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

a reply to: Boadicea

I would agree with you 100% in that. I don't think when that position was created anyone in their wildest dreams thought anyone would hold marriage for hostage over their personal beliefs.

The fact that Her Personal Beliefs for some reason override those personal beliefs of everyone else is disturbing. The fact that she want's her Personal Beliefs to exclude her from following the law isn't any better.

The fact that somehow her position can be held hostage like this and nobody is able to do anything about it with an act of congress is proof how F-cked our system really is.

a reply to: diggindirt

She made her other clerks refuse licences.
So your point is moot.
I bet she goes back to work and does the same...jail again for her.

a reply to: boymonkey74

She's already said she's not going to allow them to issue them. Her lawyer has said it too. You know it's going to happen. That's why I'm saying this isn't about accommodations. She wants to use her position to Stop those Marriages and Defy the law. Period.

She's not willing to compromise, step aside or step down. Nope, she is a crusader, supported by her Religious Council and even a Presidential Candidate who also feels Personal Belief should have more authority than the Law.

Funny how they didn't feel that way when the Court Ruled in Favor of Religious Freedom Laws and Hobby Lobby a while back. Everyone complained about that but their attitude then was "Too bad, it's the law, get over it." So I guess since they get to pick and choose Laws by their beliefs so can we. The first law I'm choosing not to obey is the Religious Freedom Laws then. Boy it sure feels good to be free from the law because I believe I'm special.

a reply to: diggindirt

It was Not suddenly changed though, Marriage Equality has been in place since the 14th Amendment was created, the States and people refused to recognize that and would rather hold Religious Tyranny over Freedom and created other laws to get around the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the States had to Follow the Constitution as intended

a reply to: mOjOm

Thing is if she wins I'm coming over and flinging poo at everyone despite being against others rights because my religion says I can and should.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: diggindirt

She made her other clerks refuse licences.
So your point is moot.
I bet she goes back to work and does the same...jail again for her.

Why is my point moot? Her objections were that her beliefs didn't allow her to affix her name to a same-sex marriage license. There is no statutory requirement that her name be printed on that document so she asked that her name be taken off (one of six alternative accommodations she requested). The forms were going to need re-printing anyway so why not make that a part of the deal from the beginning. Clerks don't authorize marriages, the Commonwealth of Kentucky authorizes marriage.
Under the law, she asked for an accommodation for her religious beliefs. Is she not entitled to ask for application of the statutes which allow such accommodations?

Please explain why you think she is not entitled to protection under the law that says that she cannot be compelled to violate her religious beliefs if a reasonable accommodation can be found?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

You are saying that the law didn't suddenly change when the SC handed down that decision?

Perhaps I should have worded that differently---when the laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman were abolished by SCOTUS. Does that help? Surely you realize that changes in a whole mess of states had to be made to statutory law in order to come into compliance?

Just so you know, there were a whole passel of us who have been attempting to talk with members of the legislature, urging them to get ready for this decision. You'd have thought we were asking them to partake of a sip from Satan's cup. It was like trying to talk with a federal legislator about Social Security.
If you are looking for someone to blame, place that blame squarely where it belongs---on Governor Steve Beshear. He had the authority to avoid this whole mess and declined to adhere to a law that he had vetoed.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Boadicea

I would agree with you 100% in that. I don't think when that position was created anyone in their wildest dreams thought anyone would hold marriage for hostage over their personal beliefs..... The fact that somehow her position can be held hostage like this and nobody is able to do anything about it with an act of congress is proof how F-cked our system really is.

Yup. That's one of the most disturbing things about all of this. That, and the fact that pretty much no one in the state -- not the governor, not the legislature, not the state AG -- is taking any leadership role in resolving this situation. I would expect some back and forth, some give and take, even some very heated public debate! But I don't understand this silence by so many responsible parties letting one woman take the brunt of it all.

That could be any of us, in any situation, if we let her be bullied like this for no good reason.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: diggindirt

I bet she goes back to work and does the same...jail again for her.

Time will tell, but I really hope you are wrong about this. Since her name has been removed from the forms, and she has in no way lent her support or approval to the new requirements, I don't see how her conscience/faith is still compromised. Even if the changes are not legal under Kentucky law, it's still not her doing, nor does she have the power or authorito to correct it, so it's out of her hands. We'll just have to see what happens now.

Do you happen to know if she will be required to issue the new licenses when she returns to work? (Which I read will be Monday) Or if she has made a statement either way whether she would issue licenses without her name on them? Is that the next battle?

a reply to: diggindirt

No, because once again under the 14th Amendment Everyone was allowed to Get Legally Married, it was states who denied that fact and created other Laws to be able to not allow Same-Sex Marriage, the Supreme court did Not change any Law, all they did was rule that the States had to follow the constitution

a reply to: diggindirt

Just so you know, there were a whole passel of us who have been attempting to talk with members of the legislature, urging them to get ready for this decision.

