But there’s a difference in giving to the poor and asking the government to take tax dollars by force (and if you don’t think that taxation is force, try not paying your taxes. See: Al Capone.) To quote Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” the quality of mercy is not strained. You don’t force charity at the point of a government gun, because then it ceases to be charity and becomes just another redistributionist scheme. There’s no virtue in forcing others to give what you think they should give at the point of a government gun.
Kind words. Bad policy.
Immigration made this country what it is today. I am an immigrant, as is everyone in my family. We came here in search of opportunities, and we found them. I have no problem with immigration per se. But there needs to be justice, and there needs to be security. There is no justice in telling illegal aliens, “Since your very first act in the country you claim to love was to violate its immigration laws, we’ll reward you with amnesty!” Sorry, but no! We all understand there are people escaping some pretty horrific abuses out there. We also get there are folks out there seeking economic opportunities they would never find in their own countries. These are all valid reasons for wanting to come to the United States. But to allow those who have entered here illegally to remain, while plenty of immigrants wait for permission is not fair. While the stories may tug at the heart strings, justice is blind for a reason, and using said emotionalist rhetoric as well as the influence of the church to push for injustice is just plain wrong.
Emotional kindness. Bad policy.
And then there’s the environmentalist stuff. Look, no one is denying that conserving resources, finding cleaner technologies, and working for a cleaner planet is a good thing, but to claim that humans cause global warming and to impose onerous government regulations on them that will make their lives more difficult is not kind, and it’s not responsible. It’s one thing to promote a clean planet and urge each person to take responsibility for it, but it’s quite another to urge the government to force people to do so, like these scientists, who recently began urging the Obama Administration to prosecute skeptics using the RICO Act. Many cite the Pope’s alleged Master’s Degree in chemistry as some kind of evidence of his authority on global warming.
Well… a) he doesn’t have a Master’s in chemistry. He was a “chemical technician,” who has degrees in theology and philosophy, and b) even if he did have a degree in chemistry, which he does not, that would not denote expertise in environmental sciences.
Dr. Patrick Moore, formerly of Greenpeace, does have degrees in both ecology and forest biology, and he claims many of the claims regarding climate change are hysteria. A number of other scientists say the IPCC projections on climate change cannot be accurate, including botanist David Bellamy, the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry, and MIT professor of atmospheric sciences Richard Lindzen. Still more scientists argue that climate change is natural vice man-made – actual scientists such as University of Manchester professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics Leslie Woodcock, UVA’s Fred Singer, and University of Ottawa environmental geochemist Jan Veizer.
In other words, despite what radical progs like to claim, the science is far from settled, and for the Pope to use the influence of the church to push destructive environmental policies in national legislatures based on scientific evidence that is still being examined and blaming “unbridled” capitalism for the destruction of the environment is blatantly policy prescriptive and dishonest.
Yes, I have policy disagreements with the Pope, and he absolutely has the right to his opinion. That said, going out and pressuring governments to adopt his opinions as policy should be disturbing to all those separation of church and state advocates, who rightfully say that religion and politics must be kept separate.
The Pope seems like a kind man. He’s a tireless advocate for charity, for tolerance, for ending suffering – these are all noble goals and his public advocacy has brought many people I personally know back to the church. My problem is not his views. Kindness, tolerance, generosity, charity are all virtues to be admired. But there’s no virtue in using government force to force those principles on others. There’s no virtue in disingenuously using the emotional power of the church to compel politicians to impose his views on the country.
Government force is not charity, and it’s not a virtue. It’s force.
And despite the Pope’s quite obviously good intentions, in the end the nature of force does not change, and using a very powerful spiritual tool to club politicians over the head in order to coerce them into using government authority over the citizens is not moral or kind. It’s authoritarian.
I don’t think the Pope is a communist. He has good intentions, but he doesn’t consider the nature of government or the consequences of his advocacy. He just wants to do good.
Over the weekend, I saw the media screeching petulantly that Ben Carson apparently thinks Muslims shouldn’t be elected President of the United States, because apparently Islam is incompatible with the principles of the Constitution. This comes on the heels of yet more outrage about Trump refusing to correct some drooling conspiritard in New Hampshire, who screeched about Obama being a Muslim, and not American, and…. something. (I try not to pay too much attention to Trump, because a) he’s kind of nauseating, b) he’s immature, spoiled, and narcissistic, and c) he’s a douchebag.)
But back to Carson. I’m not a fan. He sounds like a nice enough guy – probably too nice to be in politics – but he’s also ignorant on policy, is a piss poor public speaker, and downright SUCKS on guns and free market issues. Sure, he NOW claims it was just political inexperience talking when he claimed that the right to own a semi-automatic weapon depended on whether someone lived in a rural or an urban area, but you know what? A guy who doesn’t even comprehend what a semi-automatic firearm is, clearly doesn’t understand the original intent of the Second Amendment, spews complete dumbassery on the topic, and then tries to backpedal when called on his ignorance, is not someone I want leading this country. I’m not particularly fond of his economic protectionism and support for increasing the minimum wage, either. It shows a lack of understanding about basic economic principles and free markets. Stick to neurosurgery, Dr. Carson.
