- BitsBlog - https://bitsblog.com -

A Few Thoughts About Kim Davis

We all know the Kim Davis is being held in contempt of court charges. But that’s not the real reason that she’s being held in jail without bail, is it?  Al Capone was convicted not on his gangster activities but on tax evasion charges. Does anybody really suppose that was why he died in jail?

I mean really. What is so blessedly important about this woman’s action? They’re holding her without bail. Even murderers get bail.

What we’re dealing with here is the criminalization of Christianity in action. Remember, we’re talking about the party currently infesting the White House being the party that booed God during the last presidential cycle at their convention. Remember that one?

All this is about  is the left rebelling against Christianity. Nothing more than that. Not rebelling against religion in general, but Christianity. If it were religion in general, theyd be  rebelling against Islam as well, and they are not. Rather we have the left openly  welcoming Shariah law.  Until such time as you get your arms around that, none of the rest of this is going to make sense.

And no, I’m not kidding here.  Ponder this question ….What kind of reaction would we see were Kim Davis a Muslim? Would they be hauled off to jail?

I was curious to see if anybody else that addressed that question, so I went wadeing through maybe a gigabyte worth of data with the search engine to come up with one, and here’s a piece of it. [1]..

The answer, to reasonably aware people, is no, of course not. No lawyer would want the optics of sending a Muslim woman to jail for her religious beliefs. No gay couple would want that tied to their names in the media. The couple would have quietly found a different county to issue them a license (though that may be getting harder within Kentucky, as another county clerk is also refusing to issue licenses). Steven Crowder showed that Muslim bakeries were refusing to provide cakes for gay weddings. And yet we don’t see the ACLU rushing to condemn them and sue them the way they have pontificated against Kim Davis. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

The truth is that in this day and age, the heckler’s veto has become self-imposed. Those who wish to look “tolerant” and “progressive” would never single out a group that they perceive to be “oppressed” – or has a radical contingent that believes in throwing gay people off buildings or stoning them to death. After all, when was the last time a Christian group in America stoned anyone to death? But we’ve already seen beheadings by Muslims in the United States. No gay couple would dare to challenge a Muslim clerk and have her thrown in jail for contempt – because they would always fear who might come out in support of that clerk. In contrast, the gay couple has no issue with pressing contempt charges against the Christian clerk, because they have no fear of her family or her supporters. And then Muslims who have issues with the duties in their jobs – serving or transporting alcohol, for example – are to be given “special” consideration.

Welcome to America in 2015, where the morals and legal responsibilities of Christians can be challenged in court, all because their detractors know that they are too civilized to use violence. Soft bigotry of low expectations, indeed.

It’s an interesting point. Christians are far easier target. In much the same way that rich women in furs are more often robbed than motorcycle gangs in leathers are. The robber is much more likely to survive the former than the latter.

As for the claim that Kim Davis was denying taxpayers services they have the legal right to, let’s ponder for a moment the specter of Lois Lerners IRS denying conservative groups tax exempt status, shall we? The woman still out walking around, free as a bird, getting or government pension. And Kim Davis is in jail without bail.

Unlike the IRS, what would prevent somebody from driving literally about 15 miles up the road to the next County, to get a certificate? This is not about denial of service, this is about forced acceptance.

And who among us didn’t roll our eyes watching the comical spectacle of the White House press secretary saying that nobody has the right to break our laws?

Leaving aside the fact that this is the most corrupt administration in history, including the IRS scandal, the use of the EPA for illegal power grabs, etc,, we’re not even talking about forced acceptance of the law. What we’re talking about is forced acceptance of a court order in support of homosexual marriage which is something to this day that still doesn’t have enough support to make it past a referendum.

Every time the question of homosexual marriage has come up in the legislative process, particularly by way of voting, it’s been turned down in massive numbers. Overwhelming. So this isn’t a case of the will of the people being forwarded, but the will of a few activist judges, and a White House that hates America.

The question before it is  when one is employed by the government, does one lose their 1st Amendment rights?  The answer the judge came to might be legal,  but is it right?

Lets be very careful  about insisting that there is no higher power than government , particularly where individual rights are concerned.  You may get your wish. Never forget, my friends, that every despot in history from Hitler on down had the force of law and government on their side. Everything they did was legal.

All that said, it does appear that’s the case that will be brought by Davis’s lawyers is not without merit. All is not lost.

It does appear to me that Kim Davis has legal ground to stand on here… specifically within the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Kentucky and about 20 other states signed onto.  Eugene Volokh [2] looks at this, in The Washington Post the other day. As usual with Eugene, his article doesn’t clip cleanly, because of the complexity of the issues he covers. But I advise you’re reading it.