This is completely off topic, because as has been pointed out before, the mother in this case is having her legal rights trampled, while Kim Davis was trampling other people’s legal rights.
However…
No. Davis put herself into that job, as an elected official. No one needs to “find her a new job” - she either carries out the job that she actively campaigned to do, and stops preventing her charges from carrying outtheirjob, or she removes herself from the position she was elected into, which she feels she can no longer perform to its full requirements.
Doing either of those things would be for her to “do her damn job”, and if she absolutely refused to acknowledge the legal rights of the citizens due to her religion then the correct thing to do would be the second option. But instead she actively used her position to deny legal rights to the citizens she swore to serve, while refusing to remove herself from the job she swore to do.
The Constitution did not change. And if she feels she can’t uphold the government’s laws, she should not be a government official. She can make as much of a stink about it as she wants, but she can’t do so while hypocritically remaining in that position.
You gave an example before:
Know what they did differently from Kim Davis? They removed themselves from the job they were objecting to. A more accurate comparison with Davis would be a soldier who decided to become an active saboteur rather than just refusing orders.
The point is there’s no inconsistency because there’s no similarity between the two cases. One is about a woman who simply refused to do her damn job while continuing to draw a paycheck. The other is about a woman who went to court-ordered counseling, found the counselor she was going to was both incompetent and acting illegally, tried to get the court to assign her a different counselor, and was ignored.
Saltzman made a sincere effort to abide by the court’s orders. Davis ignored the court’s orders.
If you want to defend Davis from the charge that she didn’t do her job because she didn’t like the fact that the law had changed and felt morally compelled to obstruct people who benefited from that change there are other places you can do that. But don’t point to this and say it’s proof of other peoples’ inconsistent beliefs.
So, if the judge had ordered her to go to a Muslim counselor who required her to wear a veil and pray toward Mecca, would you still make the same statement?
She is not licensed at all. She’s essentially a “life coach”. I just posted earlier if she was licensed, any ethics boards, supervisors, or professional organizations like the ACA would have cut her off way earlier. That’s why licensure is so important.
Perhaps I should add that I considered that lifting image to correspond to my belief that @chenille just knocked it out of the park. I think the @greenberger post was disingenuous if not willfully ignorant.
Jsroberts, you over-elaborate the situation. There’s no religious tribunal, only 10 days of discomfort. After that, she could write “Free: The incredible crusade of an non-religious woman to regain custody of her children”, make millions , give lectures… the works, and have her children BTW.
Agreed! There are a lot of posts on this thread, so tldr. I tried to find out if she had any license / accreditation, but am at work and got distracted by shiny, bright bits of code…
The problem is that this was more than just listening to a lecture on Christianity, she was expected to participate by writing about what God meant to her and exploring how God was in her life. She was also given tracts. I can understand the discomfort about this pressure when there is feedback on the progress of the counselling.
I don’t know anything about Holly Salzman being an alcoholic, but the video does say that she finished the course despite the continued religious overtones and has her children back.
Courts from the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits have all explicitly or implicitly ruled that […] forcing a prisoner or probationer to attend A.A. or N.A. or other religiously centered rehabilitation program is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
This ought to be an easy win, although the state would probably say it didn’t know the woman was using religion in her counseling, and had reason to believe the plaintiff was lying when she told her about it.
Sure, and a prisoner could just put up with explicit racism from a warden, and a woman could just put up with sexual exploitation by a parol officer — “just 10 days of discomfort!” — but isn’t it better that people stand up when authority breaks the law or the constitution?
The court ordered her to attend sessions with a counselor that seemed to want to convert her, a counselor who had power over her and the ability to write a negative report that would prevent her from having custody of her children.
Wasn’t it correct to appeal that unlawful order?
The cost of not complying… That fight, could have been postponed.
Um… it was. She did put her head down and go to all the sessions, after her letter to the court was dismissed.
…and an attempted religious conversion and requirements to do religious “homework”, enforced by someone who has the power to cause a lot of issues if they decide you’re not showing the right attitude, and while that person in power is making you assist them in violating policy.
And (as said in the message you were replying to)…
The thing is, just because you personally don’t think it’s a big deal, doesn’t mean anyone should have to just put up with it.
