Support NeoGAF

[Chaplain]

A world where we live by the creed of "Don't be a dick"?

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

 

[Szu]

Can I drink water instead? I'd rather not die.

You can die from drinking too much water.

 

[ClosingADoor]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

You are free to believe whatever the hell you want, but you have to follow the law. It isn't so difficult really.

 

[crowphoenix]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

You are aware that she's not being persecuted for being Christian, right? In fact, she was persecuting those she didn't allow to marry. No one said she couldn't be Christian. They only thing she was told was that she has to obey the law of the land.

 

[encephalon]

The parallel to Daniel's story is that those in power (who were anti-semitic) were the ones who put the law in state legislation. Your analysis is a false equivalence. Daniel's story is similar to the Kentucky clerk in that a new law was put in place that violated Daniel's faith. This is no difference to what happened to Romanian Christian's when the communist party took over and put every Christian in jail who would not put Stalin above Jesus. An example of life under the communist party:

My examples share similarities in that the state was used to force people to violate their faith or suffer various types of consequences (death, jail, torture, loss of employment, etc).

Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this worldview will be forced to suffer the consequences by the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.

What parallel? Are you suggesting this is somehow related to anti-semitism?

What are people being asked to put above Jesus? Are Christians being put in jail en masse?

It's amazing how the validation of a world outside of the Christian realm is enough to have Christians screaming that it is a "violation" of their faith.

 

[gutter_trash]

You are free to believe whatever the hell you want, but you have to follow the law. It isn't so difficult really.

yup, using religious beliefs over the rule law to discriminate against people by denying the a license is discrimination plain and simple

equality trumps religious freedom

 

[Aureon]

I just really feel bad for the deputy clerk that has to hand out the marriage license.

"I don't really want to, but I will comply with the law," deputy clerk Melissa Thompson said, weeping while she stood before the packed courtroom. "I'm a preacher's daughter and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."

"I don't hate anybody," she added. "None of us do."

That is the life I want, the hardest thing is handing a piece of paper to a homosexual couple I will probably never see again.

...just imagining that scenario in my head is giving me anxiety.

You're being pretty mean.
Regardless of how wrong an opinion or creed is, being asked to go against the mainstream opinion of, in all likeness, everyone she knows, and all of her family, is hard. It's goddamn hard.
I respect that she's going to actually DO HER JOB, as she's legally obligated to, but that doesn't mean we have to go through "Well duh look i live in new york and the very mention of it being a moral issue is ridiculous"

 

[birthday-suit]

The parallel to Daniel's story is that those in power (who were anti-semitic) were the ones who put the law in state legislation. Your analysis is a false equivalence. Daniel's story is similar to the Kentucky clerk in that a new law was put in place that violated Daniel's faith. This is no difference to what happened to Romanian Christian's when the communist party took over and put every Christian in jail who would not put Stalin above Jesus. An example of life under the communist party:



My examples share similarities in that the state was used to force people to violate their faith or suffer various types of consequences (death, jail, torture, loss of employment, etc).



Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this worldview will be forced to suffer the consequences by the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.

What are you talking about?

There are laws and you follow them or receive a fine or go to jail.

This woman is a deputy clerk and doesn't want to follow a law because it conflicts with her PERSONAL beliefs. How is she not doing what you're complaining about?

@Aureon: that's not mean at all...she looks like she's crying for attention. People do thing s that conflict their religion all the time...they only have an issue when its the gay.

And I didn't see anyone mention New York.

 

[andymcc]

You are aware that she's not being persecuted for being Christian, right? In fact, she was persecuting those she didn't allow to marry. No one said she couldn't be Christian. They only thing she was told was that she has to obey the law of the land.

It's worth pointing out that Bunning, the one who ordered her to be jailed, himself is a huge Christian conservative. He was appointed by GW Bush, he's the son of Jim fucking Bunning.

Religiosity has little to nothing to do with this.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Let's celebrate this victory by playing a drinking game.
Drink whenever someone asks why she hasn't been fired yet.

Just out of curiosity, how far is this "elected officials can't be fired" thing taken? Like, if she punches a customer, and she serves a few days in jail for assault, will she be reinstated?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

This is fine but what we currently have is a situation where someone is an officer of the law. They are to perform duties given by the state. That os what thy signed up for. That are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they follow and still.gain compensation by from the state. Its not a difficult concept. You need to resign if the tasks of the job strike fibres of your person you cannot cross. This is life. She was only jailed because she is impeding an important part of society and they cannot get others to fill that role. Not because she has a faith they domt respect.

