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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Boadicea

You do know no one is going to force you into a gay marriage don't you?.


Um... yes. (It would be bigamy!)

How does this apply to my OP? I have no problem with gay marriage. Never have. Perhaps that's why it's so easy for me to see past all the rhetoric and propaganda of gay marriage to the real abuse of power, which has much farther reaching implications in both theory and practice. The devil is in the details. In this case, it's not the "what" it's the "how." I have no problem with the "what." I have big problems with the "how."




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm not sure I see a more dangerous agenda. But even if there was a more dangerous agenda, wouldn't the same laws that protect all of us continue to protect us from anything that would negate our freedoms?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

But you're looking at the wrong "how," which is the entire problem with your argument.

You should be fine-tooth-combing Davis' "how" concerning her use of personal beliefs in order to inappropriately and illegally (regardless of nullified laws still on the books) do her job--or not do part of her job, as the case is.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

But Kim Davis does not have the power to decide to stop issuing licenses.


I'm really not trying to play semantics or nitpick here, but yes, obviously Ms. Davis does have that power because she did exactly that! Everyone has the right to say "no." She may not have had the express statutory authority to say no, but she has the power to say no.


Kentucky has marriage laws. ONLY PART of Kentucky's marriage law has been made void. The part that bans same-sex marriage. The rest of the law is fine.

If the state of Kentucky wants to stop issuing licenses altogether, there is a PROCESS to do that. One county clerk can't just decide to change the fact that Kentucky offers marriage to its citizens.


No, she cannot. But she can refuse to participate in any way that violates her conscience and freely practice her religion. If reasonable accommodations cannot be made that allow the equal application of the law without violating her religious freedom, then she should resign. She offered such reasonable accommodations; the judge refused to honor her right to reasonable accommodation.

If I understand correctly that Kentucky is in the process of issuing new licenses without Ms. Davis' name, and that these new forms will be ready to go this week, then obviously jailing Ms. Davis served absolutely no practical purpose... except to persecute political and religious dissenters.


What makes you think the judge's court order is "arbitrary"?


The fact that there is no Constitutional mandate nor a federal law requiring states and/or clerks to issue any license whatsoever. However, the judge chose to ignore the law mandating and protecting Ms. Davis' legal right to reasonable accommodations, and chose to jail her for contempt of his court... not for breaking a law.


She was ordered to obey the Supreme Court ruling and she refused to do it AND prohibited her deputies from doing it... There is nothing arbitrary about a judge giving an order to follow the law.


The judge refused to follow the law... specifically the law requiring reasonable accommodations. Ms Davis refused to follow an arbitrary court order.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Boadicea

Because then the Government would be pandering to one religion they can not do that.


I am not sure what you are referring to...

But no, the Government cannot pander to one religion... they cannot pander to any religion... that's the law. But they MUST pander to our religious freedom and freedom of conscience, including reasonable accommodations for all faiths. That is also the law.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Boadicea

Or Kim Davis has exposed what some people will do to try and enforce their religious beliefs on others.


Not at all. Both in fact and in deed, Ms. Davis has attempted to find middle ground which respects her religious beliefs and Constitutional law, and still respect gay marriage rights. It is not Ms. Davis forcing her will on others...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
This issue of taking away "Religious freedom" is wrong because no one is taking away anyone's right to believe in anything. using your religion to justify discrimination and hate, and trying to use it to control people is wrong and has nothing to do with your "Freedom" to believe in anything



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
(I'm trying to get my post count up)

But what's the worst thing that could happen if gays are allowed to be married?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm going to have to disagree with your premise for two main reasons:

1) Kim Davis made decisions and took actions that were way above her pay grade.

2) A place of employment is not one's personal pulpit to demand and dictate one's religious convictions.

The main reason for #2 is: Any country that exists as a democratically governed melting pot cannot function at a cohesive level under any type of individual self-interest accomodation and expectation in every single facet of societal operation. It's just not do-able.

There's only so far that 'personal religious freedom' can go in any multi-cultural society without it stepping on others' civil freedoms. There has to be give and take, there has to be compromises.

If the United States was a country where every citizen followed the same religion with the same set of tenets, then it would be a completely different story altogether.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
(I'm trying to get my post count up)

But what's the worst thing that could happen if gays are allowed to be married?


