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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


In Loving's day that was how it was, and if there was no law with that wording, then there was no reason for SCOTUS to take the case.




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Davis acted appropriate and legally... the judge did not.


If you don't mind me asking again...how much expertise and experience and training do you have in the legal field? I have no idea, that's why I asking.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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?


I fully understand that...but she can be impeached and removed from office, which is tantamount to being fired.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

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.


You may be right. That's why I've been qualifying this statement with "as I understand it." I have tried to nail it down, but I keep coming up with different quotes and "facts."



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."


Thank you for that. Is that why she was released this morning? I really don't know. I've been too busy replying to comments to do any further reading.


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


Thank you -- I shall do so!


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.


What a damn mess. I can't really say much more until I read your link.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Boadicea because: Tried to fix formatting... failed miserably!



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Irrelevant. Wording in a law is everything. If the wording isn't there, there is no precedent for it. So if a law didn't specifically define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, than that isn't a criteria that must be legally met for a marriage to exist between two people. That's how the law works. You can't argue around that whatsoever.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
BTW: even Westboro Baptist Church doesn't agree with Davis here (though because they are a bunch of crazies they are saying that it's her fault that gay marriage exists).



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


How so? The law requires reasonable accommodations for Ms. Davis... it does not require her religious beliefs to conform to anyone's idea of reasonable.

And though I do not agree, I can see how Ms. Davis would feel that by "approving" marriage licenses for gay couples, that she is "approving" of gay marriage against her faith. I would disagree in that her "approval" is only attesting that the couple meets the state's legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license, NOT that she personally approves of the marriage.

However, any effort by the government to force action on their part that violates their religious beliefs -- nothing they have to prove, simply what they believe -- is most definitely a violation of and an erosion of religious rights.

I can also



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

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?


I'm figuring this is in the link you provided... give me a minute to finish replying and I'll read the link and respond.

For now I will say this: If Kim Davis is given her reasonable accommodation and continues to stonewall, then she is also exploiting the law for her own purposes. At which point, it will probably be incumbent upon the Governor and the legislature to act accordingly and remove Ms. Davis from office. Then she would simply be exploiting our religious freedom laws as well, which is equally disgusting.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

It would be entirely possible to work out a legal framework so that no one's conscience need be violated.

But keeping you US Americans perpetually divided is the real goal I suspect ... in order to push you into a desire to carve up your nation into separate nations of limited power all subsumed within some Over-government within a world government.

All of that would fit perfectly into the plans and desires of people who hate the USA.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

What more accommodations does she need??? She has other clerks which can issue the licenses if she wants. But she's ordering them not to issue them either. Which brings to question, what about their rights to do what their conscious is telling them.

This dumb backwards country hick and her religious intolerance and contempt for the law is being applauded when it needs to be shamed out of existence. The fact that #abee is championing her cause as a presidential candidate is even worse. The idea that all these supporters are in favor of is the idea that our elected officials should be allowed to break the law and choose at will whether or not they'll do their job they were elected to do.

Congrats to all you supporters of Kim Davis and her BS Religious Freedom. You're all cheering and encouraging more Gov. officials doing whatever they want regardless of what you elected them to do and to do it all in your name and with your blessing. You deserve every boot that makes contact with your throat.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No, the "Law" was always there, it's just States were ignoring the Law and passing other Laws that they could use to to get around it, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment was always there and the states have to go by that Law.

Marriage Equality was always a thing under the 14th amendment, people and States just refused to accept it for so many years



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

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.


Here:


First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



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.


It has been legislated and ruled on numerous times that free exercise of religion does necessarily require "employers to make reasonable accommodation of employees' religious observances and practices," whether you want to accept that or not. Yes, I do keep relying on the same legal rights and mandates because that's what the OP is all about: Religious freedoms and reasonable accommodations in the workplace. I didn't make this stuff up. This is the law.


No--no one put Davis in this position other than herself.


You know that's not true. Ms. Davis did not change the law... Ms. Davis did not put herself in jail. The judge was under no obligation or duty to jail Ms. Davis.


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.


Ms. Davis claims her ultimate authority is God, and she has a Constitutional Right to act accordingly. The government has a Constitutional order to act accordingly.


...the piss-poor law firm that she hired to represent and defend her. Could they be any worse at what they're doing?


I seriously don't know how they could get any worse... but if we're assuming that they're working in her best interests, we may be assuming too much. Time may tell.


She opted not to do that from the start.


How so? She did offer a reasonable accommodation which was ignored by the court, though not by the state... or someone, if the forms have been or are in the process of being changed. Denying all marriage licenses fulfilled the equal application requirement.


Again, she needs to accept personal responsibility for that choice that she made, as do people defending her with inappropriate arguments for her actions.


She stood firm and went to jail for her choices. I call that the ultimate acceptance of responsibility for her choices. And those defending her on Constitutional and legal grounds as properly debated and legislated by duly elected legislators is the ONLY appropriate argument.


No, Davis is doing the worst with a religion that is supposed to be about accepting everyone and forgiveness...


I completely and totally agree -- as a Christian no less.


