Does anyone else get the feeling that Kim Davis is just a blatant attention maven?<p>Her job description: public servant. This means she SERVES. The PUBLIC. If she no longer wishes to do so (because, say, she morally disagrees with the public) that&#x27;s fine. But her job description is defined by the public, not according to the beliefs of individual servants.<p>She was faced with a choice: either do the job she doesn&#x27;t like, or leave (or transfer), or... petition the Supreme Court to recraft the law to her will. And she chose that one. Wow.<p>As a military member, my boss&#x27;s boss&#x27;s (x6) boss is the President. When I don&#x27;t like a job my boss gives me (and his boss tells me to shut up and color as well), what would you think of me jumping my chain of command and asking the President to put my boss in his place?<p>The audacity of this woman is staggering.<p>But... on the other hand...<p>What if she were fulfilling her duty as a public servant to disobey unjust laws? Again, as a military member, it is my duty to disobey an unlawful order, and it&#x27;s on me to determine when an order is unlawful.<p>Would you think she was an attention maven if you agreed with her? Or would you think her possessed of a superior moral strength and commendable motivation?
Kim Davis: Attention maven? Or misguided conscientious objector?