 

[Easy_D]

It's worth pointing out that Bunning, the one who ordered her to be jailed, himself is a huge Christian conservative. He was appointed by GW Bush, he's the son of Jim fucking Bunning.

Religiosity has little to nothing to do with this.

So basically he's just upholding the law eh? Like his job entails? Who'da thunk

 

[LycanXIII]

So, 5 of the 6 deputy clerks are issuing licenses today. The lone holdout?

The licenses were issued only after five of Kim Davis' deputy clerks agreed to issue the licenses, the lone holdout from the office being her son, Nathan Davis. Her office was dark Friday morning as the license was issued to Yates and Smith, with a sheriff's deputy standing guard in front of it.

On if she will resign:

Speaking to reporters Friday morning, Davis' husband, Joe Davis, held a sign saying "Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah" and said his wife was in good spirits after her first night in jail.

When asked if she would resign, he said, "Oh, God no. She's not going to resign at all. It's a matter of telling Bunning he ain't the boss."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-04-09-46-46

Wonder what husband he was fathered by.

 

[Arkeband]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

This is word salad. You're obfuscating in an attempt at discourse.

What you see as "moral absolutism" is just simply human decency. Everyone should have as equal opportunities as realistically possible, and everyone should be treated with kindness. This isn't just tolerance, this is an implicit intolerance of intolerance. If you can't get along with your neighbor then you're violating one of the Ten Commandments.

Discriminating against anyone, whether they're gay or a different color than you, is being a dick. That would be absolutism if being a dick didn't come in all kinds of qualifiers, like being a pompous dick, a self-righteous dick, a temperamental dick, a dick-but-only-on-Thursdays. But you generally don't want to fall on the wrong side of that large binary spectrum of "making an attempt to be a good person" or "what's up with this asshole?"

Are you the Kim Davis defense force? What's really happening here behind this dialogue?

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

Nothing is stopping this lady from resigning and letting someone else do the job if she's so terrified of going to hell. That's what's so ridiculous about this situation. She's not only refusing to do her job that she swore an oath toward, but she's actively preventing other people who don't mind doing what they're supposed to do, while still expecting to receive a salary for it. The religious persecution angle to this story is nothing more than smoke & mirrors, if your job is asking you to do something that you considering so morally reprehensible that you'll suffer eternal damnation for complying, the only sensible thing to do is quit, wipe your hands of it, and move on.

But no, she decided to infringe other people's rights, drag her fellow employees down into a media circus and then paint herself as the victim in all of this.

 

[riskVSreward]

Are you the Kim Davis defense force? What's really happening here behind this dialogue?

He's Gaf's hardcore Christian apologist.

 

[JDSN]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

Nah, this is wrong.

 

[TheOctodad]

The parallel to Daniel's story is that those in power (who were anti-semitic) were the ones who put the law in state legislation. Your analysis is a false equivalence. Daniel's story is similar to the Kentucky clerk in that a new law was put in place that violated Daniel's faith. This is no difference to what happened to Romanian Christian's when the communist party took over and put every Christian in jail who would not put Stalin above Jesus. An example of life under the communist party:

You can claim logical fallacies all you want, but it doesn't make your point correct. The burden of proof is on you to show a link and you're failing to do so. Your examples of the Romanian Christians and Stalin are patently incorrect.

Christians (pastors/clergy/people out in the public sector) are not being forced to marry gays. If I was a pastor and I was arrested for refusing to marry a gay couple, I would have a MAJOR problem with this. THIS is not what's happening.

We have someone who has sworn allegiance to the government and to uphold the laws of the land. She is taking a paycheck from the public (including the gay couples she refuses to marry) and yet she is not fulfilling that job. She has set herself and her interpretation of the legal system as THE interpretation. How is it moral to take a paycheck from people who are paying you to uphold the law of the land and then refusing to do so? Is this not stealing?

This is the problem with Christians becoming politicians and even joining the military. At some point you very well might have to choose which master you are going to serve. Don't be surprised if by choosing your beliefs, you end up in jail. This is why the early Christians refused to do this (although it was because they were anti-murder not anti-gay).

My examples share similarities in that the state was used to force people to violate their faith or suffer various types of consequences (death, jail, torture, loss of employment, etc).

