It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

page: 4
76
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
In citing God, she is creating an establishment of religion in her office, clearly unconstitutional. She is getting exactly what she deserves... This brings a smile to my face!




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: sycomix
Here is thought, IF she doesn't want to do the paper work because it offends her religious belief system, get in the next line.


There isn't a "next line". She is THE county clerk. There are deputy county clerks, and now that she's in jail, I'm pretty sure they will temporarily be taking over her duties.



Bunning also told five deputy clerks who work for Davis that they have until 1:45 p.m. to decide whether they will comply with his order to issue marriage licenses or join Davis in jail.


www.kentucky.com...=cpy" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source


In my town if I go to the local court house there at no less than 10 lines, in the next town over at least 5, there is more than one line and there is no way she is the only signatory for the paperwork in question.

And all of that paperwork has the clerks name on it, no matter which clerk is actually doing the paperwork. Unless... as I posted on the previous page...

It is worth noting, however, that the county’s judge executive may issue marriage licenses “in the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office.” So if Davis is absent from her position because she has been jailed, couples in her county will once again be able to obtain marriage licenses.

Then the paperwork will have the Judge Executive's name on it.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I found this on NPR as I was wondering if her going to jail would be enough to remove her from office. According to this, only the Legislature can remove her from her elected position. I would assume politics are going to play a huge role in her fate. She won her election as a Democrat, so I am not sure what the make up of the Kentucky legislature is right now. I have a feeling this story is just getting going. Here is the NPR article www.npr.org...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
In citing God, she is creating an establishment of religion in her office, clearly unconstitutional. She is getting exactly what she deserves... This brings a smile to my face!


True.

She is in violation of the 1st Amendment.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
Outstanding! The country needs to start pushing back against these religulous nutters attempting to implement their desire for theocracy.


The next step would be to publicly and thoroughly challenge Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their desire to make America a theocracy, these people clearly believe that religious conviction has more power than the Constitution and the democratic principle of separation of Church and State.

These people have all come out in support of a theocracy governed by Christian extremism, this alone should make them ineligible for public office as they are proven to be incapable of upholding the rule of law.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

We can never trust any religious theocracy.

Or can we. . . . . . . . ?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dawnstar

Yea ok. I think you may be right. I know that the issue isn't as simple as being able to say "just go to the next guy" or something like that though. Otherwise this wouldn't have become a national event.


The gay couple she is refusing are refusing to go to another county.

I think they live in that county and are making their own statement --- that they have the legal right to a marriage license where they live.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

See there is one way or another somebody else to sign off, I think jail is a bit harsh "politely" asking her step down would have been a better course of action. Now she is just gona be a martyr, nobody gets what they want that way. I don't necessarily agree with her but it is her right to avoid offense to her religious views.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
in the employer/employee relationship, the employer is obligated to accommodate religious beliefs as long as it doesn't place an undue hardship on the employer...

www.eeoc.gov...

and the determination has generally be pretty lenient on the side of the employers at to what is an undue hardship.

this is different in that it is an elected office and well, the taxpayers are in essence the employers, but well, having the deputy clerks handle the marriage licenses probably would have been the best option to accommodate her and I think that I saw where she stated that since her signature would still be on the licenses, that isn't acceptable. in other words, she wasn't just refusing to issue them, she was preventing those under her from doing so also, since well, her signature would still be on the paperwork.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
An employee has just been jailed for failing to adhere to corporate policy.

And people celebrate.

The worst that should ever happen to an employee failure is job termination.

If the actual complainants (those whose licenses she refused to sign) wish to take her to criminal/civil courts for discrimination/compensation, that would be their prerogative.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

This was a government worker, elected and/or appointed to a position. She took an oath, which isn't the same thing as the paperwork you sign at work.

She is impeding a legal process.


edit on 3-9-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
An employee has just been jailed for failing to adhere to corporate policy.

And people celebrate.

The worst that should ever happen to an employee failure is job termination.

If the actual complainants (those whose licenses she refused to sign) wish to take her to criminal/civil courts for discrimination/compensation, that would be their prerogative.


She doesn't work for a corporation. She can't be fired. Therefore, contempt of court until she complies, resigns or is impeached.
edit on 3-9-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ha ha...it's about time.

She puts the 'convict' in 'convictions.'



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
An employee has just been jailed for failing to adhere to corporate policy.

And people celebrate.

The worst that should ever happen to an employee failure is job termination.

If the actual complainants (those whose licenses she refused to sign) wish to take her to criminal/civil courts for discrimination/compensation, that would be their prerogative.


Thank you!!!! Somebody gets it!!! Star for you pal!!



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: peck420

This was a government worker, elected and/or appointed to a position. She took an oath, which isn't the same thing as the paperwork you sign at work.

She is impeding a legal process.



So what? My employees sign contracts...same as an oath. I can't jail them for failure on it. Well, apparently, just not yet.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

Government work is not the same as private sector work. Hell, even the military has it's own court system.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Klassified

See there is one way or another somebody else to sign off, I think jail is a bit harsh "politely" asking her step down would have been a better course of action. Now she is just gona be a martyr, nobody gets what they want that way. I don't necessarily agree with her but it is her right to avoid offense to her religious views.


She definitely found a way to avoid offense to her views, but not a way to avoid committing a criminal offense.


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: peck420

This was a government worker, elected and/or appointed to a position. She took an oath, which isn't the same thing as the paperwork you sign at work.

She is impeding a legal process.



So what? My employees sign contracts...same as an oath. I can't jail them for failure on it. Well, apparently, just not yet.


Your employees are not voted into office. This should not be difficult to understand. I see a few being purposefully obtuse.
edit on 3-9-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Ohh hey folks yay google, a clerk is an employee position.

www.lavote.net...

I could apply today!!!

She is a private employee of an incorporated district not elected. She is having a slew of rights violated as we bicker about details and what joe blow thinks gays should be compensated for or not. Bottom line is jail is out of line, just fire her.

EDIT: Before some wiseguy points out different county i know this already, just illustrating a point. Most cities and counties are INCORPORATED!!! (means employee)
edit on 3-9-2015 by sycomix because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join