Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Dumbest Kim Davis Comparison Yet

The Kentucky County Clerk and anti-gay wannabe martyr, Kim Davis, is deservedly rotting in jail for violating a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her incarceration came after a Supreme Court ruling that the right to marry is constitutionally protected for gays and a federal district court finding her in contempt of court for continuing to defy the law.

Conservative advocates of Christian sharia law rallied around Davis, arguing that her religious freedom was being violated. However, there is no protection under the law for religious extremists in government offices to impose their beliefs on the people they have sworn to serve. To the contrary, as the court said, they are required to obey the law regardless of their personal preferences. These simple concepts, however, were profoundly misunderstood by Fox News who posted an article on their Fox Nation website about a separate case of religious faith in the workplace.

Fox Nation

The circumstances of Charee Stanley’s dispute with her employer Express Jet are similar to those of Kim Davis only up to a point. Stanley took a job at Express Jet and a year or so later converted to Islam. She then told her employer that her faith forbids her from serving alcohol. It was that refusal to perform the duties required of her that led to her suspension. And this is where the two women’s cases diverge.

Davis is a public servant. She was elected to her position as County Clerk and swore to uphold the law, which includes all federal laws and the provisions of the Constitution. Upon failing to do that she was ordered by the court to comply, which she likewise refused. That refusal was unarguably in defiance of a valid court order, so she was found to be in contempt of court and taken into custody by the state marshal.

Stanley is a private citizen working for a private sector business. By asserting her religious beliefs as an excuse to decline her duties she was only violating the terms of her employment, not any law. Therefore, she could reasonably be punished by her employer, but the state has no jurisdiction to arrest or incarcerate her.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

For the Fox Nationalists to suggest that there is some hypocrisy in jailing Davis but not Stanley is only evidence of the idiocy and utter absence of logic by those at Fox. There is no legal justification for jailing Stanley, but Davis is an unabashed outlaw. And in Fox’s world the innocent should be imprisoned and the guilty should go free.

[Update 9/8/2015:] The judge who jailed Davis has now ordered her released because the plaintiffs in the case have received their marriage licenses from deputies in the County Clerk’s office. The release is contingent on her not interfering with her deputies who will continue to issue licenses to all legal applicants.

Now what will the grandstanding pols (Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, etc.) who were planning on attending a protest and visiting the now-former prisoner do when they get to the Kentucky jail and Davis isn’t there? Not to worry. They are so full of bs-infused hot air that they won’t have any trouble finding something to bitch mindlessly about.


37 thoughts on “Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Dumbest Kim Davis Comparison Yet

  1. Putting aside the comparison which is indeed asnine for all the reasons you stated, now that Fox News have brought this up, and having admitted that both cases hinge upon the same issue, the insistence of the overriding influence of individual religious belief as a reason to not do their jobs, the following question needs to be asked:

    Would Fox and all the supporters of Kim Davis who have cited the overriding influence of her religious belief as valid justification for her actions (not issuing marriage permits to gay couples), now also, citing that same overriding religious belief, as justification for the Muslim woman in the above example?

    Having touted themselves as the defenders of individual religious rights and also acknowledged it as an issue appliedin the SAME manner in both incidents, it is only logical and rational to assume that, since they have attempted to defend Kim Davis’s actions on those grounds, they would be equally enthusiastic about doing the same on the same grounds for the Muslim woman.


    • Yeah, right. They don’t even like it when a Muslim requests a Halal meal.

      • Fox News strikes again with another false equivalency story. No surprise there. Could you imagine a story called 19 kids and counting, where Muhammad’s oldest son Ahmed, molests his sisters and family friends. The family goes on Fox News and said he was young and asked Allah for forgiveness. I’m sure their reaction wouldn’t be the same.

  2. Would you impose the same standard when Obama and Eric Holder refused to enforce a law?

    • Not enforcing a law is completely different than breaking it. The President has the discretion to prioritize enforcement so that the limited resources of the DOJ are used to best protect the people. That’s why murder is given greater priority than shoplifting.

    • Marcos, you’re asking for consistency in applying the law – that isn’t happening here or in any progressive universe. Special groups get special protection in progressive land – but in this article specifically, Mark is right.