--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.


But it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks of her religious beliefs or the duration thereof... this is about the law, about Constitutional rights and the law. I don't support Ms. Davis' specific beliefs, but I do support her right to fight for her right to act in accordance with her conscience -- and therefore everyone's rights.


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.


We'll have to agree to disagree. She has very definite rights which (I assume) she is defending to the best of her ability. I support her right to say "no" for the same reasons I support gay couples the right to say "I do."


Anytime--I at least try to be logical and informative when I discuss such things...


And you are!


--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 :/


Well, that's good to hear at least! I don't think much of anything about Kentucky except that you sure have some beautiful horse farms!!!



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

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.


You're right... kinda. That was very sloppy on my part.

Ms. Davis has every right to refuse to do whatever she chooses... and she has every right to seek reasonable accommodations for her religious objections... and she has every right to resign and let someone take the job who is willing to get the job done.

The government has a duty and a responsibility to make sure the job gets done... but they also have a duty and responsibility to make reasonable accommodations for religious objections... and if those reasonable accommodations are rejected by the employee, then government has a duty and a responsibility to replace that employee.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
And another thing..

The whole issue of religious persecution gets me upset. People in these situations refuse to do their jobs instead of just quitting and moving on.

This is like picking a fight with a biker, and then claiming you're being discriminated by bikers. YOU started it through your actions. These people are causing their own religious persecution...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Just a thought, but if she wins here case, does this mean any elected official can disregard the law if it violates their religion?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


The law says different:

From the EEOC


Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.


Kim Davis is legally entitled to reasonable accommodations under both the state and federal RFRAs.


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.


Of course they can!!! They can say and believe anything they choose! They don't have any right to keep that job, but they have every right to decide what they will and will not do.


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.


Almost all true... but perspective is everything. Right now, gay people are paying her to challenge and establish the parameters of the changes to the law, and everyone's rights under those laws, including their own. Making the sure the process works, and that everyone's rights are protected and respected, benefits everyone. If the time comes when Ms. Davis' legal remedies are all played out and she continues to thwart the law and the Constitution, then they need to demand recourse from those officials with the power and authority to get the job done.


There is no side to this debate where Davis wins or comes out neutral.


That's a matter of opinion. As far as Davis personally, I would tend to agree. As far as the foundational issues being worked out, this is necessary and proper for everyone.


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.


Only if one refuses to acknowledge and respect our fundamental freedom or religion and conscience. She may very well be being exploited for political and religious purposes... so what else is new? But it is never wrong to fight for our fundamental rights. Especially the right to say "no."



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Boadicea
Davis acted appropriate and legally... the judge did not.


If you don't mind me asking again...how much expertise and experience and training do you have in the legal field? I have no idea, that's why I asking.


No formal training whatsoever -- beyond a "Law and Youth" class in high school... and a few legal situations that affected me personally (and I made an absolute nuisance of myself with the prosecutors, etc., tryinig to understand all the legal motions and issues involved.)

But I can read. And I have enough understanding to know that the entire system is convoluted and contradictory.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapriti
a reply to: Boadicea

It would be entirely possible to work out a legal framework so that no one's conscience need be violated.


Thank you! It can be worked out for everyone's best interests, and it should be. The fact that it is not happening makes it obvious that there are other purposes and agendas at work -- and NONE in our best interests.


But keeping you US Americans perpetually divided is the real goal I suspect ... in order to push you into a desire to carve up your nation into separate nations of limited power all subsumed within some Over-government within a world government.


Yes, sadly, I agree, that's one of the most obvious and immediate. May I ask what corner of the globe you are observing this from?


All of that would fit perfectly into the plans and desires of people who hate the USA.


Yes, indeed, both domestic and abroad.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




How so? She did offer a reasonable accommodation which was ignored by the court, though not by the state... or someone, if the forms have been or are in the process of being changed.


The reasonable accomodation that Kim Davis is requesting has nothing to do with removing her name from the forms. She wants her clerk's office to be exempt altogether from authorizing same sex marriages.

Here's an except from her Supreme Court Application for a stay, to continue denying same sex marriage licenses, pending an appeal to the Ninth Court.


If Davis’ religious objection cannot be accommodated when Kentucky marriage licenses are available in more than 130 marriage licensing locations, and many other less restrictive alternatives remain available, then elected officials have no real religious freedom when they take public office.

docs.google.com...://files.eqcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/082815_Application_to_Stay_Order_Pending_Appeal.pdf

She isn't asking for forms to altered, allowing some one, or some other entity to authorize same sex marriages. Her attorny has publicly mocked that idea.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea


Could you give a link to your claim here? Are you speaking of state statutes or federal laws?

Our governor could have avoided this whole mess. Like the president he has a pen and the power to write executive orders. A simple remedy would be his executive order to remove the name of the issuing clerk from the marriage license. The actual authority of the license is the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not the county issuing the certificate or the person holding the job of clerk.

It appears to me that this whole mess is actually a schism in the Democrat party.

edit on 8-9-2015 by diggindirt because: clarity



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join