Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: diggindirt

Clearly, the US Supreme created a mell of a hess when they once again over-stepped their authority and ruled on a matter clearly delegated to state legislatures.

This is where you are wrong. The Supreme Court's job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, state and federal. They ruled that the state's constitutional amendment was "UNCONSTITUTIONAL", therefore, the "matter" was always an unconstitutional "matter".

As far as you believing this is a "state's rights" issue, I refer to the federal Civil Rights Act.

It isn't the first time I've believed that the US Supremes overstepped their authority. I could do a whole list of rulings with which I disagree but that would be derailing.
What people beating up on Mrs. Davis refuse to acknowledge is the fact that a state statute provides protection for her religious beliefs---and she was denied that protection by the governor, the AG and the Federal Judge. That statute has never been challenged.
So why are the governor and AG not just as guilty as is she for refusing to follow the law? Why has the Federal Judge not "ordered" the governor and AG to follow the law?

has there been previous instances where the us supreme court has decided something to be unconstitutional where the state constitution and laws have been made unconstitutional by the decision? if they have, anyone know weather the changes were made from the top down (changes in consitution and laws first) or down to the top (ie: the country clerks to the constitution.) I'm just asking because it does seem like the next action to have been taken after the supreme court decision should have been at the state level, and quite frankly, maybe the little county clerks, or the counties themselves, couldn't legally do anything till they did maybe???

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: SprocketUK

Actually, you seem to understand the situation perfectly. Yes, Davis took an oath to uphold the Constitution and obey the law. Interestingly, she took the job, knowing that marriage equality would soon likely become the law of the land, so she had it in her head to obstruct the law when she took the oath.

Yes, we have been pretty strong in separation of church and state. Problem is, there is a very wealthy and influential religious contingent here in the US that is determined to strong-arm the law to be more reflective of "Christian values". They've convinced themselves that separation of church and state is for wimps, heathens and heretics or something. They abhor the thought of Sharia Law (which applies ONLY to Muslims), but do their best to legally enforce Christian Law, that would apply to ALL citizens.

It's an interesting time to be alive in the US, that's for sure!

It's good to know of your mind-reading abilities---

Interestingly, she took the job, knowing that marriage equality would soon likely become the law of the land, so she had it in her head to obstruct the law when she took the oath.

Could it be that she believed that she was protected under the Kentucky statute cited above?
Please explain to me how she could read the minds of the Supreme Court and lay her plans to become a national sensation? I don't remember seeing where she claimed to have the supernatural powers you are claiming to possess?

a reply to: diggindirt

Well as I've stated before Marriage Equality has Always been legal under the constitution, it's just States and people decided to ignore it. so she did take the Job with Same-sex Marriage being Legal... besides the point, she was hired to do a Job and is trying to use Religion and Her Job to shield her Discrimination

originally posted by: dawnstar
has there been previous instances where the us supreme court has decided something to be unconstitutional where the state constitution and laws have been made unconstitutional by the decision? if they have, anyone know weather the changes were made from the top down (changes in consitution and laws first) or down to the top (ie: the country clerks to the constitution.) I'm just asking because it does seem like the next action to have been taken after the supreme court decision should have been at the state level, and quite frankly, maybe the little county clerks, or the counties themselves, couldn't legally do anything till they did maybe???

It's really simple. 14th Amendment: The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

Marriage must be allowed for everyone.

It was legal error when blacks were excluded. It was legal error when gays were excluded.

Nothing changed. No new laws were enacted.

Only recognition of error in excluding some persons. When ALL are equal under the law.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: diggindirt

Well as I've stated before Marriage Equality has Always been legal under the constitution, it's just States and people decided to ignore it. so she did take the Job with Same-sex Marriage being Legal... besides the point, she was hired to do a Job and is trying to use Religion and Her Job to shield her Discrimination

I'm not entirely sure I follow that...
I understand that she must follow the law, the dictate of SCOTUS, she understands that as well. She was fully aware of the Court's ruling and implications. That's why she sought protection under the state statute that guarantees her religious freedom outranks the whim of the state.

I'll post it again, in case you missed it.
www.lrc.ky.gov...

...
The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.

As I've said, time and time again, I have no issue with gay marriage---none. I have an issue with a governor and an AG who didn't follow the law while demanding that she do so.
Tuesday's election showed pretty clearly what the voters of the Commonwealth thought of the AG.

