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.

 

Kim Davis... Gay Marriage... Religious Freedom Restoration Act... Reasonable Accommodations...

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The law was applied fairly. If you think an injustice was committed here then we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I mean, I'm not going to budge 1 inch here. Davis is wrong. You appear to think otherwise, I can't seem to say anything to get you to budge either. So we are at an impasse.




posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


The Federal RFRA excludes elected officials.


Sorry -- I didn't get notified of this comment. I wasn't ignoring you!

To the point though, the Title VII statues exclude elected officials; the RFRA does not exclude elected officials. I know... it's a big quagmire.


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.


Again, this just reinforces my concerns. Note the weasel words: "if" Davis has federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses... But she does not. There is no Constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses at all to anyone by anyone. There is a Constitutional duty to apply the law equally.... therefore, because Kentucky has laws regarding the issuance of marriage licenses, there is a Constitutional duty to apply the law equally. Equal application of the law is the compelling interest.

At the same time, the governing authorities in Kentucky had a legal duty to respect and consider Ms. Davis' rights to reasonable accommodations under the RFRA. Her request was obviously not unreasonable and did not constitute an undue hardship because the state did EXACTLY what she requested: Her name was removed from the forms.


So, there may be a case to remove her name from the forms under the Kentucky RFRA, but not the federal RFRA.


I believe she is allowed reasonable accommodations under both:


The federal government also has a RFRA, which may apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials.

Such RFRAs are narrower than Title VII (they apply only to the government) but also broader (they apply not just to employment but to all government action). Nothing in them exempts accommodation claims by elected officials. Moreover, the 1963-90 Free Exercise Clause rules that the RFRAs were meant to restore included protections for elected officials, see McDaniel v. Paty (1978); though McDaniel involved a rule that discriminated against religious practice, the plurality opinion treated it as a standard religious exemption request.



So if Kim Davis does indeed go through the state courts, and ask for a modest exemption under the state RFRA — simply to allow her to issue marriage licenses (opposite-sex or same-sex) without her name on them — she might indeed prevail.


This is exactly what the state has done... they just refused to do it in a timely manner... and Ms. Davis paid the price. I cannot say Ms. Davis "prevailed," since it was done without being court ordered though.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
So, when one party demands and/or forces another party to do something against their will, they are encroaching on the other's rights.


The law (the Constitution) is the only party "forcing" Kim Davis to EITHER do something against her will OR quit her job.


originally posted by: Boadicea
I don't necessarily disagree... in effect, others were inconvenienced, delayed, obstructed, etc.


No, their civil rights were DENIED. It's not a matter of inconvenience.



But the stated -- if not intended -- purpose of Ms. Davis' actions were not to deny others their rights, but simply to protect her rights.


And the purpose of the couple's actions was not to deny others their religious rights, but simply to exercise their rights.

I still don't know what right of Kim Davis was violated... She doesn't have the right to use her authority to prohibit her deputies from issuing marriage licenses.



But I have to say -- again -- that all of this should have been addressed and rectified (one way or another) by the governor as is his duty, instead of ignoring a County Clerk's objections.


Her "objections" were denying rights to fellow citizens. How long should she be permitted to do that? She's been doing it for several months now...



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

The law was applied fairly. If you think an injustice was committed here then we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I mean, I'm not going to budge 1 inch here. Davis is wrong. You appear to think otherwise, I can't seem to say anything to get you to budge either. So we are at an impasse.


You're right... I'm not going to budge either.

For the record though, I'm not supporting Davis... I am supporting due process and equal application of the law. It may seem a moot point... and it's definitely a fine line... but it is what it is.

If it's any consolation, I would do the same for you or anyone, whether I agreed with your position or not, because... well... it embiggens all of us!



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

The law was applied fairly. If you think an injustice was committed here then we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I mean, I'm not going to budge 1 inch here. Davis is wrong. You appear to think otherwise, I can't seem to say anything to get you to budge either. So we are at an impasse.


You're right... I'm not going to budge either.

For the record though, I'm not supporting Davis... I am supporting due process and equal application of the law. It may seem a moot point... and it's definitely a fine line... but it is what it is.


I actually didn't say you did. I'm mature enough to separate your position from your beliefs unlike most people on this website who automatically assume that just because you are backing a position that you support it intimately.


