You are arguing that we mete out punishment prior to the establishment of guilt. Sorry buddy - no thank you.
The machinations of the legal system have little to do with decency or the question of right and wrong much less that of justice.
Besides, it has been argued many times that mala prohibita offenses don’t warrant pre-trial incarceration. It’s not a radical concept.
I suspect that she doesn’t see it as hypocrisy but rather fulfilling her self-declared duty of service to ‘the Lord’ by enforcing ‘His word’ as penance for her own ‘sins against His word and the covenant of marriage’. Operating under this view, it’s likely she felt that she was being forced to make a decision between duty to ‘the Lord’ and duty to the State. Clearly, she decided to side with ‘the Lord’.
Maybe it’s because I have some very religious friends, but I don’t feel I can cast aside these views and actions as ‘stupid’. In light of her own violations of Scripture and disregard for the sanctity of marriage, hypocritical perhaps, but not stupid. Where I think she does come across as dim (or at least bullheaded), is her apparent failure to either realize or acknowledge that her religious views— which she is free to practice —are now, in practice, necessarily in conflict with the duties of a public servant working for the State. She has a constitutional right to religious freedom. In this instance, that’s all that she can legally claim for herself.
She’s been held in contempt of court. That’s a criminal offense.
Her comments on taking office:
I am so humbled and feel so blessed that the people put so much confidence in me,” said Davis. “My words can never express the appreciation but I promise to each and every one that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and follow the statutes of this office to the letter.”
Emphasis mine.
Judges have also held people in contempt of court for wearing the wrong clothes to court. That’s hardly a good bar by which to measure the correctness of an action. Judges are often power mad lunatics and I argue that contempt of court is a holdover from jolly old England we could do without. Our first amendment seems to agree but hey, enter a court room and all of your rights are gone… how is that a good idea?
I have been to court 3 times for traffic issues. Each time I was completely flabbergasted what people wore to court. Some of it I wouldn’t wear to school. It shows a complete lack of respect for the system and does nothing but make you look bad. And while I am not a fan of having to deal with the bullshit I was dealing with (in the last case, not having all my papers in order), nor am I a huge fan of authority, slapping on a polo and slacks at least gives them one less reason to fuck with me.
Wow. I wonder if the scenario of U.S. Supreme Court-approved marriage equality was so implausible in her mind that she never thought she’d be asked to fulfill such a request. Clearly, she sees things differently now that it’s a reality.
[Update: Yuuuuup.]
“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage.” [source]
Because she’s defying the Supreme Court, breaking the law, and denying people their Constitutional rights.
Is she a danger to society
Yes, she’s an elected official abusing her authority. See above.
Why doesn’t she receive the same protection under the law as anyone else?
She is receiving the same protections. The choice to remain in jail is hers.
Honestly, I’ve only heard that word bandied about by ex-Mormons, I don’t think Protestants accept that as an “official” sin 
Because our first amendment is not limitless, and this is not protected “speech”.
Yeah, that’s a shame about the fines thing, as doing that and sending her the fuck home would take away her languishing in jail martyr sheen to her supporters. I’d sentence her to two tabs of strong acid and a good long, hard word with herself in the bathroom mirror. Though I’d like to prescribe that for elected officials in general, as part of the swearing-in process.
Touché, Sir or Madam, touché.
I’m sure among the many replies to you it’s been mentioned that depriving people of their rights is harming people. If “hurting” people were limited to physical harm to be a reason to face jail (or stop hurting people?) this continent would be a much less favourable place to live.
She is definitively, effectively and deliberately taking away the freedoms of others using the power of her office. Do you find that an offense worthy of the threat of incarceration where she, unlike many others, was given the option to cease harming others first?
She is definitely a danger to society as is, less so as a martyr for people who are on the wrong side of the law.
The Confederate battle flag was an ongoing symbol, of defeat. Let her be the same, it’s no less than she deserves.
White collar criminals deserve jail too & they don’t “hurt” anyone. On this occasion, justice prevails.
If this is not a jailable offense, being held in contempt of court under these circumstances, here is what it could be like, schoolyard style.
You are at recess. You are approached by someone anyone. They stand near you and point at your face, their hand 2 inches away.
They say to you “I’m not touching you.”
You ask them to move, to leave you alone.
They say “I’m not touching you.”
You aren’t being forcibly detained, you can move about the schoolyard, but they go with you, staying in formation and keeping that finger in your face.
You can’t strike them. push them or do anything or say anything to dissuade them. Then you offer one money to leave… and they do.
But another arrives. You offer more money, they agree to all you have and leave.
But another arrives. You have nothing to offer but the promise of money. They laugh, They tell you they won’t leave for money, ever. Because they saw you and decided they don’t like the look of your face. You’re stuck with this one. They’re not touching you. The teacher tells you to suck it up, they aren’t hurting you.
Harm comes in many forms. Life would suck so much more, particularly for the disenfranchised, if incarceration was strictly reserved for deliberate physical violence.
Journalists have been jailed indefinitely for refusing to reveal their sources, a rather better excuse if you ask me. If it’s good enough for them . . .
I don’t think protecting the privacy of a confidential source is tantamount to human rights violations.
She is being jailed because of defying a court order, not because she’s refusing to do her job. IANAL but I think the judge has the power to rule that a person IS guilty, of defying a court order. This is not the same as the original charge. She can still appeal the original charge (but I guess she’s already done that) but she has to follow the judge’s orders until she gets the matter straightened out (which at this point is one of two choices – start issuing licenses or quit).
I’m with you, bub. Were you refuting something?
Sorry, posted twice. I was replying to dacree.
She’s in jail for contempt of court. That’s one way courts get people to obey court orders; there are also kinds of cases where there’s a fine of $X/day until you obey.
That’s different from the “get convicted and punished with N days of prison time” model of punishment, or the “arrested and held until trial, unless you pay bail and agree not to run away” model of pre-trial jailing. This is a direct violation of a court order, and the way you clear it is by doing what you were ordered to do, or appealing to a higher court to get it overturned, and she’s appealed all the way to the top.