With a Republican governor and Senate, perhaps they will be able to get this sorted out quickly in January.
There are even rumblings already that the Democrat majority in the house could be threatened by desertions in view of this massive defeat.
I believe there is at least one pre-filed bill but I haven't had a chance to peruse it.

Edit to Add: Just took a quick peek here: www.lrc.ky.gov...

at the pre-filed bills and found this one:

BR 154 - Representative David Hale, Representative James Tipton (08/13/15)
AN ACT related to marriage and making an appropriation therefor.
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 213 to move marriage licensing and recording duties from county clerks to the state registrar of vital statistics, to allow a fee of $35.50 for licenses, and to provide for the transfer of existing marriage records; amend KRS 344.130, 402.050, and 446.350 to exempt persons, officials, and institutions with religious objections to same-sex marriage from any requirement to solemnize such marriages; amend KRS 47.110, 64.012, 142.010, 209.160, 213.116, 402.080, 402.100, 402.110, 402.210, 402.220, 402.230, and 402.990 to conform; repeal KRS 402.240 which allows county judges/executive to issue marriage licenses in the absence of a county clerk; repeal KRS 402.170 which requires county clerks to distribute marriage manuals; EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2017. (Prefiled by the sponsor(s).)

a reply to: diggindirt

I understand that she must follow the law, the dictate of SCOTUS, she understands that as well. She was fully aware of the Court's ruling and implications. That's why she sought protection under the state statute that guarantees her religious freedom outranks the whim of the state.

I'll post it again, in case you missed it.

Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion
from programs or access to facilities

I believe that government has met its burden here.

a reply to: windword

By refusing to acknowledge her requests? By flouting the law of the Commonwealth?
IF there is no defense for her not following the law, there is no defense for the governor and AG. Gooses and ganders, you know...

She asked for protection under Kentucky law. The AG is statutorily required to enforce Kentucky's Revised Statutes and yet he refused to do so. Rather than offer that protection, violated her rights by refusing her protection under a law with which he disagreed. Same for the governor. And yet she is the one who ended up in jail?
Shouldn't the governor and the AG be doing a bit of time in the crossbar-hotel as well? The law they disregarded has not been overturned by any court.

She acted under color of Kentucky law. They did not. That's my opinion. We'll see what the Black Robed Tribe thinks of it soon enough I suppose. She was left with no legal recourse except to file the request for a stay until the mess could be sorted. Had the governor and AG simply followed the law, granted her rights by executive order, none of this would have occupied the headlines. Even the AG's tears on tv couldn't convince the voters that he wouldn't stand by and watch as people of faith were hauled off to jail.

originally posted by: diggindirt

She asked for protection under Kentucky law.

And AGAIN, her request was denied because she was not burdened.

Nothing in her job description changed.

Her responsibility is to verify clerical information.

a reply to: diggindirt

By refusing to acknowledge her requests?

Her requests were for the government to change the system, not for her to be accommodated in a different setting, where she wouldn't be required to violate her faith. That's an undue burden on the state and its citizens. Accommodation doesn't mean what you think it does.

Consider the accommodations that the law requires for the disabled. Does that mean that a cocktail waitress who has lost the use of her legs should be able to require the restaurant to refit the bar and back restaurant area to accommodate her wheel chair?

Protection has nothing to do with fact that her situation changed and she no longer wanted to do her job. Demanding that legislators change the system in place, and into which she was elected, and the protocols designated by law for the performance of her job, in order to accommodate her unwillingness to perform her duties is not "protection" either.

We seem to differ on the meaning of the words "accommodation" and "protection" as they pertain to this case.

a reply to: windword
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry but I don't see the parallel to accommodating the handicapped. The Kentucky statue is very clear. It has never been challenged and it does not pertain to marriage but employment. No court, Federal or State has ever reviewed it. Therefore it stands as statute law as passed by the legislature.
The governor and AG saying at a press conference that they don't think she has a valid argument does not fulfill the requirement to present "clear and convincing evidence" that the government is exercising the least restrictive means of accomplishing their purpose.
Just as the Commonwealth couldn't force Amish people to violate their beliefs in order to travel on public roadways, they should not be able to compel her to violate her religious beliefs in order to perform the duties of the office to which she was elected.
Jack Conway and Steve Beshear were okay with people sitting in jail for their religious beliefs. I'm not okay with that any more than I'm in favor of putting people in jail because of their gender, their color, their sexual preference or any other pretext that doesn't involve harm to other people.

a reply to: diggindirt

Jack Conway and Steve Beshear were okay with people sitting in jail for their religious beliefs. I'm not okay with that any more than I'm in favor of putting people in jail because of their gender, their color, their sexual preference or any other pretext that doesn't involve harm to other people.