No one is forced to violate their faith or suffer any consequences. They can quit at anytime and live in the United States as free people. Pastors are not being forced to marry gay couples. Hell, I still know churches that refuse to marry people that are living together. This is about government positions and refusing to do your duty as a government employee. Again, don't be surprised if it conflicts with your moral values and you have to quit (note that she has no problem supporting any other kind of marriage apparently).

Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this worldview will be forced to suffer the consequences by the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.

Oh please. The often touted "moral relativism" has been in existence for thousands of years. Just because the dominant, evangelical, Christian narrative doesn't automatically get to define the law doesn't mean our world is going to hell in a hand basket.

I say all of this as a Christian with a Master of Divinity by the way, so I'm not just an godless liberal who is happy to see the silencing of Christians. I just believe that Jesus would be disgusted with the way Christianity has gotten in bed with politics and tried to force people to a certain way of living. That is so unlike anything Jesus ever taught.

 

[Byakuya769]

You are aware that she's not being persecuted for being Christian, right? In fact, she was persecuting those she didn't allow to marry. No one said she couldn't be Christian. They only thing she was told was that she has to obey the law of the land.

She was told it was her job to hand people a piece of paper. End of story. Do your job and shut the fuck up.

She's acting like she's being told she has to get "gay" married herself.

 

[GhaleonEB]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

The problem is she's breaking the law. The end. There's nothing to try and wax philosophical about here.

 

[Trojita]

The parallel to Daniel's story is that those in power (who were anti-semitic) were the ones who put the law in state legislation. Your analysis is a false equivalence. Daniel's story is similar to the Kentucky clerk in that a new law was put in place that violated Daniel's faith. This is no difference to what happened to Romanian Christian's when the communist party took over and put every Christian in jail who would not put Stalin above Jesus. An example of life under the communist party:



My examples share similarities in that the state was used to force people to violate their faith or suffer various types of consequences (death, jail, torture, loss of employment, etc).



Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this worldview will be forced to suffer the consequences by the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.

They were anti-semitic? LOL WHAT. Babylon was a kingdom like all others in that area of the world at the time. Conquering and bothering your neighbors was a thing. King Jehoiakim of Judah lost Jerusalem to Babylon. Babylon made Jerusalem into one of its territories and specifically brought the nobleman of Jerusalem to Babylon to teach them so that one day they could be advisors to the king. The King wanted to specifically feed Daniel and the rest the best food possible, food made for the king himself. How would this be anti-semitic?

Babylon, at the time, was against anything that wasn't their religion. Calling them anti-semitic is a spectacular gross misrepresentation. Lets not even talk about the fact that semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. Are you calling them self hating semites? Let's not even talk about the fact that Daniel is a folktale hero and not an actual historical figure.

 

[Clearos]

You're being pretty mean.
Regardless of how wrong an opinion or creed is, being asked to go against the mainstream opinion of, in all likeness, everyone she knows, and all of her family, is hard. It's goddamn hard.
I respect that she's going to actually DO HER JOB, as she's legally obligated to, but that doesn't mean we have to go through "Well duh look i live in new york and the very mention of it being a moral issue is ridiculous"

Yes I am being mean but she wasn't held at gun point to hold that job. Also I believe she is only doing her job finally because the courts got involved. I know my job wouldn't praise me for doing daily reports after being dragged to the general managers office because I refused to do them.

I'll agree that I stepped over the line mocking that this is the hardest thing in her life as I have no idea of her backstory.

 

[andymcc]

So, 5 of the 6 deputy clerks are issuing licenses today. The lone holdout?



On if she will resign:



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-04-09-46-46

Wonder what husband he was fathered by.

the judge that legally put her jail in ass isn't her boss? lmao

 

[TheOctodad]

They were anti-semitic? LOL WHAT. Babylon was a kingdom like all others in that area of the world at the time. Conquering and bothering your neighbors was a thing. King Jehoiakim of Judah lost Jerusalem to Babylon. Babylon made Jerusalem into one of its territories and specifically brought the nobleman of Babylon to learn their information and one day be advisors to the king. The King wanted to specifically feed Daniel and the rest the best food possible, food made for the king himself. How would this be anti-semitic?

Babylon, at the time, was against anything that wasn't their religion. Calling them anti-semitic is a spectacular gross misrepresentation. Lets not even talk about the fact that semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. Are you calling them self hating semites? Let's not even talk about the fact that Daniel is a folktale hero and not an actual historical figure.

