Name:   copperline - Subject:   Unreasonable comparision Date:   9/4/2015 4:50:36 PM

I'd object to the comparision of Kim Davis to the sanctuary cities movement, they aren't nearly the same.   Ms. Davis' objections to performing her duties are based on her belief that her religion forbids her from doing so, and the outcome of this is that she feels entitled to enforce her religious principles on everyone she was elected to serve.   She was elected to serve everyone regardless of race, color, or creed.  

Imagine if an Amish Circuit clerk refused to issue driver's licenses, or an elected Muslim judge decided to preside over their court using Sharia Law.   If we put those examples in the mix, we'd see that the Davis case is simply about whether an official can enforce her narrow Christian beliefs on their constituents.... regardless of the consituent's religion.

The Sanctuary Cities movement has nothing to do with religious issues, IMO... but stems from city governments deciding to avoid using their resources to enforce federal immigration statues.  This is more akin to civil disobedience in protest of unworkable immigration laws, overcrowded jails, and overworked police forces.    

In the case of sanctuary cities, I don't think civil disobedience is a credible defense because elected officials don't have the right to be selective about which laws they enforce.

In the case of Ms. Davis, her religious beliefs are hers to choose and live by.   But her rights to swing her religious fist ends at the tip of the nose of people who want a marraige license.   To put it another way, she has rights... but not unlimited rights.... to her religious beliefs.