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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

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.


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. She also has every right to request reasonable accommodations under the law, which she did.

Ms. Davis is in the right.




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Does anyone else think that this is outrage manufatured over the issue? Shouldn't everyone be free in America?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

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.


Ms. Davis persecuted no one. She does not have the power to persecute anyone. She has no power to stop anyone from seeking a marriage license elsewhere. She respected the law, including her rights and the rights of others. The court grossly violated her rights and the law.

It was the judge and the governor who abused their positions by refusing to provide the reasonable accommodations required by both federal and state law.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So if you are being held hostage and the police decide it's against their consciences to save you, they should just let you die... you are Okay with that?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

What well established legal remedies has she been denied?


Reasonable accommodations.


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?


As I understand it, her signature is not required by Kentucky law, but her name is on the license. Apparently someone considered removing her name a reasonable accommodation, because that is exactly what is happening.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I fail to see any religious rights being eroded with this situation. I see someone trying to use her religion to impose tyranny disguised as religious freedom, but DEFINITELY not eroding of religious rights.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

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?


That's the problem. The laws that are supposed to protect all of us are not protecting Kim Davis. If they cannot protect Kim Davis they cannot protect us. Laws not followed protect no one and negate everyone's freedoms.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

What are the rules when they take the job?

When Kin Davis was elected, man/woman marriage was the law. All the Supremes did was strike down certain parts of marriage law. They have no power to write new law. THAT is the power of legislature at state and federal level. Have new laws been written and passed at either level dictating what should be done yet?

If not, then what law is she upholding? The Supremes do not make law. We are still in legal limbo.

Kentucky was working to pass laws to uphold what the SCOTUS wants without forcing people like Ms. Davis to violate their conscience. No one was stopping the couple in question from going to a neighboring county in the meantime. But it was more important to force Davis into jail than it was to find a reasonable compromise all the way around.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

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.



Again, Davis has made a good faith effort to appropriately and legally fulfill her legal obligations... She also has every right to request and receive reasonable accommodations to do -- or not do -- her job, and the governing authorities have every obligation to make a good faith effort to provide reasonable accommodations. It is not an either/or situation.

Davis acted appropriate and legally... the judge did not.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Is there an actual law for only man/woman marriage?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




Apparently someone considered removing her name a reasonable accommodation, because that is exactly what is happening.



Yes. It happened last week. But her lawyer is insisting that those licenses are null and void, and not worth the paper they're printed on. So what reasonable accommodation is he/she requiring?
edit on 8-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


If not, then what law is she upholding? The Supremes do not make law. We are still in legal limbo.


No we aren't. The SCOTUS did the same thing they did for the interracial marriage issue. Overturn any bans against it, which makes it a defacto legalization. There is no gray area if you know your legal precedent. Loving V. Virginia


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.


Anyone saying (or pretending) like this ruling is a brand new direction SCOTUS is going in, needs to go restudy history. The before, during, and after of the ENTIRE gay marriage ruling is already known.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

Is there an actual law for only man/woman marriage?


Many state passed laws or even constitutional amendments recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman. This was back when the gay marriage movement decided that civil union wasn't enough, they wanted marriage.

Most people foresaw these kinds of things. People aren't against letting gays have their unions as much as we are against being forced to participate, but here we are seeing the beginnings of the "forced to participate movement."



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The ruled based on a newfound "right" to marriage. There is no such right for anyone, gay or straight.

In Loving, it was easy to see how there was no equal treatment before the law. The couple in question, despite being of different ethnicities, were still self-evidently a man and a woman. To deny them when you allowed other male/female marriages was obvious discrimination when the law said marriage is between a man and a woman.

However, to look at two men or two women, and try to justify the ruling in the same way doesn't fly. Two men are obviously NOT a man and a woman, neither are two women. So, you cannot claim discrimination in the same way. You have to try to come up with some reason to disallow gender entirely from the marriage equation as being important to it. So the SCOTUS invented the mythical "right" to marriage, which does not exist in the COTUS ... for anyone.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

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.


I don't know where you've done your legal schooling and research, here, but you're absolutely wrong in everything that you say in this quote. Congress made no law respecting an establishment of religion, here, which is what the first amendment actually says. Show me where congress established a religion, please, let alone a judge telling someone that they can't exercise their religion freely.

