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: 57
76
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Her job is to serve drinks, she should have known this and not taken the job If she feels so strongly about it.
My guess is she like Davis is trying to make a few bucks.




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Was waiting for someone to post something about this.

Are we really going to compare a gov official with a flight attendant?
Other attendant can serve the drinks, the clerks can not give out the licences.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

With that I say tough luck. If the airline accommodates her religious beliefs it would mean someone else would have to do her job. The law says the employer has to accommodate her to a reasonable extent and I do not think burdening someone else is reasonable.


I have to disagree with you though because I do not think the cases are similar at all.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

the key words are reasonable accommodation, of which the little clerk was offered that, to let her deputies process the marriage licenses. she refused that.

as far as the flight attendant, it kind of sounds like they tried to accommodate her but it caused strife with her co-workers, so well it might be said they tried but it didn't work out. the reporter asked her lawyer several times if the flight attendant would be willing to accept another job at the company that didn't require her to serve alcohol, and it didn't sound like she was willing to me... another position in the company would have been a reasonable accommodation.

for the most part they've been pretty lenient in favor of the employers when it comes to this, so I kind of think the flight attendant won't get what she wants.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Something's weird about that case... From the link:



About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.


She converted to Islam and wasn't aware until a year later that her faith doesn't allow drinking or touching alcohol??? How did she miss that in her conversion? Something fishy there...

Seems a disgruntled coworker brought the suit. There's more going on there than we know, I think.

It will be an interesting case to watch.

But it is a private sector job, and things are a bit different there. If a cashier doesn't want to touch alcohol or a server doesn't want to serve it, as long as other arrangements can be easily made I don't see a problem with a religious accommodation.

I would have supported Kim Davis allowing her deputies to issue the marriage licenses she wasn't comfortable with. But she forbade them.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




I would have supported Kim Davis allowing her deputies to issue the marriage licenses she wasn't comfortable with. But she forbade them.



That is what really destroyed her in court. She could have delegated it to others instead she set precedent, inacted her own law in the office which is in direct violation of the constitution.

Her son still works in the office and refuses to process marriage licenses for same sex couples, but he will not get in trouble for it because he isn't stopping others.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   


Seems a disgruntled coworker brought the suit. There's more going on there than we know, I think.
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

maybe it was a tough flight with a bunch of alcoholic passengers on it who all just wanted their drinks and while one stewardess ran her butt off through the flight trying to make everyone happy, the other didn't have much else to do but sit in the back and twiddle her thumbs. who knows.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   


The 1857 Dred Scott decision is widely viewed as the worst Supreme Court ruling in history. In it, the Court ruled that no one with African ancestry could be a citizen of the United States and voided prior legislation that had blocked the expansion of slavery into parts of the country. Huckabee, like some other conservatives, argued that a 19th-century ruling requiring discrimination against black people is similar to a 21st-century ruling barring discrimination against LGBT people.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Is he for real?




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: wayforward

She was given ample opportunity to rectify the situation. She KNEW jail was a very possible consequence. She CHOOSE not to comply. This is a problem of her own making.
There is nothing to rectify. She was following what she believed was right, without specifically hurting anyone. Its true she failed to help gay people in the way they wanted help getting married, but failure to help someone in the way they wish to get help should not be considered something that makes someone a dangerous person worthy of jailing. Rather, it makes them a disagreeable person. And those who punish her for such a trivial problem them self deserve prison. The judge who put her in jail should go to prison for his injustice.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: wayforward

I haven't once said I am happy this woman went to jail. I think she should have:
1. Permitted her staff to issue marriage licenses OR
2. Stepped down because her beliefs and her commitment to the people that elected her and pay her salary were incompatible.

I'm happy when dangerous people are put in jail. If you aren't happy she is in jail, then maybe there is a conflict in your belief system that you have not considered. I'd be quite happy if the judge who imprisoned her without a trial would himself be placed in prison, as he is clearly a dangerous man. Dangerous people, and only dangerous people, belong in jail.

