It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.....
The law gives protection to people of faith.
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.
originally posted by: diggindirt
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 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.
Kim Davis has the right, under Kentucky statutes to have a reasonable accommodation for her convictions. Why do you consistently ignore that 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.
Steve Beshear has the power to change the regulations by executive order.
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
Some form of source to your reference would be nice.
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.
Yes. Until instructed by the court to cease.
He denied the authority of the law.
And she defied instructions of the court.
She asked for clarification/accommodation/protection under the authority of law thus avoiding a charge of discrimination.
So if she violated the law, why have charges not been filed against her. You simply can't have it both ways.
originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Phage
If anything, they most likely will lose their post.
Usually scandals like this end up in such ways.