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: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Well business is business, so until businesses go out of business for their decisions, there is no point in bitching and moaning.
Yeah. Those damned blacks should have shut the hell up and let things be. Their bitching and moaning got them nowhere.
They got part of what they wanted. Nevermind that workplace and housing stuff, right?
The LGBTQ crowd got what they wanted, time to stop the crap and play nicely.
Yes. What's your point?
And if this is all about equality then EVERY race, gender or sexual orientation should have no problem having their own groups and parades.
Actually, it does make a difference. Religion does not belong in the court system. Interpretation of law, does.
Regardless of what her reasoning was, it was still based off of her personal beliefs.
Can you provide the job description which specifies that a judge is required to perform marriage ceremonies? On the other hand, issuing licenses is what a county clerk is supposed to do.
She refused to do her job just like Davis and others.
If the judge wants to exercise his beliefs, he has that right.
Actually, it is a judge's job to exercise their opinions (personal beliefs) on what the law says.
He doesn't have the right to exercise his personal belief (religious or otherwise) from the pulpit of a public office.
Issuing at their discretion is what a county clerk is supposed to do.
Yes, she does. As long as the applicants meet the legal requirements. You think a clerk decides who can and can't be married? "I don't like you. You have a funny haircut. You ain't gettin' married round here!"
There is nothing that says she HAS to issue a license.
Funny you should say that:
But, by your logic; the Oregon judge that this thread is based on, has done nothing wrong either.
Pursuant to the Kentucky Revised Statutes, County Clerks are responsible for issuing motor vehicle, marriage and vending licenses, registering voters and performing other election-related duties, storing various legal and county records, and preparing county tax bills. Under McCloud, a category-one position is a position specifically named in federal, state, county or municipal law to which discretionary authority with respect to enforcement of that law is granted -
Maybe you should have read on. Or read what that case was about in the first place.
If I am misunderstanding that then by all means point it out.
Shortly thereafter, Eldridge sent a letter to all County Clerk's office employees directing them to submit applications for rehire. In December 2006, Eldridge sent letters to Summe and seven deputy clerks who supported her campaign, notifying them that he was discontinuing their employment beginning January 1, 2007.
Enforcing the law. Not interpreting it. Not using "discretion" in it's application. The law says that applicants who meet the legal requirements are to get a license.
County Clerks are charged with enforcing the law regarding the issuance of licenses,
County Clerks presumably have discretionary authority regarding how to facilitate these numerous and varied duties. We, thus, conclude that the position of County Clerk is a McCloud category-one position.
This is an easy solution.
Get another judge.
Really? Let me quote it one more time then:
Yet, I see no where in there where that "duties" were described in the same manner that you described.
What law allows a clerk to refuse to grant a license to someone who meets the legal qualifications? Can you cite it?
County Clerks are charged with enforcing the law regarding the issuance of licenses
Yes. And it explicitly states the extent of that discretion:
It explicitly explains rather, that county clerk has discretionary authority on said duties.
County Clerks presumably have discretionary authority regarding how to facilitate these numerous and varied duties.