But what I think of Carson is irrelevant for the purpose of this post. I’m more curious about his contention that a Muslim should not be elected President (Congress is apparently OK – never mind that the Speaker of the House is second in the line of succession should anything happen to the President). He claims that Islam is incompatible with the values and principles of our constitution and of America, and for this, CAIR is now shrieking that Carson should withdraw from the Presidential race, which kind of proves Carson’s point, n’est-ce pas?
Here’s the thing. Why should ANYONE care what religion our President chooses to exercise? Aren’t we conservatives always talking about shrinking the size of government? Aren’t we always advocating a government that does not intrude on people’s personal lives? So why should we make a religious test part of whether or not we support someone for President? Why should the President’s personal religious beliefs be an issue?
I mean, I get it. It’s not like Sharia doesn’t influence legislation in a number of Muslim countries. Hell, it’s a source of legislation for many of them that governs everything from prayer to personal relationships to sexual intercourse, and that’s clearly unconstitutional here in the United States. But then again, there seem to be some here in the United States who don’t have a problem with Judeo-Christian beliefs being imposed on everyone via government force. I don’t see any good reason why a government – ON ANY LEVEL – should be involved in personal relationships between consenting adults. And yet Kim Davis and the current crop of politicians that supports her are certainly doing exactly this. They seem to be OK with her refusing to do her job and with her discriminating against those with whose relationships she disagrees using her government position – BECAUSE OF HER FAITH.
I don’t care what religion you are. If you believe gay marriage violates your faith, don’t marry a person of the same gender. If you believe that you shouldn’t eat meat on Fridays or that you shouldn’t eat bacon, you are free to lead a miserable baconless existence. No government should be able to stop you. If your religion dictates you must birth as many children as possible, and both parties in a marriage agree it’s a great idea, you’re free to turn your vagina into a clown car and have those 19 kids. Can’t drink alcohol? Then don’t. Your God tells you that you shouldn’t drink coffee? By all means, don’t drink it then.
But the moment you stand up and proclaim that you want the tenets of your personal faith to be a part of America’s legal code – the moment you start yammering about changing the Constitution to reflect the word of the “living God,” you’re done. Yes, I’m speaking to you Huckabee. Go away!
I tell you what. I would rather vote for a Muslim presidential candidate who respects the law, respects the Constitution, understands and respects free markets, and protects our fundamental rights without trying to rewrite the Constitution to reflect his or her personal religious beliefs than a Christian who thinks it’s his or her personal duty to save us all by imposing Biblical principles on society at large via government force.
And yes, I’m aware that deception against non-Muslims is permitted and encouraged in certain circumstances. So I would wonder if Taqiyya would rule the candidate’s mindset when he or she proclaimed respect for the Constitution and commitment to the principles of limited government and free markets. But frankly, I’m also aware that politicians lie through their teeth regardless of faith. This has, unfortunately, become an all too common assumption when it comes to American politics, and certainly not limited to Muslims.
All this aside, my bottom line is this: I couldn’t possibly care less how you worship. I don’t care if you kneel on a rug five times per day, go to church on Sundays, attend synagogue on Fridays, or Buddhist temples on whenever you choose. I don’t care if you celebrate Yule, Christmas, or Hannukah.
Celebrate. Be happy. Commune with your deity of choice. Just leave the rest of us alone.
No, you’re not, Kim Davis.
I know, I’m breaking my own self-imposed rule by writing about this toad, but considering she has been screeching in the media about how she’s all victimy and stuff, I figured I’d clear up a few things.
Kentucky clerk Kim Davis says marriage licenses are being issued in Rowan County without her authority and she wants her name and title removed.
And when the deputy clerks issue licenses with her name removed, this entitled bitch says, “uh-uh!” The licenses may not be valid without her signature.
She would object to the documents noting that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,” and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority.
So, translation: I am the Clerk. I refuse to resign, because I’m entitled to my job and my $80,000/year salary. But I refuse to have legal documents issued under my authority, but I won’t resign and allow others to issue them under theirs.
Essentially, she’s holding the issue hostage.
But… But… But… HER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!
Now, y’all know I’ve defended Christians and their right to hold their beliefs. My stance on churches performing gay marriages has always been and remains that any church should be free to deny or perform the religious ceremony for gay couples (much like any baker, photographer, etc. as a private citizen should have the right to deny any client for any reason, no matter how ignorant), and any congregants who disagree with their church’s actions on the issue can find a new place of worship. Everyone wins. No government interference. The church officials follow their own consciences on the issue, and the worshipers do as well.
