Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: Annee

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.

Steve Beshear and Jack Conway took the same oath. They refused to uphold her rights. How are they not in jail?

Please show me where KRS 446.350 has been overturned and you'll have an argument. She did not lose her rights under Commonwealth law when she was elected to office.

You tread a very thin line here when you allow people to be jailed for their beliefs. When a few words changed on a piece of paper would solve the issue---elected officials using their authority to solve a mess created by SCOTUS. It can be done. It was done in the past. But these guys weren't looking for a solution, they were the ones looking for national press---running for office and hoping to win on this issue. Another political stunt that failed miserably.

I suppose you're okay with the Amish men being thrown in jail for indefinite periods of time because your belief is different from theirs as well. They broke the law because their faith didn't allow them to follow the law.

a reply to: diggindirt

which few words would you have changed???

a reply to: dawnstar
Take the clerk's name off the form. The only information really needed on the form is to indicate that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is issuing the license. There is no real reason to have the particular clerk's name on the form. Removing the individual name will save money in the long run since the forms won't have to changed when a new clerk is elected. The form had to be re-written after the Court's ruling anyway so why not accommodate both sides of the issue rather than just one side? Tolerance and obeying the law fulfilled---everyone is happy and productive.

originally posted by: dawnstar

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.....

And, we are not a Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic.

Majority is not the rule.

a reply to: diggindirt

The law gives protection to people of faith.

The law provides protection for people of color. Does that mean that people of color can violate white people's rights? Nope.

The law provides protection for the disabled. Does that mean that the disabled can violate the rights of people without disabilities? Nope.

The law provides protection for people with closely held beliefs systems. Does that mean that believers can violate the rights of non-believers? Nope.

a reply to: diggindirt

Take the clerk's name off the form. The only information really needed on the form is to indicate that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is issuing the license.

That's like eliminating the need for a Notary Stamp on certified documents.

Where's the accountability? Whose responsible for making sure that the people are who they say they are, that someone isn't forcing someone's 14 year old daughter to marry some old geezer for a gambling debt? Who is going to certify this marriage?

originally posted by: diggindirt
Now you are okay with putting her behind bars because her faith isn't the same as yours.

I am not okay with putting her in jail because her beliefs aren't the same as mine. That's ridiculous. She went to jail because she was found in Contempt of Court, through all proper legal channels.

She didn't lose her Constitutional rights when she was elected.

True. But she never had the right break the law or to deny others their Constitutional rights. She did both.

she refused to issue marriage licenses to anyone in order to avoid discriminating against gay people.

I never claimed otherwise.

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.

Everyone acted in accordance with the law.

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

This statute?

Kentucky's (RFRA) statute requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.
...
But in any event, if Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, she wouldn’t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty, and decline to issue such licenses at all — denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.

Sourc e

Steve Beshear has the power to change the regulations by executive order.

Perhaps. But he wasn't obligated to. He absolutely followed the law, using the exception bonded above. It was determined that denying Kim an exemption was the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest (issuing marriage licenses to citizens. As governor, he made that determination.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That is not the wording of the statute. I've posted it numerous times. You've chosen to post a commentary on the statute. Just in case you missed it, here is the actual wording:

446.3 50 Prohibition upon government substantially burdening freedom of religion -- Showing of compelling governmental interest -- Description of "burden."
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. Effective: June 25, 2013 History: Create d 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 1, effective June 25, 2013

You might want to look up the meaning of the word "shall" in a legal dictionary, something the person writing the article you sourced obviously has not done. Until this statute is challenged in a legal manner, not in a press conference held by politicians, it stands as law. You could also look up "compelling governmental interest" since this is a matter of law, not your preferences. I understand that you don't like the law, don't agree with the law if applied equally but it IS the law.

a reply to: diggindirt

And you should look up the word "unless"

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.

We'll see how it all comes out. I'm tired of arguing about it, frankly. I'm just keeping this thread updated with any new news. I'm done arguing about it.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But you see, the government in this case offered no legal argument, only a press conference. For you that might be okay but according to the law, it's not okay. We will indeed see how the courts rule and legislature acts. So far, I've not seen a bill pre-filed that would begin impeachment hearings for Mrs. Davis.
The county attorney asked that the Attorney General bring charges against her if he felt she was violating the law. He chose not to do so. So if she violated the law, why have charges not been filed against her. You simply can't have it both ways. You keep insisting that the law was followed but it clearly wasn't or she would be facing charges of failure to carry out her duties. One way or the other, he violated the law---either by failing to accommodate her or failing to bring charges against her for refusing to fulfill the duties of her office.
Since he has lost the election it wouldn't surprise me at all if he now brings charges before he hands over the reins of office to the governor's son.

a reply to: diggindirt
Do you think charges are always brought in cases where someone has violated the law? You are mistaken. Gavin Newsom, for example. Of course, he did comply with the court order so was not held in contempt.

a reply to: Phage

Some form of source to your reference would be nice.
When a county official is publicly accused of not doing the job---on nationwide TV and another county official makes an official request for action---you betcha, I expect action or an explanation of failure to act. Otherwise they aren't doing their job....see how that works.

