Civilities: Stop taunting Kim Davis about her looks. Her hypocrisy is another thing.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

This is old stuff. I'm cleaning out my inboxes.

This is the title of the article in the print edition:

How not to win an argument on same-sex marriage: Taunting Ky. county clerk Kim Davis for her looks

Arts and Entertainment

Civilities: Stop taunting Kim Davis about her looks. Her hypocrisy is another thing.

By Steven Petrow September 28
@StevenPetrow

I’ve been keeping my well-mannered self on the sidelines about the Kim Davis fracas, and for good reason. With so many loud and dissenting voices already choking the media about it, supporters and critics of the Rowan County, Ky. clerk who has refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples didn’t seem to need an etiquette expert. Until now, that is. Criticism of Davis’s hypocritical freedom of religion argument is one thing. Mocking her hair, looks and children are not — and that’s where I come in.

Many have rightfully taken Davis to task for not doing her job, an elected position she won last year. For example, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky said in a statement: “[G]overnment officials are free to disagree with the law but not disobey it.” HRC, the nation’s largest LGBT civil rights group, said: “Ms. Davis has the fundamental right to believe what she likes … but as a public servant, she does not have the right to pick and choose which laws she will follow or which services she will provide.”

To date, Davis has lost every legal battle she has waged trying to defend her position and was jailed for contempt of court. If a new ACLU motion is successful, she may find herself there again for continuing to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses. ... But the loudest statements about this case have been anything but lawyerly or in the form of legal briefs. When it comes to maintaining a civil tongue, the ones that trouble me the most aren’t even about the case itself, but about Davis’s appearance.
....

Here’s the truth: Kim Davis’s tresses or dresses do not matter and focusing on them diminishes the point, which is that Davis has refused to do her job. As one blogger wrote on Daily Kos, a political site: “It’s too easy to fall into the game of shaming people on their appearance, whether they are sexually attractive to the opposite sex, or whether they are old and white.” ... Civility requires us to separate criticism from verbal (and virtual) assault, and to stop short of the virtual tar and feathering Davis has endured.

[Amimnoch]

1. Agreed. Can say I never went down that road.

However, I can say, I never defended her when others did.

She is a vile woman full of venom, and hypocritical hatred.

[nomorenomore08]

2. A whiny idiot who doesn't want to do her (well-compensated) job. That's all that needs saying. n/t

[nightscanner59]

3. I do agree commentary outside of the issue at hand is hitting below the belt.

And I caution that RW media outlets may capitalize on such to portray their faux persecution complex:
I'm posting a link to my own initial posting about this and another atrocity from RW "christian" nutjobs here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11691334

[NCLefty]

4. So the author is upset that 3 people made jokes about Ms. Davis' looks on the Internet?

Must be a slow news week...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. Some points:

There were a lot more than 3 remarks made online about Kim Davis. The article's author cited only a few, just enough to make his argument.

Remarks about Kim Davis's appearance are missing the point. The issue is that she has a job to do, issue licenses. That is all. It is not up to her to decide who is "good enough" to receive a license. Applicants are under no obligation to make Kim Davis happy. They are merely exercising their rights under the Constitution.

That is the issue at hand, not Kim Davis's appearance. Let us not be distracted.

Thanks for writing.

[NCLefty]

6. I didn't realize so many people were still missing that point.

Most of the memes I saw were about her doing her job.