Yes. This is the correct answer.

Jan

Religious beliefs or not, the real issue is that we are seeing the government enforce rules where it wants to and ignore rules when it wants to. Just like in Atlas.

Requiring a public official to act in accordance with law is not 'judicial tyranny'.

Suggesting that she behave rationally and stop personally redefining law in accordance with her religious beliefs would have no effect on her.

The progressives are not destroying the family. It is not the job of any political party to destroy or protect the family. The family is a personal concept. Politics should stay out of the way and let individuals protect the family in whatever way suits them.

Jan, let them marry trees

Impeachment is not the only remedy when the official defies a court order, as we are seeing.

The judge did no such thing. Whatever we think of government involvement in concepts of personal marriage this has nothing to do with "the entire Nuremberg trials". Your religious dogmas are not the standard. This is an Ayn Rand forum.

Religious beliefs are not '2 + 2 = 4' and are not the basis of our legal system.

There are no "laws of God" to which we must be subservient either intellectually or in law. This is an Ayn Rand forum for reason and egoism, and we do not live in a theocracy.

Remember, she isn't breaking any law by not issuing licenses. The SCOTUS created a right and a law where none exists. She has asked to be shown what written law she broke, and no authorities have been able to show her a codified law which she has transgressed.

KCLiberty: "That would fix everything."

A rational approach to government in general would "fix everything" but isn't possible with competing dominant pressure groups demanding to exploit government power to impose their own dictates. In this case it wouldn't fix or satisfy their demands to use government to impose competing irrational versions of the concept 'marriage'.

She is promoting a nonsensical version of 'problem solved': "Mat Staver, head of the Liberty Counsel told ABC News that Davis 'has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well.'”

She is trying to have it both ways with both the law and her religion. Her name on the certificate is not a personal endorsement, it means she is responsible for certifying the license in accordance with the required criteria and her official duties to apply them. By insisting on removing her name she is trying to evade responsibility for her job while pretending for her religion that she isn't doing what she is doing, claimed to be forbidden by her religious dogmas. She makes no sense at all, but that is the consequence of abandoning reason for faith in dogma.

What strikes me as curious here is how no one is discussing the fact that her 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion is at play here. That we effectively have a newly discovered right to gay marriage superseding an enumerated right. The Founders would be appalled that an official was being forced by the government to violate her deepest religious beliefs when any rational person would make the simple accommodation of authorizing other officials to sign the marriage certificates after taking her name off of said documents. Instead, we seem to see everyone rushing to embrace the proposition that the 1st Amendment only applies to acts by the government directed toward activities in private life and that any person of faith ought to be excluded from government employment with no attempt to make a reasonable accommodation.

Likewise, no one mentions the 10th Amendment under which the entire issue of Marriage is reserved to the States or the Legislative History of the 14th Amendment as an action to insure that the newly freed slaves would be treated equally. No one talks about the systemic substitution of "discovered" rights for the clear language and intent of the framers and amenders of the Constitution. Nor do we see other officials punished for their refusal to follow the law from the local officials presiding over sanctuary cities to the supreme court justices acting as an ongoing Constitutional Convention.

Ironically, if the Clerk said she had a mental disorder that compelled her to not sign the certificates because of fear of supernatural punishment she would be entitled to the reasonable accommodation she seeks under the American's With Disabilities Act.

Clearly what is really at work here is an effort by an out of control judiciary to make an example of anyone who questions its extra Constitutional dogma of absolute judicial supremacy.

Susanne: "While I appreciate her personal convictions and her freedom of religion, others who [are] exercising THEIR freedom of religion or their personal convictions are being denied their rights - in essence, rights only belong to those who believe exactly as she does... much like in England where in the 18th century rights belonged only to those who believed as the King did."

That mentality extended beyond the actions of the king in a more fundamental way: "Freedom of religion" typically turned out to be the "freedom" for different groups to oppress others with competing religions, e.g., the Puritans. This illustrates Ayn Rand's essay "Faith and Force" and shows what happens when religion is allowed to dictate politics.

Freedom of 'Conscience' should be everyone's right. Natural laws SHOULD supersede Man Made Laws where applicable. Problem is we have allowed the kakistocracy to get away from 'Natural' law, which is simply an observation of the ways in which nature and creation operate and were created, [however one might imagine that happened] Has nothing to do with religions. Natural law has be recognized for thousands of years, by Abraham, Moses, Aristotle, the Anglo Saxons, John Lock, our Forefathers and others,.

Religion is not natural law and she has no right to redefine law in accordance with her religious beliefs. A proper government codifies our 'natural rights' into civil procedures and rights under objective law, which is the only form in which law can be objectively enforced. Lack of objective law is anarchy and tyranny. In this case we have a government official trying to subjectively enforce her own law in accordance with her religion claimed to be a higher "authority". Government officials dictating in accordance what they want the law to be is tyrannical, not objective law. Government officials cannot be allowed to run around picking their own civil law in accordance with what they claim to be "natural law" just because they say so, under claims of religious privilege. That is the theocratic version of tyranny.

The German people were bred to follow the law. The Nazis were very careful to legalize all their atrocities. They followed the law to the letter. Somehow, it was American judges that proclaimed that following the law to the letter, when contrary to morality, is no excuse. Are the New Amerikan judges now representing the other side?

If a person does not want to sign their name on orders to evict Jewish people from their homes and businesses, they should NOT work for Nazis.
(Assuming they have a choice)

Obama's dictatorial exercise of lawless power does not justify religious control over government. It's a false alternative.

There is a fee to register a property deed, too. So what?

Robertmbeard, no Court ruling establishing any of the above as constitutionally mandated. In the absence of such a ruling the relevant Kentucky laws on lawful marriages apply and your new "rules" are not consistent with Kentucky law. You are free to lobby the state legislature to change the law.

Can't be fired. She is an elected official. See above.

don't you mean "may not," according to our rules of law? -- j
.

the court might find that natural law cannot be infringed
by any court order, opinion or ruling. . just wait and see
how this unfolds in the future -- government must get out
of the marriage business. -- j
.

Can't be fired because she is an elected official. Only remedy for not doing her job is impeachment or a Court order if it effects citizens rights. The later happened here but she refused to follow the order and thus the contempt ruling.