Under the law, opinions, likes, dislikes, anger, all those emotions, don't count because we're all supposed to be equal before Lady Justice. As I've said many, many times, you can't have it both ways. If she violated the law by refusing to do her job as required by statutes, then the AG violated his job by not accommodating her or by not charging her with failure to do her duty. Do you know why he failed to do so?
(Hint: Read the statutes on the duties of her job and the penalties. www.lrc.ky.gov...
In order to violate the statutes, she had to take action in violation. In refusing to issue the license, she remained protected from prosecution until the legalities can be sorted out. There is no statute that states that she can be impeached or charged while making a legal request to resolve a legal issue.)
The dolts at the ACLU office should have done a bit more research but they knew they had an inexperienced, middle of his class judge who was eager to have his name splashed across the media. Yes, for all of the big wigs, it's politics at the sleaze level, anything to gain an apparent advantage. This time it backfired big time on one big wig. He'll be looking for a new job come December.

a reply to: diggindirt

Some form of source to your reference would be nice.

At your service:

The court said the mayor, Gavin Newsom, and city officials violated the law when they issued the certificates, since legislation and a state voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Phage
Ah yes! If it isn't my catfish noodling friend! ;^)

So if the court found them in violation, what do you suppose will happen to the mayor and other city officials?


*First time logging in from such a long hiatus.

a reply to: Arnie123
That sort of depends.
Davis defied a court order to cease and desist and was jailed.
Newsom complied and was not.

Neither was charged with a crime.

a reply to: Phage

Interesting.

If anything, they most likely will lose their post.

Usually scandals like this end up in such ways.

a reply to: Phage
It would appear to me that he took action that violated California marriage laws. In taking that unauthorized action he created a lot of heartache for a lot of people and a ton of expenses for the city it would seem to me.
He denied the authority of the law.

Mrs. Davis refused to take action that would violate statutes she had sworn to uphold (laws that did not, as many seem to assume, disappear like magic ink from the Kentucky Revised Statutes) while seeking a legal solution to a legal issue. While her inaction did indeed hurt some feelings, the petitioning couples had only to drive to the next county in order to be married if that was their goal.
She asked for clarification/accommodation/protection under the authority of law thus avoiding a charge of discrimination.

a reply to: diggindirt

He denied the authority of the law.

Yes. Until instructed by the court to cease.

She asked for clarification/accommodation/protection under the authority of law thus avoiding a charge of discrimination.

And she defied instructions of the court.

Both acted illegally according to the court. Neither was charged with a crime. Which is what you were on about here:

So if she violated the law, why have charges not been filed against her. You simply can't have it both ways.

As I said, charges are not always brought when someone violates the law. What's your point?

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Phage

Interesting.

If anything, they most likely will lose their post.

Usually scandals like this end up in such ways.

Well, Newsom is now Lt. Gov. of California isn't he? According to Wiki, he's already announced a run for governor.
Until I read the link from Phage the name had slipped my mind.
The court ruled his actions were unlawful and voided all the marriages.

We'll see how her next election plays out. She pretty much whipped her opposition a year ago in her first election.

but no one is guaranteed an accommodation to begin with! one has to consider how much of a burden accommodating the person would pose on the employer! the little stewardess how was muslim and had a problem with serving alchohol was let go because they couldn't work out an accommodation, and it would have been much easier to accommodate her than it would in this case where the clerk is an elected official for a county and by state law is the one appointed to certify marriages for that country! technically, her employer is the county gov't, whose hands were quite frankly tied by state laws! And, I do believe that the judge was trying to find a suitable way to make her somewhat happy while still having the marriage licenses issued, but she was unyielding till she spent some time in jail. oh well.... personally, I think the correct, more honorable thing for her to have done would have been to resign the post giving the reason as being her religious beliefs. I would have had a great deal of respect for her if she had done that......but, well, her beliefs weren't strong enough for her to give up that nice cushy, overly well paid job.... and, as I see it, she went against her beliefs when she chose to fight for that job.
this isn't the first time that the federal gov't has laid down laws or the supreme court has decided that laws were unconstitutional and went against the church's position on things. but, I do believe this might be the first time that elected gov't officials have created such a sideshow over it. are we gonna have women being denied voter registration next? or maybe some of the county sharriffs will decide it's against their religious views to arrest husbands when they beat the crap out of their wives. I mean one religious belief can't justify an accommodation while any others are being denied can they? and, it's obvious that some here would rather we reject the standard that has been used thus far in deciding on what should determine weather or not an accommodation should be granted, since well, the standard has been just how inconvenient it would be accommodate.