      • If that’s your assertion there you might might want to answer my question above on whether Fox and the right wing zealots will choose to be consistent in their insistance on the protections on religious right.

        They have already admitted after all that the 2 cases are the same. So consistency across a spectrum demands that they also voice their defense of the Muslim woman’s religious right as they have done for Kim Davis.

        If they don’t, well, your fact free smear against liberals would be just that, the words of a biased liar.

        Something you’ve become quite well known for.

        • Delu – Bias yes, liar no. One of my favorite past times is holding a mirror up to the delusional and preachy types of the world – progressives here are like that – they generally don’t like it, and you don’t either as your post clearly notes, but it’s good to shine the light where it’s needed. Try taking an objective look at yourself and your beliefs once in a while, you may find yourself questioning them as I’ve had to do at times. It can be quite jarring depending on how brainwashed you are and how wrong your assumptions have been.

  3. Fox Spews had to go some to find someone they could compare to Ms. Davis. Of course, the comparison makes no sense (because it’s wrong anyway) but it is perfect for Fox Spews because this gives them the perfect opportunity to demonstrate yet again Fox Spews’ intolerance of any religion that does not worship St. Ronnie of Simi Valley but particularly Islam. Note I am not saying worshiping Jesus because that has no bearing since Fox Spews has never truly followed the tenets of Jesus, only their diseased interpretation of same.

    Am I reading this correctly to recognize that Ms. Stanley did in fact inform her bosses beforehand that she could not serve alcohol under her religion? That is following her religious beliefs and making it clear where she stood. Which gave her bosses every right to fire her because she was unable and unwilling to do the job for which she was hired. Which brings you another difference: Ms. Davis simply refused to do her job no matter what the personal orientation of the couple. It wasn’t a case of using religious belief to justify not doing her job; She just decided like a typical FoxPod that same-sex couples had no right to marry no matter what the law said, and she is using a claim of religious belief to justify that refusal. That’s breaking the law. In contrast, Ms. Stanley’s actions did not break the law, but did break her employment contract with the airline. There’s your difference, FoxPods.

    But it doesn’t matter, of course – Ms. Stanley is a Muslim and apparently has dark skin, so that makes her the enemy, and wait three days for the FoxPods to find a way to blame the incident on Obama. How Ms. Stanley’s actions justify arrest and deportation, while Ms. Davis’ actions make her a hero, and how Fox Spews will blame Ms. Stanley’s actions — and any condemnation of Ms. Davis for hers — on Obama will probably be just as disgusting as we expect it will be.

    Of course, Fox Spews has sympathy for Ms. Davis because she embodies everything Fox Spews believes in, like with Cliven Bundy. Put a black person (or a Muslim) in either person, watch how fast Fox Spews will demand their imprisonment (or preferably burning at the stake). And here we have Ms. Stanley, proving our expectation is all too accurate.

  4. You folks are the best–cogent, germane and correct. Never missing that bit that nails our unworthy opponents. To field the clown car of presidential candidates running for the Republican ticket has to be an embarrassment to thinking and rational Republicans. These trolls couldn’t staff a Bingo Parlor calling letters and numbers. Like Dubya, they’re an international embarrassment.

    • I AM one of those rational and thinking Republicans and I am shocked and ashamed of my party. When the hell did my party turn into the Conservative Party? And the Democratic Party of JFK turn into the far left wing Socialist Party? They’ve ALL forgotten us here in the moderate middle!

      • Perhaps these days, with rampant partisanship, moderation has become that old bugaboo, fence-straddling. But I am still laughing after reading that the prime minister of Australia is highly opposed to same-sex marriage even though his sister is an out-lesbian who is engaged and wants to marry her partner. Tony Abbott, the P.M., is head of Australia’s Liberal Party—which is actually the Australian Conservatives. Now George Bernard Shaw’s apt description that England and America are two countries separated by a common language, would struggle with the Aussie corruption of the language. G-day, mate!

      • Far Left Socialist Party? Just not true in any sense. Is there some example you can give to back up your statement?

