And who actually believes that? Taking the Lord's name in vain is breaking a commandment. Have you ever hit your thumb with a hammer or stubbed your toe unexpectantly. Do you consider the words you said then as bad as stealing or murder? Our laws are loosely based on Christian concepts of right and wrong, While in the past adultery would have gotten you put in stocks for people to throw rotten fruit and you and a scarlet A tattoo to make you look like a Bama fan, today nobody goes to jail for adultery while plenty of people go to jail for theft and murder. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That would leave only Mother Theresa to cast the stone.
Look ALL freedoms are limited otherwise society cannot function. For instance you can't shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater when there isn't one. You can own a functioning machine gun without a proper license. There is not a freedom listed in the Bill of Rights that doesn't have a limit. In this case her religous beliefs are interfering with her duty. She cannot use her office as a tool for her religous beliefs. that is what she is trying to do. If she believes that strongly she should resign her office and campaign to change the law by constitutional amendment. She's not willing to pay the true price but grandstanding IMO. You and I condemn HRC and president Obama for selective enforcement of laws. There is no difference between them and her other than the fact you seem to agree with one law and not the other.
The woman is in jail. By her own beliefs she would have been a hypocrite had she issued gay licences against her beliefs. I'm sure she isn't proud of the poor choices she has made in men but she isn't gay. She knows she is a sinner but considers homosexuality to be a greater sin than her own. By your definition EVERYBODY is a hypocrite. Nobody is without fault and everybody points out the faults of others. I've done it myself and I'm sure you have too. By her own belief Ms Davis DOES have moral standards greater than the lifestyle she abhors. It does say in the bible something about men laying with men. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13
I agree that she should have resigned but I won"t call her a hypocrite according to reasons I have posted. Now if it turns out that she planned this all along so as to become the latest darling of the religious right and somehow make money from it I would call her a hypocrite. She very well could make a lot of money from this if she can speak coherently and forcefully at paid appearances. The owners of the bakery in Oregon who refused to bake a gay cake were fined $125,000 but they have received well over $400,000 in donations so far.
No one says she doesn't have a right to her beliefs. However she doesn't have the right to allow her beliefs interfere with her job. If she couldn't issue the liciences in good conscience her option is to resign her job. Not doing here job is not an option. A good analogy is conscientious objectors in war. They can either work as an corpsman or stay out of the armed forces. They can't take a gun but refuse to shoot the enemy.
There may be a way out. If Kentucky passes the common sense law that Utah uses to allow those who object to opt out and have that duty taken over by other employees https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-arent-there-more-kim-davises-128279486991.html
