How bad do you have to be to go 0-2 in the media on a freakin' holiday? First, as posted in a very nice diary by librarisingnsf you have a FOX News panel basically calling Kim Davis' lead lawyer "ridiculously stupid".
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Switch to CNN. In an interview this morning, her associate lead lawyer named Horatio something or other, I can't search up any video of the interview, that's how important he is, explaining the nuts and bolts of one of the avenues of their appeal. The gist is this, in addition to wanting her immediately freed pending her appeal, they are petitioning Judge Bunning to issue a direct order to KY Governor Bashear, ordering him to create an executive order changing the marriage forms to remove her name from them. Are these two legal Rainmen really serious?
First of all, Governor Bashear has already responded to this request, his answer was that it was not in his legal or constitutional power to issue such an executive order, the law would have to be changed by the legislature. And he had absolutely NO interest whatsoever in spending "several hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer money" to call the legislature back into a special session to deal with the mess of this self indulgent whiner. So, that's one problem.
The other extremity for these two legged stools is even more untenable. At it's heart this is a KY issue, and there are KY ways of dealing with it, such as criminal charges, impeachment or recall, al of them time consuming processes, so for the time being she will continue to be a pain in the ass, but she's basically KY's problem child. The only reason she's in Fedreal court is because of a federal lawsuit filed against her for refusing to do her job. What I would like to know is exactly where these two crackerheads think that Judge Bunning is supposed to find the authority to "order" a sitting state Governor to exceed his constitutional authority to change a state form? That would be a direct violation of "States rights" under the U.S. constitution.
This is exactly why we have to stand firm, there can be not even ONE "religious accommodation" for elected and government officials. Once you open that box, the blackmail will never end from the religious haters desperately trying to carve out a way to be able to institutionally discriminate in a world that is marginalizing them more and more every day. And if you need more proof of this, then I suggest you check out an excellent diary by Jon Perr about a conservative KY (yes, again) Jewish County Clerk is refusing to issue a marriage license for a Jewish man to marry a Christian woman due to his religious beliefs! This isn't even gay marriage we're talking about here, it's between ONE man and ONE woman, just the way they like it!
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Take my word for it, if we don't nip this thing in the bud, right now, we will be condemned to a complete breakdown of local and state public services at the whim of a handful of zealots.
Thanks as always for reading!
3:49 PM PT: Thanks to Adam B for a comment on a statement I made that needs clarification...He posited that I was wrong for prohibiting ANY religious accommodations under any circumstances, posing the questions;
"My government office has a mandatory work meeting on Yom Kippur. Can I ask them to reschedule?
I'm a Muslim employee. My assigned break times don't mesh with my required prayer times. Is it ok if we shift my breaks around?
Can I wear a hijab, even though it's not part of my workplace uniform policy?"
I went to some length to point out the difference between a personal accommodation that benefits the employee with NO loss of service to the public he serves, and little to no inconvenience to co-workers and allowing the employee to discriminate against the public he or she serves by denying services based on religious principles...I appreciate Adam raising that interpretation so I could directly address it...
4:51 PM PT: Attention ALL readers!!! Your humble diarist is a complete and total freakin' MORON!!! It was gratefully brought to my attention by sfbob that the diary I highlighted by Jon Perr about the Jewish county clerk refusing to issue a marriage license to a Jewish man and Christian woman was in fact a totally fictional piece, meant to draw attention to the absurdity of the positions of these people...I completely missed the disclaimer in the piece, for which I sincerely apologize...In my own defense I can only say that it was so well written that it SOUNDS like exactly the kind of bullshit they'd pull next if they got away with it once...