Well, I'm not okay with the religious trying to legislate around laws, so they can exempt themselves from, and place themselves above the law of the land. Its harmful to society and to those they seek to alienate and shun.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Jack Conway and Steve Beshear were okay with people sitting in jail for their religious beliefs.

Jack Conway and Steve Beshear had nothing to do with Davis going to jail, and neither did her religious beliefs. She BROKE THE LAW. That's the ONLY reason she was in jail.

I'm not okay with that any more than I'm in favor of putting people in jail because of their gender, their color, their sexual preference or any other pretext that doesn't involve harm to other people.

Denying people their Constitutional rights DOES involve harm to other people.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Please explain to me how she could read the minds of the Supreme Court and lay her plans to become a national sensation? I don't remember seeing where she claimed to have the supernatural powers you are claiming to possess?

I don't remember seeing where I claimed that she had supernatural powers, so you're making that up.

Flavis McKinney is a retired sawmill worker. He says he's known Davis for nearly 30 years, and he thinks she's doing a great job.

MCKINNEY: She told me before she was elected. It was, you know, passing in other states and stuff. She said, I can't do it if, you know, she was elected to office, if it come to Kentucky. She said, I just can't do it, being the will of God.

Source

a reply to: diggindirt

someone HAS to issue marriage licenses in the state, and it's the state that gets to decide just which office gets to handle that responsibility.

and this:

BR 154 - Representative David Hale, Representative James Tipton (08/13/15)
AN ACT related to marriage and making an appropriation therefor.
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 213 to move marriage licensing and recording duties from county clerks to the state registrar of vital statistics, to allow a fee of $35.50 for licenses, and to provide for the transfer of existing marriage records; amend KRS 344.130, 402.050, and 446.350 to exempt persons, officials, and institutions with religious objections to same-sex marriage from any requirement to solemnize such marriages; amend KRS 47.110, 64.012, 142.010, 209.160, 213.116, 402.080, 402.100, 402.110, 402.210, 402.220, 402.230, and 402.990 to conform; repeal KRS 402.240 which allows county judges/executive to issue marriage licenses in the absence of a county clerk; repeal KRS 402.170 which requires county clerks to distribute marriage manuals; EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2017. (Prefiled by the sponsor(s).)

seems to just shift the burden onto another office, on the state level...what if the person who you are shifting that burden to has the same religious objection?

and then there's this, taken from the vital statistics site:

Marriage licenses are issued in the county clerk's office in each county. If you have any questions, please contact the county clerk's office in your area. Both bride and groom must appear together to get a license. Licenses are valid for 30 days from the date of issuance and the license fee is non-refundable. The license must be used within the state of Kentucky.

I am aware that a part of this will be changes, but will they change the part that states that both bride and groom must appear together to get the license? I mean, I am pretty sure they had good reason to have it like that to begin with.....it probably has prevented a few people from being married without their consent. So would people now have to travel to Frankfort, KY to obtain a license? For some people, that would be over a three hour drive one way.....do they expect people to spend a day driving to get a marriage license? who wouldn't consider that a hefty burden? you sure the heck aren't gonna be able to take a few hours off work to get it now are you...it's gonna be a whole day of lost wages for two people, just to get a license. I don't think that the legislators, or the people of kentucky are gonna find this acceptable so I suspect that either they will take out the requirement that you have to present yourselves, and will you either fax or mail you documentation to them. most government agencies now will either want the originals, with the gov't seals on them, no copies, so I doubt if faxing them will be good enough. or, they will open up little outlet offices across the state, or designate certain country offices to at least help them with certifying who you are.....which will lead us right back to where we are now... people having a fit, because their job duties are making them help gay couples to marry. heck the little sisters are having a fit and heading to the supreme court because they have to sign a little paper stating their religious objections to the obamacare mandate claiming they have a religious objection to that one, so I got a feeling that ya, they will have a problem just certifying that the people are who they are claiming to be for the state registrar. the only way around this would be to offer this service for all the people who need to certify their identity for all the many agencies from welfare to social security, to veterans administration, ect. and well, let the clerks to it blind and with no knowledge of just what the purpose is for. then link the certification up by computer at a later time. after waiting over a month for my marriage certificate to be returned to me from social security fretting over weather they lost it or not, I would go for this solution, but hey, it might just be an overly burdensome deal for the taxpayer.

a reply to: dawnstar

The law gives protection to people of faith. I'm sorry you don't understand or accept that but it is the law.