If it's any consolation, I would do the same for you or anyone, whether I agreed with your position or not, because... well... it embiggens all of us!


It certainly does, and that's why I'm showing that respect to you because I tire of it not being done to me.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Thread summary: Kim Davis' rights were violated, because she was no longer able to deny others their rights.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Megatronus
As appose to Christians trying non-stop to shove their religious morality down everyone else's throat?


Only some Christians. FYI:

Man Proposes to his Boyfriend in Texas Methodist Church that Prohibits Gay Marriage - and Gets a Standing Ovation from the Congregation


Mr Harper said the support they have received has been a huge blessing to their relationship, especially as a gay couple in Texas. 'That church has been, for us, really the first time we have really been able to live out loud as a couple,' he told BuzzFeed News.


The Episcopal Church Approves Religious Weddings for Gay Couples after Controversial Debate

Presbyterian Church Formally Approves Gay Marriage in Church Constitution

LGBT-Affirming Christian Denominations


And in order to respect the beliefs and rights of the individual, it means you have to both side with people you do not agree with on occasion and respect that others can do things you also do not agree with. In this case, the gay couple should be able to get their license and a way should be found around forcing Kim Davis to participate in it.


I totally agree... and the law supports such "reasonable accommodation" rights for Ms. Davis and all of us. In the end, the state did exactly what Ms. Davis requested as a reasonable accommodation -- removing her name from the forms. Unfortunately, not before letting this become such a huge mess.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

Did you ever answer my question and i missed it? or did you not see it? about Separation of Church and State


Yes, I did... it's on the page 9... I guess you didn't get the notification. Here is what I replied:


I do agree. I will even take it a step further and point out that the founding fathers established the separation clause to protect Christians from Christians!!! And I will state again that I am not sure government employees should even have "reasonable accommodations" because the first and primary purpose of government is to work for the best interests of ALL people with due process and equal application of the law. But nobody asked me and they passed the RFRA without any input from me. However, since they did establish the legal right to seek reasonable accommodations, the law needs to be followed.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

She was thrown in jail for being in contempt of court, NOT for not issuing licenses. Please get that correct for once.


I do get that... I'm not sure what I said to make you think I believe otherwise. I'm not sure why you think that makes it any better though. Especially because the state could have and should have done what they did in the end anyway, exactly what Ms. Davis requested in accordance with her rights under the law.

I know you're having big problems with my perspective and approach here. That's okay.

What I don't understand is that the proof is in the pudding for everyone to see: Ms. Davis had a legal right to request reasonable accommodations... she did... those requests were initially ignored but ultimately implemented. So why the hell was this allowed to blow up into such a huge debacle?

Ms. Davis is not the problem... It is those who refused to follow the law who are the problem. There is an ulterior motive -- probably more than one -- at work here.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


No, their civil rights were DENIED. It's not a matter of inconvenience.


No one has a Constitutional right to demand and receive a marriage license from any one person. Anyone wanting a marriage license -- same-sex or otherwise -- could have received it from another county. If there were no other options available to them, i.e., they were required to obtain their license from that particular county -- then they would have been denied.

But in that case, and in the actual circumstances, it was up to the state and/or county to make the reasonable accommodations Ms. Davis had a right to in order to ensure the equal application of the law. If those reasonable accommodations could not be made, and Ms. Davis either had to suck it up or resign, so be it. I would be completely on board with that. But that's not the case. The state ultimately did exactly what Ms. Davis requested.

Who really denied the equal application of the law... the ENTIRE law?

And, seriously, why are you not equally upset with the authorities who refused to do their legal duty and created this debacle? Who had the power and authority to act in a timely and effective manner, ensuring EVERYONE their rights under the law?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I'm mature enough to separate your position from your beliefs unlike most people on this website who automatically assume that just because you are backing a position that you support it intimately.


No worries -- I know that... just wanted to clarify.


It certainly does, and that's why I'm showing that respect to you because I tire of it not being done to me.


And I appreciate and thank you for that. Not just in this discussion either. You have always been fair and consistent in your positions and arguments. Good people can disagree



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

So you think she should have the right to go against the Constitution and Deny Marriage Licenses to Same Sex Couples? i know you say "Equal Application" of the Law and you don't Support her, but you are saying that she should be allowed to deny people because her Religion is above the 14th Amendment?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
To further the discussion, do you think that Doctors, Nurses, Police, Firemen, Paramedics have the right to refuse service to someone because it goes against their "Religion"?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
No one has a Constitutional right to demand and receive a marriage license from any one person.