Oh, I don't know. Didn't God cause some hurricane or tornado because of gay marriage? I guess God could go full retard on Florida.




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I thought Canada has allowed it so wouldn't they get punished first?

From a legal standpoint and a standpoint on society, I just can't see the world falling apart and collapsing because of this.

That's just me.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

The italicized is my emphasis, and it's to show that the legal wording uses "shall" in lieu of "may" or "should" or "can if the clerk doesn't have religious objections." It's a point worth making because any of us who have spent any time as a paralegal and have had to help draft legal documents, the use of the word "shall" is not something that equates to a voluntary action, but it is a must-do, assuming all legal requirements for the action line up.


I understand the legal significance of "shall." For example, Congress shall make no law respecting religion or the free exercise thereof. And yet, Ms. Davis finds herself in a situation in which a judge is doing exactly that, while completely ignoring and denying her right to reasonable accommodations after vacating a standing law.


The biggest issue is that Gov. Beshear is pussyfooting around the issue and will not hold a special session of the state government in order to deal with these discrepancies in our laws (I live in Kentucky), and in doing so, he is allowing this issue to get out of control on a national scale.


I could not agree more!!! And this is much of my overall disgust with this situation. Rather than all responsible parties doing their job, one lone person is being put in a no-win situation and bearing the brunt of it all. There are legal remedies to reach a happy medium and these are being denied.


While they're in session, they also need to discuss impeachment of Kim Davis for not performing her job in accordance with the law.


Only if/when Ms. Davis cannot offer and/or accepted reasonable accommodations for her religious belief while still providing equal application of the law in accordance with the Constitution.


People can whine and moan all that they want about Davis' arrest for contempt, but the fact of the matter is that she is ignoring the reality that what she is doing is discriminatory, and by refusing to issue any licenses, she's performing her job in an illegal manner.


Ms. Davis is doing her best with the mess she was thrown into, and Ms. Davis is attempting to respect both the letter and the spirit of the law. Ms. Davis' religious freedom is Constitutionally protected; marriage is not.


She can't have it both ways, anymore, regardless of what her personal beliefs tell her to do. She is there to perform a job, and if she is incapable or unwilling to do it in accordance with the law, she should be terminated, or, since she pretends to live on a moral high ground, have some self respect and decency and step down from her office.


I would say it's the judge who cannot have it both ways (i.e., he cannot fulfill Constitutional law by violating Ms. Davis' Constitutional rights), regardless of what his personal beliefs tell him to do. He is there to perform a job, and if he is incapable or unwilling to do it in accordance with the law, he should be terminated. Or since he pretends to live on a moral high ground, have some self-respect and decency and step down from his office.

P.S. Thank you very much for the thoughtful and informative reply. I appreciate the links to the KY statutes. You've done a masterful job of explaining and introducing the legal quagmire. I can't imagine what it's like in Kentucky these days... interesting times!!!
edit on 8-9-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting and "P.S."



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




I thought Canada has allowed it so wouldn't they get punished first?


America is specialer. God doesn't care as much about Canadians.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Boadicea
But the judge refused to respect or allow Ms. Davis the reasonable accommodations she requires and is entitled to by law.


What is "reasonable" about disobeying the law and prohibiting your deputies from following it???


Generally speaking, it is "reasonable" for folks to not want their name giving legitimacy to something they consider illegitimate. Now, I don't agree that Ms. Davis will go to hell for issuing gay marriage licenses with her name on them, but she does and I can respect that.

More to the point, neither the Constitution nor the RFRA requires Ms. Davis' objections to be reasonable... However, the RFRA requires "reasonable" accommodations to be made.


What reasonable accommodations does she require?


As stated in the OP, by her attorneys (and I presume court documents, though I cannot verify such), she asks that her name be removed from the marriage licenses issued. As I understand it, the state of Kentucky is doing so now, and these amended forms will be available for use this week.... and no one had to be jailed for this to be done.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

The question is one of reasonable accommodation.

Physicians are allowed to refuse on the grounds of their conscience. It is now time for people like Davis to also be allowed to refuse on the grounds of their conscience. It is not unreasonable to expect their to be systems put in place to accommodate this.

