Hacker News Reader

Comment by duxup | Hacker News Reader

If your job is to issue marriage licenses and you don’t want to, at what point is that on YOU to make adjustments?

I do not see how her personal objection should have any impact to other people’s lives. She is issuing marriage licenses and FOR the state, not her personal endorsement.

I sure didn’t care about or even know who issued my marriage license and it sure wasn’t their job to pass judgment.

If allowed couldn’t just anyone take state jobs and claim “religious objection, I won’t do it, all you citizens can’t have whatever it is I do”?

Just absurd.

View on HN

The beauty about work is that you can always leave if you don’t like what you’re being asked to do. Being asked to lift heavy stuff and you don’t want to? Find a job where you don’t have to. Serving pork is against your religion? Work at a vegan restaurant. Don’t like dogs? Don’t work at an animal hospital. Feel squeamish about blood? Don’t work at a hospital.

It really is that simple.

This, and abortion, are also the only contexts in which this particular type of objection ever comes up. Nobody who has a religious objection to alcohol is demanding that alcohol be banned so that they don't have to deal with it in their restaurant job, say. It's a fairly transparent pretext and it's kind of absurd that the media gives any credence to her _stated_ motivations.

People who have "religious objections" to doing their society provided job need to go live on a farm and mind their own business, like the Amish do. The rest of us are trying to move forward, not backward at the whim of some random hate-fueled individuals and or groups.

> Just absurd.

What's worse - Kim Davis's personal life doesn't read like someone who "respects traditional marriage". From wikipedia:

> Davis has been married four times to three husbands. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. Davis has two daughters from her first marriage and twins, a son and another daughter, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband.

This is a concerted effort to test what the new SCOTUS is going to grant the new "in group" in this country in terms of laws that bind the "out group" which in this case is the gay community.

Usually I would say this stuff doesn't matter either way, but when said person is making moral arguments, we can make them back.

Which, by the way, is one reason why moral arguments are stupid and we should stop making them. If you're making moral arguments on a particular subject it's trivial to destroy your argument but just questioning your own personal morality.

We should be making concrete arguments.

The First Amendment challenge is a sideshow; this case will be all about teeing up Obergefell for the conservative bloc's pot shots, if not complete overturning. The larger cultural theme, though, is to underscore who's in charge by flaunting the "in" group's imperviousness to normal legal rules: like Trump, the January 6 offenders, Justices Thomas and Alito themselves, et al., Kim Davis will be shown to be above the law.

I think the most interesting part about this is that this is first "out group" that theyre taking aim at that truly has money, power and extremely organized cultural weaponry.

It seems they think coming after this group with impunity like they have the poor and some other specific minorities is going to work out with little consequence or true backlash. Id bet this group serves more third rail than they are anticpating.

I wonder what Peter Thiel and Matt Danzeisen think about this?

Probably nothing because past marriages won't be affected.

Lol if you think these guys give a shit about anything besides being even more rich.

“I love money”?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com