  5. One of the rare times I totally agree with a post from Mark. He got it right 100%. “deservedly rotting in jail” was a bit harsh – but only in the chosen words, she needs to get her head on straight if she is going to serve in government.

  6. On a side issue – why any state feels it has the right or authority to be telling anyone if they can or cannot marry through the issuing of any marriage license, I have not idea. Just get out of the way and let people marry who they want and this wouldn’t be an issue.

  7. “Davis is a public servant. She was elected to her position as County Clerk and swore to uphold the law, which includes all federal laws and the provisions of the Constitution. ”

    Correct and ending that with swearing to God on doing so. Which means 1 – She has taken the lords name in vain, 2- breaking her word to God to uphold the constitution and the law. Either way, love the way people forget that little fact. Hell, even the Judge that put her in jail stated he don’t like it either but took an oath to uphold the law. If her morals are so high, how many divorced people did she allow to marry BEFORE the SCOTUS ruling? If even 1, she has no ground to stand on. Even taking her “born again” after her 4, if she is going on the word of God over law, then she should not have let 1 divorcee to remarry, PERIOD.

    Given that she wants to even break the 1st amendment the ” prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion” shows she does not fully understand the ramifications. Along with all these other misguided people, the reason there is a Judicial branch of government.

    Bottom line – I respect those Clerk’s who resigned the day after the SCOTUS ruling. If their morals clash with their job, they went to find another job. If Davis keeps saying she will not resign, or do her job, then I am for the impeachment process for her.

    • Yep, that is right. She can discriminate all she wants on her time as an individual – but she clearly doesn’t understand her position with the government doesn’t allow for that kind of thing on the job. She probably doesn’t understand that if she is permitted to do that to citizens as a government office holder – others could do it to her and her christian beliefs. Not sure she would like that.

  8. I see she is a democrat – I guess religious crazy isn’t reserved for the republican party…just sayin

    • No one said it was. But theirs is where the majority of them are.

      Look no further than 3 people in the Republican party, important politicians and all of them Presidential candidates and garnering support from their religious right wing base as well. Ted “Shutdown” Cruz, Mike “Lord Over Nation” Huckabee, and Rand “I’m a Libertarian” Paul.

      All 3 have opposed Davis being sent to jail on the grounds of her religious right being sonething that justifies her actions. No left wing politician, Presidential candidate or otherwise has done the same.

      And these guys are not the only “religious crazies” in the right wing political tent. There’s also Bobby-Jean Dahl whose first name was not American sounding enough for him so I felt he should get a more American sounding last name too. As well as the 2 Ricks, Perry and Santorum. 2 of the above 3 are Presidential candidates too.

      • looks like someone doesn’t like inconvenient truths spread. I already know about the crazy religious right – we just don’t get to see the crazy religious left too often – just thought I would point that out.

        • No, you’re probably correct there. Can you name any other member of the “crazy religious left”? Because we sure can come up with more than a few members of the “crazy religious right.” Actually, we can probably come up with several, really…

          • That is my point, we don’t get to see the “crazy religious left” – so seeing one is rare. I assume there isn’t much to speak of – but there is one now. I’m not in denial about the religious right and am not afraid if you point them out – it doesn’t bother me like it bothers you people. I’m not part of that group so attempting to insult me with them isn’t going to work – I gave up that belief so it’s useless to try to get under my skin.

  9. Do keep in mind that, after marrying four times–twice to the same man–becoming pregnant by the man she divorces to marry another who is raising the twins produced by that liaison, that she say these episodes as failures—and turned to religion. Converts to anything are the most fanatical. Ex-smokers are the ones most likely to complain if a wisp of smoke trails them on the street, loudly complain to show how pure they’ve become. But Davis reminds me of the now-proud atheist I’ve become, that religion is a crutch that’s sweet in 5-year-olds but tiresome in adults. Mythology was fun when I was a Latin student. Loved those household gods! But the Greeks and Romans always had a wink in their eyes—the Greeks with an intellectual bent and the Romans with a orgiastic one.

  10. Pres. Obama and Atty General Holder refused to defend the law. And same-sex marriage is now the law of the land. There is a difference.