In the case of a clerk, then someone else in the office authorized to also issue licenses. I do not think it is unreasonable to allow states to have the space to create their own compliance measures, but in this case, no time was allowed. Davis was simply jailed for not compromising her own conscience.

If we were talking about someone who had a personal disability, this would not be an issue. But because we are talking about an issue of personal morality. No one sees a problem with shoving their morality down Kim Davis's throat.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

She has no problem shoving her Religion down peoples thorat



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea
Ever hear of the separation of Church and State?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

And if there were time to work out reasonable accommodation so that someone else could fulfill the license requirements, that wouldn't have to happen.

Or are you in favor for forcing doctors to perform procedures they find to be against their consciences too? In effect forcing your morals down their throats to suit yourself?
edit on 8-9-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




As stated in the OP, by her attorneys (and I presume court documents, though I cannot verify such), she asks that her name be removed from the marriage licenses issued. As I understand it, the state of Kentucky is doing so now, and these amended forms will be available for use this week.... and no one had to be jailed for this to be done.



I think you're mistaken. It would help if you had a link for such a provision being made. As I understand it, marriage licenses were altered last week.


The marriage licenses obtained by three couples in Rowan County last week were altered to remove the name of jailed county clerk Kim Davis, according to a court document.



So instead of the licenses saying they were issued on a certain date "in the office of Kim Davis, Rowan County County Clerk," which would be standard, examples included in the court file say they were issued "in the office of Rowan County, Rowan County County Clerk."

The licenses did include the name of deputy clerk Brian Mason in a spot designated for the "recorder's name."

An attorney for Davis said in a news conference Friday afternoon that Davis thinks the licenses that her office issued Friday are void.

"They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk's office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on," attorney Mat Staver said Friday after meeting with Davis in the Carter County jail in Grayson.

Read more here: www.kentucky.com...=cpy


I can't find anything about the authorization of new licenses being printed that leaves off her name.

Without changing state law you can't change who can certify the requirements for marriage are met. They are issued by deputies under her authority but she is not granting that authority to anyone right now.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Maybe she should have better attorneys who could have proposed this from the start? Maybe they did, maybe not...


I'll bet she's thinking the same thing! (About having better attorneys). I'm really not sure when this was proposed, but I sure don't want our legal system to be based on whether or not someone is able to competently defend themselves from a convoluted penal code and legal system.


but the court has a right to demand that she do her job in accordance with valid KY law...


No. First, the court has no "rights," only those powers granted them. Second, the court has a duty to demand that ALL laws are respected and obeyed, including Ms. Davis' federal rights to religious freedom and reasonable accommodations. And, third, valid KY law includes religious freedom laws requiring reasonable accommodations for her religious views. Ms. Davis was placed in a no-win situation against Constitutional law and the RFRA.


and the laws defining marriage and prohibiting same-sex marriage are now invalid laws that hold zero legal bearing on how she conducts her job.


Maybe... maybe not. But the 1st Amendment and the RFRA are still valid laws that have complete bearing on her religious rights and hold great bearing on the reasonable accommodations she is entitled to in how she conducts her job.


The bottom line is that, as you discuss forcing the will of some onto others, she tried to force her will onto people trying to get legally married.


No, she did not force her will on others. She was simply protecting her own religious freedoms, and offered a reasonable accommodation which would have provided gay couples a marriage license while protecting her own religious freedom rights. She never tried to block gay couples from seeking out other counties to obtain a marriage license. It is only those who would force her to act against her religious beliefs and conscience who are forcing their will.


She caused this issue "under the authority of God," and she is living with the legal consequences of that. You'll have to excuse me if I don't shed a tear for her self-induced stint in jail, or her ill-perceived persecution, or the fact that she got called out and punished for trying to run her little section of her small-town government like she wants to instead of how she is prescribed to by law.


As I have pointed out again and again, no, that is not the case at all. And while you may feel no sympathy for her, and may actually relish her misery and suffering, I applaud her. I applaud her strength and the courage of her convictions, I applaud her for trying to honor both the letter and spirit of the law (ALL laws, not just the ones convenient for gay marriage proponents), and for her efforts to protect the rights of freedom of conscience for EVERYONE.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join