If you lock someone in a cage over work quality issues, you are violating people's human rights. The judge in this fiasco did exactly that, which makes him a threat to society. That is a fundamental principle I have based on the risk that some-day I may morally object to helping someone because I view that person's values as harmful to society. If that happens, I would be proud of my behaviors and not expect to be punished in any way for them, even if a judge threatens to violate my rights over it.

The people who elected her and pay her salary, by definition, support what she is doing. If you vote for someone, you support them and their values. If they don't like it, then they should stop paying her salary.

She should not permit her staff to do things she views to be immoral. People who are dangerous belong in jail. People who are not dangerous, do not belong in jail. This is simple, and should also be obvious, but it isn't. So tell me, what is putting someone who isn't dangerous supposed to achieve? To punish them for something they will never perceive as wrong? What is that supposed to do? It won't change their mind. It will make them bitter that such injustice can occur in a supposedly civilized society.

And no, we do not live in a civilized society. Our society isn't civil. Our society isn't moral. Our society isn't ethical. Our society isn't fair. And you wish to give this society the power to jail people for failing to do their assigned tasks? You clearly have great faith in the criminals in charge of things. If you have ever known a judge personally, you'd know not to entrust them with being able to jail people over not obeying their commands.

To me, "do as I say or you go to jail", or contempt of court, is absolute dictatorship. When one man can put anyone they wish in jail for life, that is a problem. And the sick part is that this does happen. People have DIED IN JAIL for refusing to say what the judge wanted them to say. Died. But apparently that is the cost of being a good subject to your overlords so that people comply with your authoritarian utopia. If people have to die so that you can feel slightly better about work quality, I guess that is just worth it to you. But it isn't principle, and it isn't practical. Its simply you bullying people into submission.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: BubbaJoe

If my employer doesn't have the right to imprison me over failure to perform a work duty, then neither does any government employer. Why should our rights not be equal? If someone has the principle that it is okay to imprison people over failing to do a job according to a certain standard, then I'm fine with that person going to prison for not doing a job according to spec. But otherwise, I consider it an extremely harmful thing to do to someone.


Apparently you have never spent time in the military, they can take action against you for something as little as getting a sunburn that causes you to miss a formation, I spent 7 years under those rules. Her employer has not jailed her, a court did for defying them, just like they can jail you or I for defying a court order. This woman is fighting a losing battle, and should take her evangelical christian BS back to church where it belongs, it does not belong in our government, federal, state or local. She is sitting her fat behind in jail because she denied another US citizen their rights guaranteed to them by the constitution.

If this woman signed a contract waiving her rights, then please link that to me as evidence in your favor. If someone joins the military, they are basically signing away every right they have and the government owns them as an indentured servant. That is a relationship of subjection and inequality. Its a religiously zealous commitment to cult leader uncle Sam, the new religion replacing government. I would say that if they wish to end the contract, the contract should be ended, and so I view it as a violation of rights to hold someone to a contract when they wish to terminate it, because at that point it is a civil matter and should not be a criminal matter.

The idea of contempt of court where you must obey a judge regardless of any law, regardless of common sense, regardless of anything, and simply do what he tells you or go to jail, is a dictatorship. US courts are a dictatorship, and that's seriously wrong. If you think its a good idea that one man can simply put someone in jail without a trial for life, then we are truly nothing alike when it comes to politics on just about any issue. My politics are based on the principle of equal rights and maximum liberties.

What she is doing, civil disobedience, belongs governments everywhere. If you don't think what you are doing is moral, don't do it. And if your employer doesn't like it, they can stop paying you money. Personally I'm neutral on the subject because I don't think anyone should get a marriage license from the government. Its none of the government business who or what I have personal relationships with. I can have a relationship with whoever I want to, and I should not have to ask government permission for a relationship.