This, however, has nothing to do with this toad’s religious freedom, and here’s why:
As the County Clerk, she is the government. She is part of said government. She is required to issue legal documents. Note, these licenses are not religious documents. They are legal ones. No one is asking her to approve of the union. No one is asking her to perform a religious ceremony. She is required – as part of her job – to issue legal documents to people – people who pay her $80,000 salary. If she cannot in good conscience do her job, she should resign.
But… But… But… Kentucky passed an amendment to its state constitution banning gay marriages and unions, and 10th Amendment!
Well, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By using her authority as Clerk, Davis is doing exactly that. Gays are persons. They are also taxpayers who pay her salary. She is denying them equal protection under the law, as is the Kentucky State Constitution. And she is doing so, even as she draws her salary from them.
But… but… but… putting her name on a license signifies her endorsement of gay marriage, and therefore violates her religious freedom!
No, it doesn’t. It is not a religious act she is being asked to perform, and even though the Kentucky State Constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,
As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.
Surprisingly, the Washington Post analysis I cited above actually supports Davis’ view and says if she believes “that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA.” The only problem with this is that if her name is removed as the clerk, then the licenses issues may very well be invalid, and once again, she is holding the process hostage to her religious beliefs.
Look, there are some complex legal issues here, and no one is denying this. This is one reason why government involvement in marriage is such a ridiculous idea, and why I’m a huge proponent of getting the government – whether federal or state – out of the issue altogether.
People who want to spend their lives together should be free to do so. They should be free to leave their estates to one another. They should be free to have children together and raise them with love and care. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital without showing a state-issued marriage certificate, and they should certainly be able to receive the flag from the casket of their loved one when said loved one is killed in action!
No one should be forced – and yes, government is force – to perform a religious ceremony, bake a cake, take wedding photographs, or create wedding bands for any ceremony they find religiously objectionable.
But to turn the tables, no government official – and make no mistake, that Davis toad is a government official – should have the right to deny equal treatment under the law to any taxpayer, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on said taxpayers by refusing to step down, since legally it might be that she’s the only one who is authorized by law to sign those legal documents. What she is saying is, “I will not sign these legal documents. I will not allow my name to be on them. But I won’t step aside and allow anyone else’s name to be on them either.”
As I said, it’s not about her religious freedom. It’s about everyone else’s right to be free from her religious views.
If this toad had any integrity at all, she would turn down the $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers, that includes gay ones. But no… she’s fine with taking their tax dollars, but not fine with providing to them the services she was hired to provide?
Nope. Unacceptable. Unacceptable morally and ethically. And hypocritical to boot!
No, she is not a martyr.
No, she is not a hero.
No, she cannot be compared to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. or any other civil rights hero, because she is using her government office to deny equal treatment under the law to consenting adults wishing to spend their lives together, and she is hiding behind her religion. Sorry. NO-GO! She’s not fighting for religious rights. Her religious rights have not been violated, unless you consider her right to hold a government job and draw an $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers a “right,” in which case, please just STAHP TALKING! No, she is not being punished for her religious beliefs. She is free to hold them. She is free to exercise them. She is free to worship as she pleases and to interpret her Bible in any way she wishes. What is is not free to do is use her government office to deny equal protections under the law to the very taxpayers who pay her fucking salary!
She is being punished for refusing to do her job, to which she doesn’t have a right. Get over it. This toad is no Rosa Parks.
As you can tell, I don’t think much of her as a person. I think she’s an attention whore. I think she’s a selfish twat, who if she had any integrity at all, would leave that cushy government job if she believed that something as simple as putting her name on a legal document (NOT A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT) violates her religious beliefs.
I know plenty of religious people who believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I may not agree with them, but I’m not religious, so that’s understandable. They should be free to hold those beliefs without governments penalizing them. They should be free to decline to perform a religious ceremony if it violates their beliefs. They should be free to decline to participate in said ceremony, if it violates their beliefs.
But what they are not and should not be free to do is deny others equal treatment under the law if they are government officials. And that is exactly what Davis is trying to do, while hiding behind her “I’m a religious person” shield!
You may differ with me on the assessment. You may even know more about the law than I do. I freely admit I’m not a lawyer. I also freely admit, my amateur legal assessment may be off. That said, what is NOT off is my assessment that for Davis to refuse to treat all taxpayers equally while gleefully taking home a rather large paycheck funded by them is immoral and unethical. Bakers who refuse to cater gay weddings don’t take money from gay couples to whom they refuse to provide a service. Same with photographers, and any other private companies that refuse to make that a part of their services. Kim Davis still draws that salary from taxpayers, while refusing to provide them with the services for which they pay, and refusing to step aside and allow another government official to do so. That makes her a hypocritical toad in my book.
Have fun trying to convince me otherwise.