I didn't say that.

I'm not inclined to have a discussion with you if you're not going to address the issues I bring up.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

So you think she should have the right to go against the Constitution and Deny Marriage Licenses to Same Sex Couples? i know you say "Equal Application" of the Law and you don't Support her, but you are saying that she should be allowed to deny people because her Religion is above the 14th Amendment?


Such a disconnect... and I just don't know how to get around it...

No, I do not in any way, shape or form think she should have the right to go against the Constitution; specifically, the requirement to apply the law equally to all. I have said that many times.

Nor do I believe she has the right to deny marriage licenses by the state in accordance with law. However, she has the right to refuse to issue those licenses personally with her name -- and what she perceives as her express approval. She has the right to request reasonable accommodations. If mutually agreeable reasonable accommodations cannot be made, then she has the right to refuse... and resign her position.

Let me proffer a hypothetical:

Let's say that I am a Christian in charge of issuing protest permits. Someone applies for a "We hate Gays!!!" protest permit. As a Christian, I cannot in good conscience approve such a permit (because Jesus gave us one commandment: To love everyone as He loved us), and I especially cannot put my name -- and therefore my personal approval -- on their permit. But as a U.S. citizen, I also realize that folks have a right to their own conscience, and the right to peaceably assemble. So what do I do? I exercise my legal right to reasonable accommodation under the law (RFRA), and I request my name be removed from the permit form. And, if necessary, in order to fulfill the equal application of the law, I refuse to issue any permits to anyone for any reason. If my suggested reasonable accommodation is not acceptable, and no mutually agreeable accommodation can be found, I resign my position.

BUT if my legal right to consideration for reasonable accommodation is ignored, and I am then sued by the offended party, then I fight for my rights under the law.

Does this help clarify my position? Not that you need to agree, but does it help explain my logic?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Boadicea
No one has a Constitutional right to demand and receive a marriage license from any one person.


I didn't say that.


No, you didn't... but I did.


I'm not inclined to have a discussion with you if you're not going to address the issues I bring up.


That is, of course, your choice.

However, I did not mean to slight the issues you brought up -- my apologies -- and I will go back and respond to your points.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The law (the Constitution) is the only party "forcing" Kim Davis to EITHER do something against her will OR quit her job.


The Constitution cannot force anyone to issue marriage licenses. What the Constitution can do is require equal application of the law. When Ms. Davis stopped issuing any marriage licenses to anyone, she fulfilled that Constitutional requirement.

However, Constitutional laws are not the only pertinent laws here. We also have to consider both the federal and state RFRA, which provides Ms. Davis a legal right to object to performing specific acts for matters of religion/conscience. She has a legal right to request reasonable accommodations, and a legal right for those requests to be considered by the proper authorities. She did so. Her request -- and her right to reasonable accommodations -- were never considered by either of the responsible state and federal authorities. Her request -- and therefore her rights -- were ignored and therefore denied (in the most chicken# ways).

The compelling interest of the federal court was to ensure the law was applied equally... and to ensure that everyone's rights were protected. The court did not even consider, much less protect, Ms. Davis' right to reasonable accommodation under federal law.


No, their civil rights were DENIED. It's not a matter of inconvenience.


I would agree if they had no other options for obtaining a license, but they did have other options. They do not have a right to demand that one specific person personally issue that license. If the plaintiffs had focused their lawsuit on the state and/or county, demanding that they do their job and ensure that EVERYONE'S rights were protected and respected, including Ms. Davis', in accordance with all applicable laws, I would be cheering for them and singing their praises.

But then you and I wouldn't be here fighting about it would we? Hmmmmm....


And the purpose of the couple's actions was not to deny others their religious rights, but simply to exercise their rights.


I would believe that if, as I said above, their lawsuit was framed in a way that respected Ms. Davis' right to reasonable accommodation under the RFRA, and demanded appropriate action by the state and/or federal authorities, who actually had the power to make it so.


I still don't know what right of Kim Davis was violated...


Her right to consideration of reasonable accommodations under the RFRA was violated. Her request was not denied. It was not approved. It was, nevertheless, ultimately implemented. So, obviously, it was in fact a reasonable accommodation.


