Matthew, 

I get your point but think that a 6 month waiting period is excessive and delays justice.

JIm

On Sep 8, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Mathew Goldstein wrote:

So there is no misunderstanding - I say, always have said, and always will say, that anyone who refuses to carry out their legally valid employment responsibilities is disqualified from their employment, and this is true for both government and non-government employees.  Nothing I have advocated, or that I am advocating, assumes or implies otherwise.  My advocacy is focused on providing an opportunity to find alternative employment for current government employees who become disqualified from their job as a consequence of a Supreme Court decision that changed a law that that government employee is tasked with implementing.  Hopefully, all of the time, the Supreme Court decisions will good and the negatively impacted government employees will be reprehensible bigots.  But the same principle would apply  when the Supreme Court decision is awful and the negatively impacted government employees are the best kind of citizen.

On Sep 8, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Jeff M <[address removed]> wrote:

If I may throw my two cents in (as a new member of the e-list that hasn't attended any meetups)... I disagree with Matthew, but not because Kim Davis is bigoted or has a desire to prevent marriages or because she is trying to misuse the law or because she looks a certain way, or even because she's a hypocrite (if she is).  None of those things should matter in this case, because she is perfectly free to be all of those things, and she shouldn't be LEGALLY discriminated against because of them.  Public opinion?  Fine.  But when we say that someone shouldn't be afforded certain considerations just because of their (admittedly detestable to me) beliefs, I think that we've gone to far.  My beliefs are detestable to a great many people in this country. 

BUT- Kim Davis is a government employee, and when you are a government employee you may not simply choose to obey the laws that are in accordance with your beliefs.  Kim Davis is not acting in her position as the Apostolic Christian Kim Davis, she is acting as the County Clerk, a non-personal entity which does not have religious beliefs.  The entity has a set of very clearly laid out duties, and following the conscience of the holder of that position if it violates the laws are not one of them.  If you don't want to obey and enforce the laws, you shouldn't have that position, REGARDLESS of the laws to be obeyed or enforced.  Prior to Obergefell, it would not have been ok for a Humanist clerk to deny issuing marriage licenses to all people until the laws were changed (or declared unconstitutional in this case) to allow marriage for ALL couples.  I understand the point that Ms. Davis was obeying the law one day and violating it the very next, but that is the way it goes.  Yes, she should have prepared for that eventuality, discussing the options in advance with the county and state.

Thanks for letting me listen in on a great (and very personal) debate!

Jeff

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

Again you are about as wrong as you can possibly be, Mathew.  I have argued that the social good rests with establishing a visceral response to abridgments of GLBT rights that is similar to our now existing response to the N word to denigrate African-Americans.  The fact that Glenn has that visceral response is precisely what humanists should want to see.  The vicious attack on an innocent black man reported by Glenn is exactly the type of thing that happens when we coddle expressed bigotry.  Jim has documented the absurd magnitude of gay bashing that still exists.  It is time for that to end.  The wonderful work by gay activists and their allies has created an environment that will bring an important aspect of that visible bigotry to end.  This should be celebrated and not delayed in any way.

Don

---

Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Kim Davis
From: [address removed]
To: [address removed]
Date: Tue, 8 Sep[masked]:41:07 -0400

Glenn, you not getting this at all.  If she continues the same battle after the delayed law enforcement begins then her political and legal standing will be weakened.  She will be publicly exposed as an unreasonable agitator for having refused to seek other employment.  Any claim that she is being treated unfairly by law enforcement will be undermined.  The debate shifts from her and how she has been mistreated to the legal questions.  If she argues everyone is entitled to disobey laws that they disagree with then it will be easy to point out that no government can function that way.  If she argues that her beliefs are the beliefs that all of the law must abide by then it easy to point out that many other people have different and opposing beliefs and the earth does not revolve around her beliefs.

"violent disagrement", that suits you.  Doesn't that sound somewhat intolerant and extreme?  A little anti-humanist? A little over the top?  Who is being extreme here?

On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:42 AM, Glenn <[address removed]> wrote:

I am in violent agreement with Don on this matter.  Matthew, what makes you think that giving this KY nimrod a six-month "stay outta jail free card" would prevent her from grandstanding and blocking the issuance of licenses during that six months?   Where is the evidence for that position?  Don is right - it's much more likely she'd use the six months to fundraise, grandstand and be the right's media star on the issue of "Christian persecution" bullsh*t.   You're giving her waaaaaay too much credit, assuming the licenses would somehow get issued with her still on the job.  

She does not deserve, legally or morally, a further six months of pay and benefits if she is unwilling to do her job.

Sent via mobile

On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]> wrote:

The whole context changes if there was an enforcement delay, or as you call it "special privilege".  Then she would not have blocked the issuance of the licenses, not gone to jail, and the licenses would continue to have her signature.  If she found another job within six months then all conditions for a good outcome are met.  After all, that is the final result we want, we want her to find different employment because she no longer qualifies this job.  I continue to think an enforcement delay is not only entirely appropriate, but preferable.  I do not see this as special privileges, I see this as a sensible, positive, constructive accommodation of religious liberty.  An enforcement delay converts what is otherwise a zero sum game into a winning situation for almost everyone.  The cost is an additional delay of up to six months for same gender marriage in some counties.  Civil rights won, and it still wins. I simply do not see how the continuing harm, where it is relocated from September to eternity to the following March to eternity, should have such weight as to require an outcome that places government employees in jail or unemployed.

