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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Thank you for finding that. I have been looking and asking, where and when Kim Davis asked for altered forms, to no avail. I found the The Supreme Court Document, which is 50 pages, including the intro and all, and even though I skimmed the whole document, I was looking for, and stopped at the section where she and her lawyer reject the newly issued forms, and where they asked that her office be exempt from issuing same sex licenses.

Here's the list of 6 options.


numerous less restrictive means are available to accomplish it without substantially burdening Davis’ religious freedom

 Providing an opt-out or exemption to the Kentucky marriage licensing scheme (as exists for the Kentucky fish and wildlife licensing scheme), KY. REV. STAT. §150.195, and as other states, such as North Carolina, have enacted, see, e.g., N.C.

GEN. STAT. § 51-5.5 (permitting recusal of officials from “issuing” lawful marriage licenses “based upon any sincerely held religious objection”);

 Deputizing a neighboring county clerk (or some other person) to issue Kentucky marriage licenses in Rowan County;

 Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form;

 Deeming Davis “absent” for purposes of issuing SSM licenses, based upon her moral and religious inability to issue them, and allowing those licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County, as specifically authorized by Kentucky
law, see KY. REV. STAT. § 402.240;

 Distributing Kentucky marriage licenses at the state-level through an online or other state-wide licensing scheme; or

 Legislatively addressing Kentucky’s entire marriage licensing scheme post-Obergefell,three months in the next regular legislative session, whether immediately by calling a special legislative session or in three months in the next regular legislative session.



The only option that seem workable to me, is to make new forms that have no reference to anyone except the state of Kentucky, which would require a change in the certification and signatory laws.



Could you please provide links to such laws as you reference in that post? State or federal?


No. This isn't my thread, and I've already done your and the OP's homework in bring forth the Supreme Court Application document. If you want to hash through state and federal certification and signatory laws, be my guest. I provided this from the Supreme Court Application:

The form retained all of the references to “marriage,” as well as the same name, signature and authorization requirements of the county clerk developed before Obergefell. VC, ¶ 26, and Exs. A, D.


The newly issued form, by Gov Beshear, retained the legal requirement of a signatory of certification from the "County Clerk", that is in this case, Kim Davis.

We already know that, as of last Friday, the forms were alter to omit Km Davis' name, and her attorney mocked the effort, saying that licenses were null and void, and not worth the paper they were printed on. Why? Signatory and certification laws is my guess.


edit on 9-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.


No it doesn't.


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


You are asking for the equivalent of Segregation. "I don't have to serve these people if it goes against my beliefs." Separate but equal. There is a reason we got rid of that idea. Stop trying to bring it back.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you are wanting everyone to conform to what you think is right. In other words, you are shoving your morality down everyone else's throat.

Isn't that something no one should do?

Either we respect that people can have their own beliefs and accommodate that or we become a tyranny that has no respect for the individual beliefs a person holds. You cannot have it to ways and pay lip service to it when it suits you to do so because it fits with what you believe and then ignore your statements when the person in question goes against what YOU think is right.

And in order to respect the beliefs and rights of the individual, it means you have to both side with people you do not agree with on occasion and respect that others can do things you also do not agree with. In this case, the gay couple should be able to get their license and a way should be found around forcing Kim Davis to participate in it.


edit on 9-9-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.


Then give her a new job, because she CLEARLY cannot have the job she currently has. Oh wait, she was elected. You can't give her another job. So I guess she's SOL there.


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.


That is misinterpreting what I said. I know she can physically do the things she is doing, that is irrelevant. I'm talking about legally. She can't legally say or do those things. She is REQUIRED by her position as county clerk to apply the law equally to everyone.


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.


No, she is being paid to give out tyranny disguised as religious rights. That's all. Saying it is anything else is just asinine. We all know how this played out with interracial marriage. She is in the wrong 100% no matter what she thinks or her lawyers say.


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.


No it isn't. This has already been attempted with the interracial marriage debate. Those idiots failed too.


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."


She should be unemployed. She is a disgrace to her religion and to what she thinks religious rights are.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
But I can read. And I have enough understanding to know that the entire system is convoluted and contradictory.


Ah, we'll agree to agree on this one, for sure--but that's why I asked, because without either the judicial system being your job or having formally studied the system, it's difficult to speak with valid authority on the subject at hand.

I get your point--you think that she should have had reasonable accommodations made to appease her religious issues with signing off on marriage certificates for gay couples, but the problem lies within these two points:

(1) She not only quit giving out licenses altogether (which is a violation of Kentucky Law, which states that she shall issue marriage licenses), but she also ordered her deputy clerks not to issue them as well, and
(2) To the best of my knowledge, she nor her attorneys never proposed a reasonable accommodation for her beliefs--all they were arguing is that she didn't have to do it because the state law said gay marriage wasn't legal.

