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.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
No, she was elected to fulfill the duties and the laws as they are during her term(s) in office. If the laws change, she either adjusts, adapts, corrects, changes, or she must step down or be removed from office....Your argument is legally flawed and downright wrong. Yes, the rules have changed--since Davis refused to adapt, she is in the wrong.
originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Boadicea
"abandoned and persecuted by the governing authorities" lol.
She was the one persecuting others based on her own religious beliefs is that alright to you?.
She made others do the same she abused her position as a county clerk in doing so.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea
What well established legal remedies has she been denied?
A remedy like, demanding that her name be removed from the certificate, leaving who's name in its place? Government documents are supposed to bear the signature of the person who heads the issuing office. Is she proposing changing signatory laws now?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
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?
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.
Apparently someone considered removing her name a reasonable accommodation, because that is exactly what is happening.
If not, then what law is she upholding? The Supremes do not make law. We are still in legal limbo.
The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies, as well as several songs. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko
Is there an actual law for only man/woman marriage?
originally posted by: Boadicea
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.
originally posted by: Boadicea
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.
originally posted by: Boadicea
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.
originally posted by: Boadicea
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.
originally posted by: Boadicea
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.
originally posted by: Boadicea
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!!!
originally posted by: CranialSponge
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.
People should be hired or not hired because of their skills and merit, not because of their faith. And people should not be forced to choose between their faiths and their jobs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public and private employment. It also requires employers to make reasonable accommodation of employees' religious observances and practices, unless doing so would cause the employer undue hardship.
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 has to be give and take, there has to be compromises.
originally posted by: Boadicea
No. Ms. Davis is under no obligation to "adapt." She has every right to refuse to do anything and everything that violates her religious freedoms.