You can always count on God to provide your needs.
You can always count on Uncle Sam to provide your needs.
You can always count on God to take care of you and keep you safe.
You can always count on Uncle Sam to take care of you and keep you safe.
When worried about anything, make a prayer for relief to God.
When worried about anything, make a prayer for relief to Uncle Sam. (web search: "prayer for relief")
If we put our faith in God, good things will come.
If we put our faith in Uncle Sam, good things will come.
We cannot have X without God. Roads, schools, jobs, you name it.
We cannot have X without Uncle Sam. Roads, schools, jobs, you name it.
Faith alone.
Faith alone.

I am not exactly a man of faith, so when the government wants to put someone in jail, I've to be convinced they actually are a danger to others. People who are not a danger to others don't belong in jail. People who are a danger to others do belong in jail.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: wayforward

1. To be precise, I offered Biblical proof that Kim is not following the directives/commandments/beliefs of the Christian religion, i.e. she is following her own beliefs, not Christian beliefs.

2. I can't help you with your flawed interpretation of our legal system.

3. Your employee is not an officer of a Court nor an elected official of a County or City. Different rules apply. See #2.

Where we would agree is that people who are a danger to others belong in jail. Now show me the slightest shred of evidence that putting people who are not a danger to others in jail is helpful in any respect at all.

If you have found a flaw in my understanding of law, then I welcome you to be specific about the flaw and I'll correct it.

In a society where everyone is equal, different rights do not apply to different people unless they have waived their rights and wish to continue the contract they are under that waives their rights. If they wish to discontinue the contract, that would be another story.

More importantly, you don't seem to have a problem that assigns the role of absolute dictator to judges where they issue any order to anyone they want, and if they don't follow that order then they go to jail. Its point blank a tyranny, is it not. If a tyranny is where some guy says an order and you've got to follow it or face life in prison without a trial, then that seems to be the case with modern court systems. The idea of allowing a judge such powers is unfair, unjust, unequal, unsuccessful in its missions, and otherwise wrong.

There are different rules for government workers as private workers. Do we have different rights too? One set of rights for the ruling class, and another set of rights for the subjects of that elite class?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


It will make them bitter that such injustice can occur in a supposedly civilized society.


The clerk was already a bitter woman blinded by her religious beliefs. She brought this on herself. She deified the law, she was given a chance to do the right thing, however she chose to ignore the law. The clerk is not above the Supreme Court.

If she does not want to do her job for what ever reason, then she needs to remove herself.


She should not permit her staff to do things she views to be immoral.


Her religious beliefs are her's and she has no right imposing her religious beliefs on anyone else, however she did. She knew if anyone would not go along with her and her "beliefs" they would most likely be fired.

Seems to me she was very controlling, drunk on her own power trip.


Its simply you bullying people into submission.


Just like the clerk imposing her views to the other clerks into submission or lose their jobs.
She was not complying with the law. Here's how I see it it, she was running her office like her very own concentration camp drunk with to much power. She is a control freak, high on herself in my opinion.

She is a very stubborn woman, I don't think for one minuet she thought she would end up in jail, that is how arrogant she is.
The clerk is not above the laws of the land period. She put herself in this situation. If she didn't want to give marriage licence to gay people she should have resigned it was that simple.

She got what she deserved. That is why Religion and States are separate.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward



Now show me the slightest shred of evidence that putting people who are not a danger to others in jail is helpful in any respect at all.


Have you not read the reason given by the judge?

Fining her will not help as her supporters will pay for it anyway. So it is not a punishment for disobeying the supreme court's ruling.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Have you not read the reason given by the judge?


Does this really need to be asked? Come on. I had to stop myself from responding to that travesty of a rant a couple times because I know it will not cross the blood brain barrier.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   
How to Silence Kim Davis Supporters

Enough said.....

edit on 7.9.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

I always loved that scene, THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!! Relevant and AWESOME!!!!!