She doesn't have the right to use her authority to prohibit her deputies from issuing marriage licenses.


Again, she had the right to object to her name on the marriage license... she had the authority to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether and in so doing, she stopped deputies from issuing marriage licenses.

Unless I have missed recent events -- and that's possible because I've been too busy responding here to keep up! -- since her name was removed from the forms, she has not made any demand that deputies stop issuing marriage licenses. At this point, I cannot see any good reason for her to do so. If she does, I expect I will be standing right next to you (in cyber spirit) in denouncing her.


Her "objections" were denying rights to fellow citizens. How long should she be permitted to do that? She's been doing it for several months now...


No, her objection was to her name on the marriage license, and she made the necessary and proper efforts to protect her rights under the law. She should be permitted to do that as long as it takes to exhaust all legal remedies.

How long should the responsible authorities be permitted to deny her rights? Her reasonable accommodation was ultimately implemented by the state. She did not have the power or authority to do so. Those who did have the power and authority refused to do so.

Who is the real problem here??? And why? What can be gained by doing so???



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
To further the discussion, do you think that Doctors, Nurses, Police, Firemen, Paramedics have the right to refuse service to someone because it goes against their "Religion"?


That's an excellent question, and I don't have a simple answer.

Right now, because of the RFRA, yes, they do have that right... whether they should have that right is debatable.

Should anyone have the right to deny life-saving services to anyone for any reasons? No, unequivocally. Especially when you have chosen and accepted that responsibility. I don't care if you're in public service or private industry.

But should medical personnel have the right to refuse to participate in life-ending acts? Yes, unequivocally. Unfortunately, there are many legal ways to take a life, but no one should be forced to be part of it.

ETA: But, obviously, folks should not take a job which they know requires an act they cannot in good conscience perform. My slippery slope here is a situation in which, for example, the state cannot find anyone willing to voluntarily perform an execution, so they force people to do so. It seems to me if they cannot find anyone to do the deed, they need to stop doing it... not force someone to act against their conscience.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Boadicea because: ETA



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




I do remember specifically reading of that one of the initial steps taken by Ms. Davis was to send a letter to the Governor requesting/suggesting reasonable accommodations be made, which he has never responded to. I do not remember if her letter was sent before or after the initial changes were made to the licenses which replaced "husband" and "wife" with spouse.


As I remember it, Gov. Beshear's administration anticipated the ruling, and the day the Supreme Court announcement came out his office sent out his decree and the new forms. In his decree he ordered all county clerks to issue same sex licenses, immediately or step down. If I remember correctly, Kim Davis wrote a letter of protest to the Gov's decree.

In all likihood, the Gov probably got 1000's of letter urging him to resist the SCOTUS ruling. I don't believe that the Governor is under any obligation to answer or consider those letters. Kim Davis did not have the right to dictate her "reasonable accommodation" demands to the Governor, or a judge or to lawmakers. She took it upon herself to refuse service to same sex applicants, thus bringing a lawsuit down on herself from the couples that she discriminated against.

Kim Davis then attained legal representation and counter sued the Governor for relief from his decree, should she lose her case. She lost her first go round in the 6th Circuit Court, and MUST issue same sex marriage license from her office. She was jailed for contempt of that judges order, in refusing to comply with his ruling.

Now, she's asking the Supreme Court of the United States to intervene and allow her a "stay" so that she can continue to defy the SCOTUS ruling and continue to deny same sex couples marriage licenses in "HER" county office, until she can appeal the 6th Circuit Court ruling to a higher court.

That's the way I remember reading about the events and my take on the process so far, and ahead of us.



I would be shocked if the justices grant her such a stay.


edit on 10-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

you seem to think only one religion owns or controls the domain of marriage. I can assure a brief history lesson will show that no religion owns marriage. In fact many of the rituals involved in religious marriage ceremonies outdate their modern day counterparts by 1000's of years.

Also as an elected government official you cannot pick and choose what laws you uphold. If she can't fulfill her sworn duties as a court clerk than she can resign. It really is that simple.

Secondly this woman is a grifter, nothing more. She found a way to make a quick buck off of the extremely religious in this country. She had her Tiny Tim hallelujah moment on live television with Huckabee. After a few foxnews appearances and a quick book deal she will be set for life.



new topics




 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join