This guy knows what he's talking about.

We should also remember that culture back then was very different. Even the Jews were forcing people to live in a certain way or die in many cases. The culture completely tribalistic. The Jews were no more or less guilty than any other culture when it comes to enforcing their religious system onto people.

 

[Pillville]

Why hasn't she been fired yet?

Spoiler

Start drinking.

 

[Pillville]

Just out of curiosity, how far is this "elected officials can't be fired" thing taken? Like, if she punches a customer, and she serves a few days in jail for assault, will she be reinstated?

Who can fire her? There's no "Boss".
What if Obama punches someone, who fires him?

 

[Rich!]

Why hasn't she been fired

Spoiler

out of a rocket loool

 

[dabig2]

This guy knows what he's talking about.

We should also remember that culture back then was very different. Even the Jews were forcing people to live in a certain way or die in many cases. The culture completely tribalistic. The Jews were no more or less guilty than any other culture when it comes to enforcing their religious system onto people.

The early Israelites literally rampaged through ancient Palestine, committing wholesale genocides like it was going out of business, commanded to by their god. There was a lot of garbage happening around the times these holy books full of absolute morals were conscripted, written usually by the same conquerors committing these atrocities.

Again, I'm not sure why we're even entertaining any conversation where we need to consider some interpretations of these ancient religious books in public law.

 

[LegendofLex]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

This is a bit of an oversimplification. Most people wouldn't actually subscribe to "moral relativism" as in "there are and should be no rules" or "each person should decide for himself what is right in all instances." They'd simply admit that there are many competing views on what is moral, most of which are based on subjective conclusions and one of a wide range of flavors of religion or irreligion.

Since there's no way to definitively prove a particular subjective conclusion or a religion (they're both based on faith), and since we can't enforce the morals of all subjective or religious beliefs simultaneously (they often contradict), we've arrived at a system of rules that permit people to make free choices when it comes to morals on which our society does not generally agree.

These rules are in place not because there's an absolute guidance willing it to be so, but precisely because we've arrived at them through argument, agreement, and compromise.

 

[Sai-kun]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

This is such a sad and stupid attempt to play defense force for a woman who broke the law. You're trying way too hard.

Edit: and it's really telling that you're playing the moral relativism card over someone having to issue marriage licenses to gay people. 'Oh no, poor them, what about their beliefs?!' But you don't give a fuck about what those gay people all over the world who STILL are not equal to their heterosexual counterparts have gone through in their lives, do you? Fuck outta here.

 

[Dai101]

This is such a sad and stupid attempt to play defense force for a woman who broke the law. You're trying way too hard.

Does he ever.

 

[TheOctodad]

The early Israelites literally rampaged through ancient Palestine, committing wholesale genocides like it was going out of business, commanded to by their god. There was a lot of garbage happening around the times these holy books full of absolute morals were conscripted, written usually by the same conquerors committing these atrocities.

Again, I'm not sure why we're even entertaining any conversation where we need to consider some interpretations of these ancient religious books in public law.

I agree with most of this. I think the conversation is worth having when it comes to interpretation though. A forum is not a court of law and we have the luxury of discussing many branching ideas. With the majority of America being Christians a better interpretation should (in theory) allow for a better understanding of how faith can be lived out peacably. You are welcome to not engage in such discussions and see them as a waste of time (and I wouldn't blame you at all), but I don't think that such discussions are less meaningful than most of the discussions that go on in an Internet forum.

 

[boiled goose]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

I believe in objective morality. Morality by definition is concerned with the well being of individuals and societies.

Defining well being requires nuance as does figuring out which actions lead to those goals.

Denying fellow humans rights because of individual views based on old Holy texts with outdated and made up nonsense is definitely objectively immoral.

Im going to deny you your rights for illogical reasons is as wrong as it can be.

That's an easy one to call.

 

[TheOctodad]

Even Jesus had a certain level of relative moralism. He broke certain commandments because others were more important. His moral stance was love of other over laws. That's INCREDIBLY relative.

I definitely believe there are moral realities in the world. But the path to them is incredibly complex and can't be easily communicated or enforced. We all make choices that are grey every day. From where we buy our clothes and electronics to what we eat.