Whew! That is good to know. I couldn't imagine that responsible parties didn't see this coming. It was definitely likely, if not inevitable.... but then again, one can never underestimate politicians and bureaucrats.

May I pick your brain for a moment? Given that the Kentucky Constitution specifically denies, same-sex marriages, what legal steps are available to the PTB in Kentucky? Are there established procedures or precedents for a situation like this?

If you are looking for someone to blame, place that blame squarely where it belongs---on Governor Steve Beshear. He had the authority to avoid this whole mess and declined to adhere to a law that he had vetoed.

Thank you. That explains much. None of it good.

a reply to: Boadicea

There's a bigger issue surrounding all of this which is what really bothers me though. Accommodations for Religious Beliefs first of all are way too non specific. Having to make accommodations for any arbitrary belief someone might have seems idiotic. Everyone has different beliefs and we can't go making exceptions for everyone's beliefs all the time. Personal beliefs are just that, personal. They could be just a bunch of stuff I make up on the spot even.

Second of all, personal beliefs belong only to the person that believes them and shouldn't cross over into the lives of those who don't hold them. If I go out to eat and the waitress believes people shouldn't drink that's her belief, not mine. So when I order a double whiskey I don't want to hear her tell me about how I shouldn't drink because she doesn't like it. Or have her refuse to get me a drink which is her job. I believe it's fine and I don't care what she believes so why should her belief enter into the situation???

That's where this whole thing is nothing but a scam. I'm not buying it for a second either. If you look at the players doing this and pay attention you'll see exactly what's going on here. It's them trying to force their beliefs in to the lives of others. I respect the personal beliefs of others until they start becoming a problem in my life. I keep my beliefs to myself and don't expect anyone else to adjust for them. I realize they are mine and that others may not agree with them. I expect the same in return. I don't want to hear about them or deal with them unless they're my own or unless I ask someone to be a part of them. Otherwise keep them to yourself. They're you're beliefs, not mine, you deal with them and I'll do the same with mine.

a reply to: mOjOm
I don't know why she has refused to resign.
Let me repeat once more---I don't agree with her stand and don't share her religious beliefs. But Kentucky statutes say she is entitled to reasonable accommodations regarding her religious beliefs. I respect her right to pursue those accommodations just as I respected the Amish when they petitioned the government to allow them the free practice of their religion. I didn't think they should be thrown in jail and I don't think she should have been thrown in jail when the accommodation was a simple matter of the revision of paper documents.
The governor of our Commonwealth committed the same infraction of failing to follow the law when he ignored her pleas for accommodations. Why? I can't know his motives but I suspect it is because he vetoed the law that he was being asked to enforce and this was yet another of his petty temper tantrums.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Boadicea

There's a bigger issue surrounding all of this which is what really bothers me though. Accommodations for Religious Beliefs first of all are way too non specific. Having to make accommodations for any arbitrary belief someone might have seems idiotic. Everyone has different beliefs and we can't go making exceptions for everyone's beliefs all the time. Personal beliefs are just that, personal. They could be just a bunch of stuff I make up on the spot even.

I don't want to shock you, but I actually agree with you. But here's my paradigm: If we have to make "accommodations" for some, then it probably shouldn't be a law to begin with. Just as we agreed that no one should be in a position to approve or deny a marriage license, then Kim Davis wouldn't be in this position to begin with.

Some Native Americans have been given "reasonable accommodations" to smoke natural plants that the rest of us are not allowed to smoke. And now some states have passed their own "reasonable accommodations" for sick folks to smoke natural plants that the rest of us cannot. If we have to give "reasonable accommodations" and exemptions to some but punish others, that's not a good law to begin with.

Second of all, personal beliefs belong only to the person that believes them and shouldn't cross over into the lives of those who don't hold them. If I go out to eat and the waitress believes people shouldn't drink that's her belief, not mine.

Again, I totally agree. In terms of govt employees, there are many Christians and others of faith who understand that by working in public service, they are respecting the law, not personally endorsing and approving certain behaviors. There are countless scriptures that tell Christians and Jews to obey the authorities, to "render under Caesar what is Caesar's," but to keep their own acts in harmony with the law. I also agree that people should not take a job if they cannot do the job. If the rules change mid-stream, employees who cannot perform new job duties should at least be offered a transfer to a comparable position. That wouldn't work for an elected official though.

That's where this whole thing is nothing but a scam.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly, but their are many scammers involved, all trying to force something on another, in one way or another. And so we the public argue the argument they have framed this in: Who gets to force their will on another? We should be discussing and debating how do we protect and respect everyone's rights?

