yeah, they’re running afoul of the constitution. And if I were, say, living in the 1930’s and the law told me to treat a black man differently than I would a white man, I would be running afoul of the constitution, too. And if I were a German soldier who all of a sudden found himself serving a fascist party I didn’t agree with, so I defected, I would also be afoul of the constitution.
My point is, criticize Davis for being homophobic, sure, or whatever else. But don’t criticize her because she’s not “doing her damn job.” That’s ridiculous. Every American soldier who refused to shoot at an enemy soldier, or who went AWOL when they realized the moral black hole that is war is guilty of the same thing Davis is guilty of. But they’re heroes and she’s a scumbag?
Sometimes you get cases where people criticize breaking the law to harm or impose your choices on others, and stand up for breaking it for something that helps them. They may be the same legally but not ethically, so that’s not an inconsistent position, however much you want to focus on form instead of content.
This isn’t one of those cases. It might be if Salzman were ignoring the law; but it really looks like the ones doing that are Pepper and the courts, and she is just a victim of their failure to enforce it. Unless you actually take law to mean whatever judges decree, regardless of whether is allowed by the written laws?
Why the hell not? When your job matters to other people, not doing it can be a valid point of criticism.
If you hate all Rohirrim and don’t want to touch them, you’re not a nice person, but that might be your own problem. If you hate Rohirrim and refuse to touch them, and your job happens to be a paramedic where they need medical attention, you’re not a nice person and you’ve taken a role where others suffer for it. Yes, that makes you a scumbag.
Again, trying to compare that to people who wanted to quit jobs they were forced to do so that they wouldn’t have to harm others is trying to use similarity of form to hide opposite content. That kind of sophistry is not going to get much traction here.
My general experience with AA/NA is that they are recruiting grounds for anyone not interested in recovery. I swiftly found a secular group and found good results with DBT.
No one is denying that Kim Davis is free to refuse to “sin against her god”. However, she is not free to do so while denying someone else their legal rights.
In this case, the mother isn’t denying anyone their rights. The judge and counselor are. Being on the mother’s side in this case is in no way contradictory to being against Kim Davis’ side.
Only, Kim Davis is representing the government in her scenario as the elected official enforcing her beliefs as the de facto law, whereas Occupy Wall Street, Dr. MLK Jr., et al. were acting as citizens fighting against perceived injustices by the government.
Kim Davis is more akin to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. Do you cheer him on for fighting the federal government while using his government position to oppress others?
If she quit her job as clerk and then chained herself inside the courthouse to try to prevent marriage licenses from being issued to gay couples, then she’d still be a crazy bigot, but her situation would be a little more similar to Occupy Wall Street or civil rights protesters.
Can we stop de-railing this to talk about Kim Davis?
This councelor (NOT fucking Kim Davis jeeze) was conducting buisness in a public library, which is illegal here in Albuquerque. This councelor certantly seemed to do a whole lot of god talk, god homework, god nonsence, and very little actual counceling on co-raising a child, or communication. This councelor would not be doing anything against her faith by, well, counceling.