 

[Transhuman]

The parallel to Daniel's story is that those in power (who were anti-semitic) were the ones who put the law in state legislation. Your analysis is a false equivalence. Daniel's story is similar to the Kentucky clerk in that a new law was put in place that violated Daniel's faith. This is no difference to what happened to Romanian Christian's when the communist party took over and put every Christian in jail who would not put Stalin above Jesus. An example of life under the communist party:



My examples share similarities in that the state was used to force people to violate their faith or suffer various types of consequences (death, jail, torture, loss of employment, etc).



Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this worldview will be forced to suffer the consequences by the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.

Seriously, just say "fags shouldn't marry". Don't overcomplicate your views.

 

[Dai101]

Even Jesus had a certain level of relative moralism. He broke certain commandments because others were more important. His moral stance was love of other over laws. That's INCREDIBLY relative.

I definitely believe there are moral realities in the world. But the path to them is incredibly complex and can't be easily communicated or enforced. We all make choices that are grey every day. From where we buy our clothes and electronics to what we eat.

Is a shame most so called Christians don't follow his example.

In other topic, gameanalyst should be a politician. The gop needs him.

 

[Fj0823]

^^^^ Perfection.

He's Gaf's hardcore Christian apologist.

He doesn't represent me.

I am happy that horrible woman is where she belongs, a job is a job. Law is the Law. and you can't just force your rules on others, specially if you don't even follow then yourself (lol at her marriage history)

God will judge her just as hard as she judged them.

 

[HylianTom]

He's Gaf's hardcore Christian apologist.

I think the term is "theocrat."

One can be a Chrisitian apologist without wanting to trample others' basic civil rights.

 

[riskVSreward]

He doesn't represent me.

I would never suggest otherwise. He defends his own Christian beliefs vehemently and routinely here. I wouldn't want to throw my hat in his ring either if I were a Christian.

 

[Special C]

Serious question to those that bring up that "its the law". If the Law was to NOT issue a license to a gay couple and an elected official did it anyway because they were morally compelled to do so and were put in jail, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

 

[Yrael]

Kim Davis has defenders
Of her freedom, but I stress:
This fundamental freedom is
Her freedom to oppress!

Some candidates for president
Are charging to her side—
They claim she has god-given rights
That cannot be denied!

She has the right to take a stand
The right to choose her fights
The right to pound the bible and…
Deny another’s rights!

Kim Davis has some special rights
Gay couples clearly don’t;
A right, of course, gets granted—
Grant gay marriage? Davis won’t.

(From Digital Cuttlefish)

 

[TheOctodad]

Serious question to those that bring up that "its the law". If the Law was to NOT issue a license to a gay couple and an elected official did it anyway because they were morally compelled to do so and were put in jail, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

No. I would applaud them for quitting and saying "I cannot in good conscious continue to support a law that I disagree with." And then hope that they worked through the proper channels to get the law changed.

Laws can't just be broken or kept based on personal preference.

 

[Sai-kun]

Serious question to those that bring up that "its the law". If the Law was to NOT issue a license to a gay couple and an elected official did it anyway because they were morally compelled to do so and were put in jail, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

I don't know if applaud is the right word, but I would definitely recognize that their heart was in the right place.

But what kind of hypothetical is that anyways? Why wouldn't you at least somewhat celebrate someone who was compelled to give someone equal treatment to others? How is that even remotely the opposite of what's going on here? Would the license even be recognized by the state, in that scenario?

I don't think you thought this (really weird) hypothetical through.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Man, Huckabee is going at this hard. I guess he needs something to rile up whatever base he has left.

 

[neshcom]

Did Davis end up authorizing her deputies to hand out licenses? If not, speculation was that those licenses would be on shaky ground and could potentially be invalid/revoked.

 

[TheOctodad]

Did Davis end up authorizing her deputies to hand out licenses? If not, speculation was that those licenses would be on shaky ground and could potentially be invalid/revoked.

who is going to revoke them?

 

[XNarte]

who is going to revoke them?

Mike Huckabee, lol

 

[neshcom]

who is going to revoke them?

I don't know, but in the case that Davis actually makes headway in this crusade, it seems just petty enough to fight to retroactively invalidate licenses since she was arrested.

 

[Arkeband]

who is going to revoke them?

I don't know how this works but the way it sounded was the "at your own risk" implied if she was released and then went back on her word and then annulled them or something. Or if the absence of her signature would make it null and void at some later juncture.

 

[Simply Sarah]

who is going to revoke them?

If state courts determine that these licenses could not be validly issued without her involvement in some way then they could find that the licenses were therefore invalid from the start.