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: wayforward
She was following what she believed was right, without specifically hurting anyone.


Denying someone their legal rights is most definitely hurting them.



Its true she failed to help gay people in the way they wanted help getting married, but failure to help someone in the way they wish to get help should not be considered something that makes someone a dangerous person worthy of jailing.


Firstly, she didn't just deny gay people. She denied straight people, too. The plaintiffs were gay AND straight.
Secondly, No one is claiming she's a "dangerous person" that would PHYSICALLY harm someone, but she is dangerous.
Finally, her job isn't to "help" people. She is to issue licenses. Not "help them" get married.


originally posted by: wayforward
I'd be quite happy if the judge who imprisoned her without a trial would himself be placed in prison, as he is clearly a dangerous man.


You don't have to have a trial to be put in jail. Contempt is a jail-able offense. And you CLEARLY have some ignorance about the law.



If you lock someone in a cage over work quality issues, you are violating people's human rights.


That's not what happened. I haven't seen ANY complaints about the quality of her work. Her rights are intact. You're making up a fantasy about this case and you couldn't be more wrong. Study the law a little and then maybe we can talk.


People who are dangerous belong in jail. People who are not dangerous, do not belong in jail. This is simple,


Nice black and white thinking, but incorrect, I'm afraid. Your BELIEFS about our justice system are far more simplistic than reality. The FACTS do not support your beliefs.



So tell me, what is putting someone who isn't dangerous supposed to achieve?


To STOP her from abusing her elected position to dictate denial of rights to citizens of Kentucky. And it was successful, as the citizens (gay and straight) of Rowan County are marrying again. They haven't been permitted licenses since July. Now, they are. That's what it was supposed to achieve and that's what it achieved!

edit on 9/7/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: wayforward
If this woman signed a contract waiving her rights, then please link that to me as evidence in your favor.


She not only signed a contract, she took an OATH, to do her job and uphold the Constitution.


My politics are based on the principle of equal rights and maximum liberties.


So, you support marriage equality?


If you don't think what you are doing is moral, don't do it. And if your employer doesn't like it, they can stop paying you money.


You do realize she CANNOT be fired, right? Unless she agrees to obey the law, OR STEP DOWN, she will be impeached, but not until January, when Kentucky's legislature meets.



I am not exactly a man of faith, so when the government wants to put someone in jail, I've to be convinced they actually are a danger to others.


If someone with governmental powers denies people their legal rights, they are dangerous. If a representative of government denied your legal right to speak your mind, own a gun, your citizenship, your right to vote, etc., they are a danger to us and our society.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
okay, I've found a problem, a major problem here....

on the one hand we have this clerk, a judge, and probably a few more, along with a bunch of others claiming that the gov't, the employer in these cases are denying them their religious rights by demanding they do their job.....

while at the other hand....
the christian businesses seem to think that they, as employers should be able to freely discriminate and the gov't is going against their religious freedom if they put a string on gov't money without an exemption for their religious beliefs that they say allows them to discriminate. ...





Obama encouraged to end religious hiring exemption

When the George W. Bush administration allowed an evangelical organization in 2007 to hire only members of its own religion to work on a government contract, Sen. Barack Obama criticized the decision, saying taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize discrimination in hiring, and that he would end it if elected president.

But Obama’s Justice Department has followed the same policy, and it is now being invoked by religious organizations that have applied for federal funds while refusing to hire gays or lesbians, offer accommodations to transgender employees, or provide information to minors about abortion or contraception. Groups promoting civil rights for minorities, women and the LGBT community say it’s time for the president to act.

www.sfchronicle.com...


please tell me, what is the difference between the gov't telling someone to either do the job that they were elected to do, regardless of your personal beliefs, and a christian organization telling an applicant for a job that probably wouldn't even exist without the gov't funding that you have to believe the same way as me if you want the job!!!


edit on 7-9-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
76
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join