Divide-and-conquer.

a reply to: diggindirt

With the Amish they asked to do their own thing by themselves without bothering other people. That's the difference. They didn't ask to accommodated in having a special road built for their horse and buggy. They dive it on the street like anyone else. They don't ask that anyone change what they're doing just to accommodate the way they live. They have their own space and they do their own thing and when they do go to the city, they abide by the city rules or they don't involve themselves.

Same with Churches. I don't give a crap what people want to do in their churches. If you want to handle snakes or take drugs or dance in the moonlight or get naked and run around screaming at each other while yanking each others private parts that's their business. As long as they all want to be there and don't force anyone else to join, I say yank away brother. Knock yourself out. I'll stay home and sleep in or play video games or something. You do you and I'll do me.

But lately Religions and too many other self important groups want to get up in everyone's business about stuff and demand they change or conform. Not to laws or anything which others have asked to be a part of, but stuff they either didn't know about or chose to avoid already. Personally, I don't want to hear about how much Jesus loves me, or how Krishna loves me or if Allah wants me to fight the Great Satan or that my wife should put clothes on, etc. They should all leave me the hell alone unless I ask them what they think. Because those are all just beliefs. So if I don't believe them then I don't care if they do. Same goes for Feminists, or Anti-Feminists, or any other institution that believes I'm using my Freedom incorrectly. Until I use that freedom in a way that effects someone other than myself, just leave me the hell alone. You use your freedom your way, I'll use mine my way and unless either of us use it in a way that effects the other we don't get to say anything about how the other person uses their freedom.

a reply to: Boadicea
I'm not sure and haven't had time to consult with the people who will know. I'm planning on sitting down with a member of the legislature and a Ky Supreme Court justice in a week or so to get their thoughts on the matter.
The legislature meets in January for a general session so I'm sure someone will be getting right out front on this since it is an election year.
Methinks the reason the AG has refused to file charges is that he knows in his black, dishonest heart that he couldn't win a jury trial. Since he is running for governor, he wouldn't take a chance of losing such a case.
All this mess could have been avoided but there are lawyers out there who saw the $$$$s and couldn't resist and politicians who thought they saw an advantage in some way. Petty spitefulness and greed are at the root of this problem.

a reply to: Boadicea

That's why I said a while back that I liked your post. I understood what you were saying even though you were catching a bunch of crap for it. But you weren't being unfair from what I read. You were in fact being very unbiased toward it. Probably even more than me actually which is why I liked it. You made me think about my position again to make sure I wasn't over stepping the line.

It's a difficult topic though because it's very easy to be hypocritical in what you say with a topic like this. Even the stuff I just wrote I know I could interpret it completely one sided and craft a good argument to thrash myself about what I just wrote. But I know exactly what I'm trying to say so I know what I mean without noticing the holes in my speech or use of language.

But, I agree that I think you and I are very much in agreement. However, we just may word it differently sometimes but I've thought from the start that we both saw this the same way.

I'm just a little more rough about it when putting it into words I think. You're much more smooth in how you word things. But we're heading the same direction.

a reply to: mOjOm
No. You need to research the origins of Kentucky's religious freedom act.
They were being thrown in jail for violating the statutes and being kept in jail for refusing to comply with those statutes due to their religious beliefs.
I completely agree with you that freedom should be an individual matter---not a group matter. That individual freedom stuff is the basis of our Constitutional Republic.
I also know that there is a legally enacted statute that says that Mrs. Davis, as an individual, has the right to ask for reasonable accommodations. Whether or not I agree with that law is of no consequence whatsoever. Whether or not the governor and the AG agree with that law should have no impact on their behavior since they took an oath just like she did. They are compelled by that oath and statutes to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth and they did not do so in a timely manner.
However, I also blame the federal judge who could well have ordered a stay in this case and directed the governor and AG to come up with a solution under state law. He also could have ordered the couples to go to the clerk nearest to the courtroom in which the hearings were being held and obtain a license there. He also had a lot of options that didn't include jail for the clerk.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

This is the amendment to the Ky Constitution that was in effect when SCOTUS made the ruling.

www.lrc.ky.gov...

Kentucky Constitution
Section 233A
Valid or recognized marriage -- Legal status of unmarried individuals.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Text as Ratified on: November 2, 2004.
History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1.

The ruling overturned that law. How can you say it is not a change? That was the law when Kim Davis took office. But you are saying that laws haven't changed suddenly?

The law that hasn't been overturned is this one:
www.lrc.ky.gov...

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 t o 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

It is under this law that Mrs. Davis applied for relief. This law has not been overturned so just as gay people are entitled to the right to marry after the court's decision, Mrs. Davis has the right to ask that her rights be acknowledged and accommodated under current law.
You do realize that federal law and state law are different?

a reply to: diggindirt

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.

Why do you keep ignoring this part?