It has been ruled on numerous times that free exercise of religion does not necessarily extend into one's job, whether you want to accept that or not. You keep reiterating the same tired comments in this thread, but they are just wrong.


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.


No--no one put Davis in this position other than herself. Not only did she openly defy the law, and SCOTUS ruling, and a judge's order, but she also claimed that her authority to do so comes from God.

No. It doesn't. She put herself in the no-win situation...well, her, and then the piss-poor law firm that she hired to represent and defend her. Could they be any worse at what they're doing?



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.


She opted not to do that from the start. Again, she needs to accept personal responsibility for that choice that she made, as do people defending her with inappropriate arguments for her actions.


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.


No, Davis is doing the worst with a religion that is supposed to be about accepting everyone and forgiveness--a religion that she relatively recently chose to be a part of and now is attempting to inject its morals into everyone else through her job. Again, she wasn't thrown into anything, she jumped in feet first, willingly.

She isn't respecting the spirit of the law, the letter of the law, nor the spirit and letter of her religion. Her religious freedom is protected, for sure, but what we're talking about here is not the free exercise of her religion as a private individual. I really do recommend you go back and read some SCOTUS rulings and some papers written concerning the applicability of religious freedom.


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.


Well, I guess we can both say what we want.


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!!!


Anytime--I at least try to be logical and informative when I discuss such things--but really, living in KY is not different than it was last year. Everyone thinks that we all live in small, backwoods towns where religion guides those dynastic family government offices and the law is discarded in lieu of personal beliefs.

It just so happens that right now, that's reflected in the news :/



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The law never said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. That was invented rhetoric. There is no legal clause defining marriage between a man and a woman.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Boadicea

I understand what you're trying to say...


Thank you!


...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.


I disagree; it seems that Kim Davis tried to make decisions and took actions to protect her rights. If those above her pay grade, who do have the power and authority to make decisions and take actions in accordance with the Supreme Court decision had done their job, Ms. Davis would never have been put in this no-win situation.

[

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


Of course not. But neither is a place of employment where the employer can demand and dictate that one violates one's religious convictions. The law is very clear on this. Again, per the DOJ, from the OP:


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.


Except that we do not have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic in which the natural rights of the individual are protected and guaranteed by our organic law and founding documents, including the Constitution. It is do-able.


There has to be give and take, there has to be compromises.


Exactly. Just as those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons must understand that they can only impose such on themselves, those who support gay marriage must understand that they can only demand such for themselves. Ms. Davis did offer a compromise... or, to use the legal terminology, reasonable accommodations. Where is the compromise for Ms. Davis???



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

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.


I think this opinion needs backed up by an official link, because I know that you are wrong.

You are mistaking personal, private life with public employment.

Did you know that, just because I work a federal job, that I cannot carry a weapon into my office or onto the property, even though KY state law says that I can carry a loaded weapon in my car (as long as it's in a factory, closeable compartment) and that my KY CCDW permit tells me that I can carry one on my person, concealed? Did you also know that the 2nd Amendment--the only one with the words, "...shall not be infringed"--tells me that I can keep and bear arms? Yet the same government that wrote and "upholds" that constitution tells me that I can't while I'm at work?

Yeah, not all rights are absolute, and certainly aren't absolute when you're on the clock.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Actually, the people put Davis there. In her county, clerk is elected. She can be recalled or she can resign, but she cannot be fired. Don't you think they would have fired her by now if they could have?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The only "reasonable accommodation" that Davis is entitled to is the accommodation to quit or resign from her job if she doesn't think she can perform her job due to religious reasons. That's all. Saying that you don't have to sign marraige certificates for marriages you don't agree with is NOT something that a government employee is allowed to do or say. Gay people pay taxes too. And her salary is being paid with tax money. So effectively, gay people are paying her to discriminate against them.

There is no side to this debate where Davis wins or comes out neutral. She dug her hole because she doesn't know how the Constitution works and got legal representation that clearly doesn't care how it works. Davis is 100% in the wrong here and no amount of trying to rephrase the situation is going to make her look good in this.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join