She made many choices that lead to her being jailed. She used every legal option she had to delay going to jail but it was her choice, she chose to keep a job that would require her to do anything against her convictions when she could have resigned. She chose to make employees under her follow her religious conviction when she could have just let them handle it.

Had she not been jailed it would have set a terrible legal standard, where laws can be trumped by any individuals interpretation of their religious beliefs.

We are a society of law where everyone is held accountable to the same law, and we expect those in positions to carry out the law to follow it and not just ignore it. 

It doesn't matter. If you work for the state, you work for the people and you are obligated to follow the law. I think she should've been fined first, but if you refuse to work for the people, the punishment should be severe. Noone has said she is punished for her beliefs, sure it's only punished for not doing the job appointed to her. It would've had the same outcome of she claimed she wouldn't do it because she's lazy, hates the concept of marriage or any other reason.

Cant really blame her. The government has given credence to that book of fairy tales, so this shit will keep happening.

No, I said she should be fined as a first measure. I absolutely think she should be jalied if she continued to refuse doing her job. I am not opposed to what opinions she have (although I do not agree with them), and if people want to commend her for public disopidience, I can relate to that. I applaud those that opposed segregation in the 50´s and 60´s and were in public positions: I still think they should have received fines or prison for doing so, but I applaud their opinions.

When you take on the role as a public servant it is never the same as having a job in the privcate sector: each penny you receive in salary is made up of tax money and you are therefore obligated to do what the law requires, how much it might hurt.

The two examples you give at the end of your post are flawed though: in one case you refer to tax evation, which is an illegal act. The second example is also irrelevant since a persons decision to serve Hallal or not is a private business matter.

But it isn´t an easy matter of course: if you are refused to be allowed to discriminate, are you in turn being discriminated upon? That is the matter in this case.

Sadly, this is very true.

So, if we would assume that the clerk is being discriminated upon for not having the right to discriminate (even though I cannot see how the clerk is being discriminated on in any way), who has the most right on its side? The clerk who whishes to discriminate the gay couple based on religion or the gay couple that wishes to discriminate the clerk based on the law? One can change job, the other can change clerk. Who has the most right in your opinion?

The reason she is being put in jail is because she is in contempt of the court.  She cannot be fired, she can only be impeached, which is a process that will take a long time, in the interim of which people will be denied their right to equal protection under the law.  

Kim Davis does not have any right to enforce her beliefs upon others, nor does she have a right to pick and choose which laws to obey.  She took the job with no guarantee that the laws would always align with her personal morality.  If the laws change, then she has the right to resign if she feels strongly about the conflict.

Don't feed into the martyr bullshit.  She is not being put in jail "by virtue of progressivism". She is being put in jail because that is what happens when an employee of the court system refuses to carry out the law.  Kim Davis does not have the right to overturn Supreme Court decisions. 

And by the way, she was never ever forced to have any part in issuing marraige certificates to gay people.  She was offered the pretty reasonable compromise of leaving all marriage certificates to her assistant clerks and having nothing to do with it, which she refused.  She is not simply saying "I object to issuing marraige licenses to gay people."  She's saying "I won't let anyone else issue marriage licenses to gay people".  

Sad thing is that this cunt is going to get out of jail and be a hero and get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak. 

If you're confused about persecution, I made a thread just for this kind of nonsense http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=207767&page=1#

I do agree the lady going to jail was dumb. She should have been fired and that's it. I think I heard she was voted in or something though so putting her in jail might have been the only recourse they had.

Standing up for your beliefs is great until you start to discriminate against other people then your just a POS.Have you ever expereined heavy discrimination? I went to school once and a kid I thought was my friend got mad once I started hanging out with other people and decided to call me the N word non stop until I hit him square in the nose. This was just one of many instances where I was killed the N word and told I was less than human and I wasn't normal. People like you are always the same througout history. You always think you have this right to keep treating people like crap and you don't care about the damage your doing to a large portion of the human population. To you going to a new clerk is the simple solution because you don't understand what it's really like to be treated like a second class citizen. The sad part about most of this is I learned to not discrinate against anyone because of what I went through yet a large portion of the Afircan American population agrees with you. Some people unfortunately just never learn from their own experiences.

Thankfully people like you are fading into history and just like we did with slave owners will laugh and bow our heads in shame at your ridiculous and out dated ideas. One day there wont be a thing such as race cause will all be so mixed we wont know what we are. Even when that day comes someone like you will come and find a new reason for why we need to treat a large portion of society like crap.

No.  Persecution is denying someone a right that others are given.  She was not denied of the right to act according to her beliefs because she does not have that right..  Nobody has that right.  There is no part of the constitution and no law in general that states you are allowed to do whatever you want whenever you want if it is due to your beliefs.  You want religious people to have this extra special right that nobody else has, and when they don't get it, you call it persecution.

If it is my belief that stealing is ok, that does not make it ok.  If Jared Fogle beliefs that it is right to have sex with children, he does not have the right to act on that belief.  If I believe that it is right to stone people to death for working on the sabbath, I cannot act on that.  If a teacher believes that black people have the curse of ham and do not want to teach them, they cannot deny them education.

We do not have the right to act according to our belief, when that action violates the rights of another.  I have the right to swing my fist, but not if your face is in the way. Your right to equal protection under the law supercedes my right to act according to my desires.

What you want is for her to have extra special rights.  Not only should she have the right to get married as she sees fit, for instance four times, but she should also be able to take away the rights of others based on this.  

I sincerely and truly belief that it is morally wrong to teach religion to children as truth.  Does that mean I should be allowed to go into a church and smack the bible out of the priest's hand?  If you call the police and they stop me, am I being persecuted? Aren't you denying me the right to act according to my beliefs?  If it's not persecution to stop me, why is it persecution for Kim Davis?  If I don't have this right, why should she?

Correct, she can't be fired, but she can be impeached by the State legislature.  Even the Governor can't fire her.  An entirely dumb system, but it does make certain someone elected by the public, can't be booted if someone higher up in the State doesn't like them (or for some other frivolous reason)