Those two points alone tell me that she had no intentions in asking for reasonable accommodations from the beginning and was only concerned about how the SCOTUS ruling affected her, individually. She is there to serve the public, but was only serving herself--that is unacceptable as a public servant, although it has sadly become the expected norm.

We'll continue to disagree, I suppose, so we can stop the back-and-forth at this point, but my two points above are the foundation as to why I can't support her decision to do what she did--I'm all about protesting and fighting unjust laws, but there's nothing here that was unjust except for what she was doing to people who wanted to get married in her county. The onus was on her to approach this differently from the beginning, and she chose the proverbial hard way.

Best regards, and thanks for keeping things so civil throughout this thread.




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
One more thing. Even Fox News disagrees with Kim Davis and her attorney.

Fox News panel concludes that Kim Davis’ lawyer is ‘ridiculously stupid’


“She can still practice her faith,” Fox News host Gregg Jarrett noted. “Just not on the job in a way that interferes with the legal rights of the citizens she serves. And in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court said so nine years ago.”

“She’s a hypocrite,” criminal defense attorney Sharon Liko agreed. “She’s applying for the job of a martyr. She wants to practice her faith by not issuing marriage licenses. Yet, she will not agree to let the deputy county clerks issue marriage licenses even if it’s okay with their faith.”

“When she took the job she swore to uphold the law,” Jarrett explained. “We rely on government officials to do that. They can’t just pick and choose what laws they like, which ones they don’t. If they were allowed to do that, wouldn’t that lead to chaos, anarchy and so forth?”

Jarrett also called out Davis’s attorney, who said it was “questionable” if the Supreme Court had the “constitutional authority” to rule on same-sex marriage.

“Whether the Supreme Court has constitutional authority?” the Fox News host said. “Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court constitutional authority to decide constitutional issues!”

Jarrett added that Staver’s statement appeared to be “stunningly obtuse.”

“That’s a very polite way of putting it,” Liko replied. “I would say it’s just a ridiculously stupid statement. The Supreme Court does just that, and they determine constitutionality issues, they resolve these kinds of disputes.”



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you are wanting everyone to conform to what you think is right. In other words, you are shoving your morality down everyone else's throat.

Isn't that something no one should do?


No I'm following the letter of the Constitution.


Either we respect that people can have their own beliefs and accommodate that or we become a tyranny that has no respect for the individual beliefs a person holds. You cannot have it to ways and pay lip service to it when it suits you to do so because it fits with what you believe and then ignore your statements when the person in question goes against what YOU think is right.


She DOES have the right to have her own beliefs. She just isn't allowed to use her government position to exercise those beliefs.


And in order to respect the beliefs and rights of the individual, it means you have to both side with people you do not agree with on occasion and respect that others can do things you also do not agree with. In this case, the gay couple should be able to get their license and a way should be found around forcing Kim Davis to participate in it.


Yes, relieve her of her position for discriminatory reasons.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
Well, you brought up the issue of signatory laws so I assumed (wrongly perhaps) that you had reason for doing so. I know of no such statutes in Kentucky that say that every legal document must be signed by the issuing clerk. My vehicle registrations are issued by the county clerk but she certainly doesn't sign each one individually.


You again mention changes in the certification and signatory laws yet you won't cite them?


The only option that seem workable to me, is to make new forms that have no reference to anyone except the state of Kentucky, which would require a change in the certification and signatory laws.


Forgive me but I was under the impression that if you keep referring to laws, you must provide a link to the laws in order to allow us to see and examine those laws since you keep insisting that they exist---or you keep guessing that they exist? So do they exist or are they simply in your imagination?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

No I'm following the letter of the Constitution.



Which letter? Just like there is nothing about separation of church and state in it, I think you'll find nothing about marriage in it either.



She DOES have the right to have her own beliefs. She just isn't allowed to use her government position to exercise those beliefs.


So the government has the power to jail her for having the wrong beliefs? Isn't that the government using its position to exercise its beliefs?



Yes, relieve her of her position for discriminatory reasons.


She was elected, not hired. She can be recalled or not re-elected. Also, as a previous poster pointed out - she's not issuing licenses to anyone. There is no discrimination. Gay or straight, you're not getting a license. Both are being treated equally.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

So, what's your solution. Are you denying that signatory and certification protocols/laws are not already in place, and would need to be changed to meet her demands?