    • Yep, deeming the law to be unconstitutional, but it did not go undefended. The lawmakers of congress made an effort to mount a defense: “February 2011, the Obama Administration instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending DOMA in court and called for heightened scrutiny in federal lawsuits. In response to the Obama administration’s decision, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) convened to defend DOMA in place of the Department of Justice.”
      Obviously it’s difficult to defend a law that blocks a specific group from the same benefits and rights as others, when there is no proof, that law is providing a needed protection for society as a whole. Interesting that so many, who advocate limiting government are most often the ones demanding the government prohibit some social behavior they disagree with, but does not affect them personally.

  11. Please, sir, may I apply for a position as a member of the “crazy-left?” I am a devout, born-again atheist, who is becoming more and more of a Marxist, based on one quote: “Religion is the opiate of the masses!” And finds the answer to “Will Americans vote for Bernie Sanders, a Socialist Jew? Well, we celebrate the birthday of a Socialist Jew every 25th of December. And those European countries that have a quasi if not actual socialist government, are plagued by the disparate income levels, the immigration qualms, the abortion issue, that engulf us. Must be pleasant. But then, I am a white guy! So I do want to keep my privileges. 51 years ago, in my first election as a voter, I did vote for Barry Goldwater. I fit his tome, “Conscience of a Conservative” into my reading while my course work as an English Lit. major had me reading and studying War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, Buddenbrooks, The Dwarf, Swann’s Way, The Stranger, Death in Venice. But once I process dear ole Barry’s book in the real world, I learned that conservatives don’t have consciences and that they should begin hosting an annual convention for sociopaths only.

    • If you can come to terms with the immorality of socialism, then you shouldn’t need to ask permission to join that group.

      • The immorality of Socialism? What!? The US military is immoral? Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, DOT’s across the land, Am-track, public water systems, 5 day work weeks, 8 hour days, I could go on of course but I’m sure you understand that I don’t see how you can make such a generalization.

        • Oh my god – maybe you should go read up on it a bit. Socialism defined, how it works, who is in charge, etc….then decide. Yes, to some it would be heaven. But I wouldn’t just jump on the wagon without knowing the supposed good and the inevitable bad that comes with such an economic system.

          • Oh my god is right! You apparently have no idea how much socialism we already have.

            • Eric, I realize on this site the dominant position is that we all serve the state and what we own and produce is not ours to control – so your position isn’t surprising. To simplify why socialism is immoral – try this – The ends never justify the means. I’m sure your focused on the ends and the means carry no weight given your responses – but that is the crux of the argument. And try to not give in to confirmation bias – if you want to have your beliefs challenged and proven right or wrong – go look to those sources that will conflict with your beliefs. It’s very enlightening. Why do you think I read at sites like this over the Fox News type sites or any other “right wing” networks. So far Mark and the liberal/progressive sites have only served to prove to me my position on economics and politics is right. Religion and the belief in a supreme being wasn’t so lucky when put under that kind of scrutiny.

            • “I realize on this site the dominant position is that we all serve the state…” ?

              If you realize that, then congratulations, you’re a moron. And this comment (like almost all your comments) proves it. Particularly funny is your pretense of challenging your beliefs, because your comments show that you have always blindly adhered to right-wing dogma.

            • Since you’re moderating my comments – here is one – I’m sure you’ll delete that rebuttal to your attack – you just can’t see yourself as you are. Go ahead and leave your comment up with no response from me – scared child.

            • Mark, I thought I explained and rebutted your accusation/statement pretty clearly – too clearly I guess as you deleted it. The closer I am to proving you wrong, the more you moderate my posts. I could say what that makes you, but then I give you more reason to delete what I write. You really can’t take being wrong.

  12. Immorality of socialism? Jesus was a socialist. And most of our country operates under socialism. The immorality is in people like you whose morals come from some phony belief system defined by an invisible guy in the sky. And that guy becomes an excuse for all sorts of immorality. Oh, god must have wanted this. Or, if god wanted otherwise he would have ruled. Does that guy in the sky have an iPhone? The people who say and have said through the ages that they speak with god or he speaks to them or delusional.

    • Not sure Jesus has a part in this – mentioning his name means nothing unless addressing a religious nut.

Comments are closed.