Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Kim Davis has learned nothing

Kim Davis and Mat Staver. Just look at this woman when she is the center of attention. Her narcissism is insatiable
Lisa Bourne at LifeSiteNews has decided to review Kim Davis' book. Presumably the book's cover is now marred with drool. Bourne is not exactly a high intellect critical thinker.

Let us recall that America's dumbest lawyer and hate group leader, Mat Staver, insists that Kim Davis won her case. We know better because the winner of a case gets legal fees from the loser. That is precisely why the taxpayers of Kentucky were obligated to pay the ACLU the sum of $224,703.

Davis lost yet she continues to be incapable of empathy to understand this from the perspective of those she discriminated against. This continues to be about what Kim Davis believes without a shred of personal responsibility for what Kim Davis does. This makes Davis, like her lawyer, a sociopath. She doesn't know the difference between right and wrong and she doesn't care.

Let us also remember that Davis declared at the outset that her office would never issue a marriage license to a gay couple. Only when Staver got involved did they decide that the real problem was Davis' name on the license form as the county clerk. Davis adopted this dishonesty and ultimately claimed victory when the state changed the license form.

Had the forms been the same at the very beginning of this saga, Davis would still have asserted that she had the authority from god to withhold marriage licenses from couples she disapproved of. Davis' invalid religious argument was never dependent upon the design of the marriage license or the application for a marriage license.
Davis, her office, and her family became the object of extreme vitriol, including death threats. Things got ugly quickly and stayed that way for a long time, she said.
“Death threats” have become a staple of the religious right. Things “got ugly” when Kim Davis, as a public official, frustrated the constitutional rights of a group of citizens. Again, she did not have the right to do what she did. She created the criticism that she received. Calling the opprobrium vitriol means that Ms. Bourne perceives the backlash as cruel and bitter. MS. Bourne is deficient in empathy, just like Ms. Davis.

What follows is the very definition of hypocrisy. Davis claimed for herself the arrogant prerogative to assign second-class citizenship to a minority group in defiance of federal law. When those citizens take umbrage at her actions she proclaims that those who demonstrate their dissatisfaction with discrimination are intolerant. The societal “logic” of this position is that those who are intolerant of intolerance are, themselves, intolerant. Sure:
Those who scream for inclusion and tolerance the loudest are the least tolerant

“The thing I learned is that those who scream for inclusion and tolerance the loudest are the least tolerant,” she said. “It became personal for each and every person that disagreed with me.”
It became personal for me when this woman told me, as an agent of the state and without authority, that my constitutional rights were subject to her personal approval — and she did not approve. Moreover, this notion of there being people who disagreed with Davis is dishonest nonsense. This is not a debate where there are two respectable positions. As a public official Davis was obligated to act in accordance with the Constitution. We demanded that Davis cease her unconstitutional conduct. A federal district court agreed as did a federal appellate court in part. Davis acting as the agent of some deity is not a legitimate argument.
Davis reiterates what she has said from the beginning about her stance.

“For me this was never about being against somebody,” she told LifeSiteNews. “This was about standing up for the word of God.”
Who cares? This is the same logic that people used while flying airplanes into buildings Davis still believes that she has the right to inflict her religious views on others as a public official. It is dishonest. She most definitely was against other citizens. Assigning the offense to a deity is an artifice of convenience exploited to allow someone to avoid personal responsibility for her actions. Kim Davis doesn't speak for God and even if she did, God doesn't have a say regarding our constitutional rights.
“I have no animosity toward anybody,” she emphasized. “There’s no hate in my body at all.”
She can emphasize all she wants. Her actions were hateful. Whether or not she bears personal animus is irrelevant. This is not, and never was, about Davis' personal opinions.

Davis is utterly devoid of introspection. The mix of stupidity and arrogance renders her incapable of rational thought. We do not elect public officials to be agents of their gods. Hopefully Rowan County voters will remember that this fall when Davis is up for reelection.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.