The forms were already altered to omit Kim Davis' name and signature from the license, last Friday. Her lawyer says that they're null and void.

So, what exactly is she asking for? New forms or a new process that circumvents all county clerks from certifying marriage certificates?

Anyway you look at, it seems that she wants "HER" office to be exempt from the Supreme Court ruling.




edit on 9-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which letter? Just like there is nothing about separation of church and state in it, I think you'll find nothing about marriage in it either.


The 14th amendment. Specifically:


No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Marriage is state law. No state shall make or enforce a law that denies ANY person equal protection under the law.

So, marriage must apply to all citizens equally. It's not just for straight people anymore!



So the government has the power to jail her for having the wrong beliefs?


No. She can be jailed for disobeying a court order, though, just like the rest of us.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which letter? Just like there is nothing about separation of church and state in it, I think you'll find nothing about marriage in it either.


I didn't claim that marriage was in the Constitution. I'm talking about the various parts that govern how something like marriage would be controlled by the government. The Constitution doesn't have to specifically spell out how it handles marriage to understand how it should be governed.


So the government has the power to jail her for having the wrong beliefs? Isn't that the government using its position to exercise its beliefs?


This is a strawman. The government jailed her for being in contempt of court. Please don't change the argument around.


She was elected, not hired. She can be recalled or not re-elected. Also, as a previous poster pointed out - she's not issuing licenses to anyone. There is no discrimination. Gay or straight, you're not getting a license. Both are being treated equally.


Then whatever needs to be done to remove her from office needs to be done. There ARE ways to go about doing that.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Are you okay with a country clerk refusing marriage licences for interracial marriage based on the clerks religious belief?.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: RainyState
Beautifully said, Bodacia!


Thank you!


1) I think that with a 50% divorce rate, cheating websites, drive through wedding chapels, "instantly ordained" internet ministers, and third, fourth, and fifth marriages........... Us non-gays aren't playing the game so well ourselves. If HALF of straight marriages cant get it right, then who are we to deny TWO LOVING ADULTS the opportunity to get married.


That's pretty much it.... Some of the longest and most loving relationships I've personally known have been homosexual unions. Some of the ugliest and most hateful unions I've known have been heterosexual marriages. It seems to me we could all learn something from each other.


2)As far as the state/fed definition of "marriage" is concerned, it should be as simple as

"MARRIAGE IS THE UNION BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS"./quote]

Yes, simple and sweet. That was a basic principle of life taught by my parents -- whatever one or more consenting adults choose to do is their business. No one has to like it or approve or be part of it, but it's their right to do as they choose.


3) I got married at 25. Next month my wife and I will be celebrating our "ten year" anniversary on Oct. 1st. ... I only mentioned all of this because if someone would have told me that I could not have married my wife because the clerk had different beliefs than ours. I would have been devastated.


Early congrats! We celebrated our 34th last month. We have spent most of our lives together and sometimes I'm shocked that we made it this far... but most of the time I couldn't imagine life any other way. I understand a little how it must feel to be told, "No! You can't marry this person!" because it happened to my in-laws when interracial marriages were still banned in some states. If those laws hadn't changed, it would have been the same for us. It's ignorant and hateful.


Any type of discrimination should not be tolerated


I'm rather divided on that part. While I have no use for discrimination, neither do I want to force anyone to do anything, which I find far more offensive -- and an even greater threat to free will and freedom of conscience. The government, obviously, cannot discriminate against the public, including county clerks. In this case, the reasonable accommodations for objections of faith should have been developed and implemented long before it got to this point. I would bet dollars to donuts that this is all by design to force the issue for political reasons by both sides. It doesn't sit right with me that Ms. Davis was sued personally, by name, with the demand that she and only she provide the marriage license. Why attack a particular person as opposed to the governing authority (the state? county?). Something's not right about that.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


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.


No it doesn't.


I don't want to argue the point... I didn't make the law... but that is the law. It only has to be a sincerely held belief. It does not have to be deemed reasonable by anyone.


You are asking for the equivalent of Segregation. "I don't have to serve these people if it goes against my beliefs." Separate but equal. There is a reason we got rid of that idea. Stop trying to bring it back.


Really? REALLY??? This is the law! I didn't write it. I didn't pass it. I'm just demanding that it be respected. And while I don't agree with the Clerk's position, I do want the law followed. I don't want anyone forced to take part in abortions or executions either. Aren't I awful???