On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:36 AM, Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]> wrote:

The last time I read about this the licenses are being issued but not signed.  Maybe the unsigned licenses are nevertheless valid (they presumably are stamped with the state seal).  Maybe she could allow her employees to issue the licenses without her signature but continues to refuse to agree to allow them to do that.  Originally her policy was to issue no licenses, which is not acceptable.  Maybe keeping her in jail ensures the licenses are issued.  In that case I agree, she needs to remain in jail until she is no longer able to block issuance of the licenses.  The licenses must continue to be issued.

On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

Kim Davis was violating the law of the land.  Violations of such law are deserving of punishment.  If at some point there is an accommodation that that satisfies that law and allows her to be out of jail, I am fine with that.  I am categorically opposed to allowing her to propagate additional harm.  I made it clear that if there is an alteration to the law that finessed this situation next year, that would be fine.  If the is an arrangement with the court in the meantime that is also fine.  I have no desire to propagate additional harm, even to this particular bigoted ass.  There are a great many ways in which other people must follow the law at it changes.  Where changes in the law prevent significant harm as a matter of policy thoughtful people should not want a delay.

Frankly, you militant support for special privileges for a Christian in this case is most puzzling.  Isn't this what we want to put an end to?  Especially when it is part of a grotesque network of harm? 

Don

---

Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Kim Davis
From: [address removed]
To: [address removed]
Date: Mon, 7 Sep[masked]:55:30 -0400

This is not the first time that you say you agree with me on an overall principle in the abstract, but then when it comes to actually implementing the principle you unequivocally refuse.  Are you rationalizing that government employees should be denied an opportunity to find other employment when those employees are reprehensible bigots?  Surely you are aware that these government employees have been given nothing even approaching a sufficient amount of time to find other employment. If they delegate their signing authority to someone else their own name still appears on the license, so that does resolve the problem.  I cannot imagine anyone here describing law enforcement as being reasonable if they found themselves with only these three choices: Consenting to their name appearing on the license, quitting their employment, or going to jail.

An obvious way to ameliorate this is to grant those government employees who suddenly find themselves in this situation some time to find alternative employment.   After all, their beliefs did not change. It was the law that changed.  They were employees for many years in good standing and then when the law changed their long standing beliefs and their long standing employment responsibilities became irreconcilable.  I find it baffling that a short time accommodation for government employees responsible for implementing a law during an initial transition to a new legal requirement is deemed by you to be improper and wrong.

On Sep 7, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

I fully agree on this one.  As a matter of law we want our laws to be independent of the underlying beliefs.  However, once absurd harm is recognized because we now understand the nature of science and reason, we have shared reason for our moral norms to be such as to advance and support the rights of ourselves and others.  Moral vision extends beyond law but should inform our shared actions to fight for rationality in our laws.

 

Don

 

 

From: Mathew Goldstein

Sent: Monday, September 07,[masked]:53 PM

To: [address removed]

Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Kim Davis

 

Bigots do not go to jail because they are reprehensible bigots, religious people do not go to jail for being religious.  The legal principle is that people have a right to have mistaken, stupid, false, bigoted beliefs.  The law avoids distinguishing between people based on our, or anyone else's, measures of how correct or intelligent or true or equitable their beliefs are.  We as individuals should make these distinctions and publicly argue for correct, intelligent, true, fair beliefs, and against mistaken, stupid, false, unfair beliefs.  But the law needs to be as indifferent to such distinctions as is possible.  The issue here, as I see it, is whether there is a better way to transition to a newly changed law so that the people who are tasked with enforcing the law and who reject the change in the law they are tasked to enforce have an opportunity to find alternative employment as an alternative to being jailed.

On Sep 7, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

Jim,

Thanks so much for your kind words.  My deep regrets for what happened to you on Capitol Hill.  This underscores the importance of what we are doing.  A world where that can happen is simply unacceptable.  The 70% figure is a orders of magnitude than anything we should be accepting. 

Why do we want a world where secularism is normal and respected?  Firstly because outrageous cruelty and stupidity is an accepted norm if that is not the case.  What is happening to our LGBT friends should be seen as an expected norm in a world where we allow fundamentalist religion to thrive.  When they make a claim that God said so (whatever that claim may be) there is an assumption that others must accept "their deeply held beliefs."  Uh, no we don't.

While I love Jim's appreciation of my support for him, I need to emphasize my at least equally strong appreciation for what he and his friends are doing.  The fact of Kim Davis being seen as the reprehensible bigot that she is, is in itself a stronger argument against fundamentalist religion than anything that any secular group is doing at the moment.  It literally makes messages from God to be seen as messages of a disgusting bigot.  This implied message would never have been on our airwaves without the years of hard work fighting for equality.   At this point it is more effective than the stories of child rape that caused millions of Catholics to lose their faith and leave the Catholic Church.  We can only hope that millions more will be leaving their churches in disgust.

Don


NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Don Wharton from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Don Wharton from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])

This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Glenn from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Don Wharton from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--

Jeff Mitchell
(c)[masked]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jeff M from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jimmy G from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]