As for the alienation and shunning---isn't that exactly what you are doing by mocking people of faith by saying they are attempting to exempt themselves and place themselves above the law. I've seen far more vile comments about people of faith over the past few months than I've ever seen/heard about any other single group.
They seek legal protection according to the law---passed by the legislature and NEVER challenged. If you don't like the law you need to work to change it, not ignore it as our governor and AG have attempted to do. I'm sorry that you can't see that it was their actions that put this issue before the country. One executive order following the SCOTUS decision would have avoided this. If you knew anything at all about Kentucky politics you would realize the origins of this whole debacle....sigh.

a reply to: dawnstar

Take up your objections to the bill with the sponsor. I didn't write it, just presented it as the first I found when perusing the list of pre-filed bills.
Before you go all rabid about what the people of Kentucky will or won't accept you might want to take a good, hard look at the results of the election held on Tuesday. The guy who said he supports the religious freedom act and abolishing the Kentucky version of ObamaCare was elected by a wide margin over the candidate who refused to accommodate her under current law, who refused to do his constitutional duty to defend Kentucky's marriage laws. Maybe they saw some hypocrisy in him telling Mrs. Davis to do her job despite her convictions when he had refused to do his for the very same reason?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: dawnstar

The law gives protection to people of faith. I'm sorry you don't understand or accept that but it is the law.

The Constitution gives everyone the right to believe (or not).

It does not give them the right to break the law.

It does not give them the right to prevent others from their Constitutional rights.

Kim swore to uphold the Constitution.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

...
Jack Conway and Steve Beshear had nothing to do with Davis going to jail, and neither did her religious beliefs.

From your source:

BARTON: Carpenter says Davis is a, quote, "super, super nice lady." Even though he doesn't agree with her views, he feels sorry for her.
CARPENTER: It's actually what she believes. She's not doing it for publicity or any crazy stunt. It's - that's what's in her heart.
BARTON: Carpenter says he can't imagine Davis backing down, and she's given no sign that she will.

So she was up-front about her beliefs. She got elected. The law was abolished by the Court. Now you are okay with putting her behind bars because her faith isn't the same as yours. She didn't lose her Constitutional rights when she was elected.
She also didn't refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay people as indicated in your source. Once again, the press got it just slightly skewed---she refused to issue marriage licenses to anyone in order to avoid discriminating against gay people. Her legal attempt to get a stay until the fine points could be worked out and the printing on the licenses changed was met with contempt by people who should have known better and should have acted in accordance with the law.

Denying people their Constitutional rights DOES involve harm to other people.

Kim Davis has the right, under Kentucky statutes to have a reasonable accommodation for her convictions. Why do you consistently ignore that statute?

Steve Beshear has the power to change the regulations by executive order. He had the obligation to follow the law even if he didn't agree with it, even if it was a law he had vetoed. Jack Conway was statutorily obligated to defend the Marriage Act when it was challenged in court----because it was law---he broke the law by not doing so. Therefore, it is Steve Beshear and Jack Conway who have put themselves above the law, refused to acknowledge the law with the end result being that Mrs. Davis was jailed.
If we are all equal before the law, logic says they should also be in jail.
They took a calculated political risk in refusing to follow the statute. They lost. The citizens spoke clearly on Tuesday when they elected the guy who promised to support people of faith.

a reply to: diggindirt
to an extent it does.... but only to an extent.
employers, of which I would consider the country gov't to be the county clerk's employer only has to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs to the point where it's not overly burdensome to them.
there's been many times when the decision has fallen on the side of the employer on this kind of issue.
so well, one has to consider, just to what extreme the county would have to go to if they were to provide that exemption to the clerk. the law that you posted, to me, doesn't seem to fit that bill. it would either be more prone to fraud, or it would be too burdensome on the taxpayers in kentucky.

as far as who the people voted for this time around, well, that's there business, but I would hope that they voted with more consideration than just the gay issue.....