As for being the equivalent of segregation, no, it is not. Allowing people to live their conscience is no comparison to the government telling people where they can and cannot live. But I'll play... tell me all about how well those laws worked. Tell me all about how well those laws worked for the people of Ferguson and Baltimore and the countless other areas still stuck in the same damn situation. We never got rid of haters and we never will. We just criminalized it and then pick and choose who we prosecute. I often wonder if discrimination laws haven't done more harm than good... as evidenced by this glorious post racial America.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Can anyone tell me when she lost her Freedom of Belief? because that is what Religion is, not a way to govern Other people



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

I think we all know that she didn't...some just refuse to understand that reality, and they think that belief systems should be allowed to dictate how one performs their duties at a paid job (and, in this case, a public-sector elected position).



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Then give her a new job, because she CLEARLY cannot have the job she currently has. Oh wait, she was elected. You can't give her another job. So I guess she's SOL there.


She clearly cannot perform her job duties as currently expected, yes, I agree. She is also an elected official, which mucks it all up a bit too. But there obviously was a simple "reasonable accommodation" that will not only serve Kim Davis' purposes, and the public, and the office, which has all been implemented... and none of it required Ms. Davis going to jail or violating her conscience. If that is not good enough, than it indicates that the real goal is to punish dissenters and always was. (The fact that the lawsuit filed was against Ms. Davis personally -- not the county or the state -- and the demand that she personally issue the marriage license already proves that).


That is misinterpreting what I said. I know she can physically do the things she is doing, that is irrelevant. I'm talking about legally. She can't legally say or do those things. She is REQUIRED by her position as county clerk to apply the law equally to everyone.


I am not misrepresenting anything. This is natural law... organic law... Constitutional law. We have the right to think and act according to our conscience, as supported and evidenced by the RFRA and Title VII. She has the legal right to refuse to act against her conscience, and the governing authorities have a legal responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations. She did apply the law equally -- she refused to give anyone a marriage license. That is applying the law equally. She did not write the law... she just applied the law and exercised her rights under the law. Just as the gay couples trying to obtain a legal marriage license have. The problem is with the law, and those authorities who could have -- and should have -- worked within the law to accommodate her religious objections. The problem is not Ms. Davis.


No, she is being paid to give out tyranny disguised as religious rights.


Really? That was the job description on the ballot people voted for her? Wow. Who woulda thunk it???


That's all. Saying it is anything else is just asinine.


So be it... but I am and have been saying that it is something different. We can tar and feather Ms. Davis and run her out of town on a rail, and guess what? The same legal issues will still be on the books. The same governing authorities that execute and enforce the laws (or not) will still be there. So, forgive me my asinine ways, but I will continue to look at the root of the problem, and not blame one little woman for the hellhole we've made for ourselves.


We all know how this played out with interracial marriage. She is in the wrong 100% no matter what she thinks or her lawyers say.


Yes, indeed we do. My in-laws know personally, as they came from different states, and one state had laws against their interracial marriage and another state did not... so guess where they got married? If the laws had not changed (prior to the Civil Rights Act), then my husband and I would have been in the same situation. I have lived with and dealt with racism, and ya know what? Because I am a White woman who made a conscious decision to marry another race, I am the brunt of the greatest hatred by those so inclined to hate, so please don't try to lecture me on racism and segregation. I will continue to demand non-discrimination and equal application of the law by government... and I will continue to respect people's right to live their conscience as they see fit. Even if it means they hate me and will not serve me. I will find someone who will or do it myself. The principles are greater than the person.


She should be unemployed. She is a disgrace to her religion and to what she thinks religious rights are.


That's great... now she doesn't even deserve a job or the means to care for herself and her family? All because she dared to exercise her natural and legal rights under the law? We really need a legal system that provides one set of rules for some and another set of rules for others... rights for none and privileges for some... Yeah, that'll fix everything, right?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Best regards, and thanks for keeping things so civil throughout this thread.


I thank you for the same. And for giving me much to think about as I consider this and other issues, which I always appreciate! I may not agree, or come to the same conclusions, but it can only help me to understand other perspectives and possibilities.

Until next time



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




She has the legal right to refuse to act against her conscience, and the governing authorities have a legal responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations.


This where you and I differ. From your OP:


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.


And, from the RFRA:


except that the government MAY burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.


Issuing same sex marriage licenses from that county clerk's office is a compelling government interest. Finding the least restrictive mean to do that is up for debate, I guess. Exempting the entire county from issuing same sex licenses is not acceptable or reasonable.

We'll see how this turns out, but I've got my money of Kim Davis losing this one. Kim Davis' situation is no different than the florist, the bakery or the photographer, all of whom lost their cases. Except that, in this case, Kim Davis is a government official denying a government service, which makes it a much bigger deal.




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join