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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

Issuing same sex marriage licenses from that county clerk's office is a compelling government interest.


Exactly. For the feds, their compelling interest is to ensure the equal application of the law -- all laws; the compelling interest of the county is for the county clerk's office to issue marriage licenses fairly and equally. There is no compelling interest for either the state or the feds to require one person -- in this case, Kim Davis -- to personally issue marriage licenses. Nor should there be!

ETA: As I read Ms. Davis' motion to the court for an injunction against the contempt of court charge, I was pretty damn shocked -- and disgusted -- that the lawsuits filed were not against the county or the state, demanding equal application of the law, but against Ms. Davis personally, demanding the she must issue the license herself. Their compelling interest should be in obtaining their license -- and therefore the equal application of the law... not in forcing one person to do something against their will, and against her natural and legal rights. We are being played and not for OUR benefit.


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.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "least restrictive" -- sorry! But we obviously have some issues to debate and work out, and no, of course it is not acceptable or reasonable for any government office to be run according to the whims and wishes of one person.


We'll see how this turns out, but I've got my money of Kim Davis losing this one.


I would say that Kim Davis has already won... though I will wait and see her next move before saying so unequivocally... but more important, we the people have won thanks to Kim Davis. Despite the political games being played by the others involved, in the end, Kim Davis got her reasonable accommodation (her name removed from the marriage license) as is her legal right under the laws.


Kim Davis' situation is no different than the florist, the bakery or the photographer, all of whom lost their cases.


I have to disagree... we all lost as soon as the color of law and the force of a gun was used to force the will of some on others. There is nothing good about that. There are better ways to encourage and promote non-discrimination than the force of a gun and huge fines that destroy people's lives. Unfortunately, as a society we prefer punishment and force to encouragement and reward.


Except that, in this case, Kim Davis is a government official denying a government service, which makes it a much bigger deal.


And much more complicated. As I was researching the RFRA and court rulings, I was rather disappointed in the mess that's been made of all this. Personally, I'm not sure I even agree that govt employees should be given "reasonable accommodations" in serving the public... if they cannot serve everyone equally, then they shouldn't be in that position. However, I fully and completely support "reasonable accommodations" and even refusal of service for people in private industry and practice -- including the baker and the florist and the photographer. The more I think about it... the more I look at the results of racial non-discrimination laws... the more I believe that we would all benefit far more by using govt force to empower and promote those who practice non-discrimination of their own free will.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting and ETA




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "least restrictive" -- sorry!


Exactly! It's not my wording, that's the wording in the RFRA.


I would say that Kim Davis has already won... though I will wait and see her next move before saying so unequivocally... but more important, we the people have won thanks to Kim Davis.


Yeah? I'm not seeing it. Her office is issuing same sex marriage licenses, and her lawyer is objecting to that as a legal "reasonable accommodation". She lost her round with 6th Circuit Court and is asking the Supreme Court for a "stay", to allow her to continue to unequivocally refuse to issue same sex licenses from her officer, until she can appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.

The people that won here, imo, are the same sex couples that were originally refused marriage licenses, who brought this before the judge in the first place. Since her county clerk office issued them, in Ms Davis' absence, the judge ordered Kim Davis released, and ordered her to continue to allow same sex marriage licenses to be issued, from here on out.

Oh.....It's not over! LOL Batten down the hatches!




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


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.


May I ask you to expand on your thoughts on how this has been playing out? As I've been reading the court documents and related articles, the big fat white elephant in the room is that all these legal actions have focused on one person... not the system. The lawsuit brought against Ms. Davis was totally and completely personal; i.e., the plaintiffs demanded that Kim Davis personally issue their marriage license. In other words, the action was not brought against the governing authorities, nor was it brought against the office, but against Kim Davis specifically. That is a HUGE red flag for me.

First, would not any court ruling therefore only apply to Ms. Davis, but not her predecessors nor the governing (county and/or state) authorities?

Second, wouldn't it have been more practical and effective for the state and/or county to be sued to bring the county clerk's office into conformance with the law for now and eternity?

Third, therefore, isn't this really an attack on individual rights as opposed to an attack on lack of due process?

I ask these questions sincerely and will appreciate your thoughts on the matter... pretty please?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


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.


I had to laugh at that... but in the best way... you were the one to tell me that Fox News wasn't worth watching -- and you were right!!!

During the Baltimore riots, I tuned into Fox News just long enough to find out how right you were and it wasn't long until I switched to CNN. They weren't too much better but that's why I don't watch the news -- so no surprise there!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

Exactly! It's not my wording, that's the wording in the RFRA.


LOL at me!!! You're right. One of many wishy-washy things that got me so confused and befuddled by reading about the RFRA and the court rulings.


Yeah? I'm not seeing it. Her office is issuing same sex marriage licenses, and her lawyer is objecting to that as a legal "reasonable accommodation". She lost her round with 6th Circuit Court and is asking the Supreme Court for a "stay", to allow her to continue to unequivocally refuse to issue same sex licenses from her officer, until she can appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.

The people that won here, imo, are the same sex couples that were originally refused marriage licenses, who brought this before the judge in the first place. Since her county clerk office issued them, in Ms Davis' absence, the judge ordered Kim Davis released, and ordered her to continue to allow same sex marriage licenses to be issued, from here on out.


Exactly -- Ms. Davis got her reasonable accommodation under the law... if she's not happy about that reasonable accommodation, well, okay. (I'm waiting to see where she takes it from here... and I'm wondering how much her wunderkind lawyers will influence that for their own political purposes...). But the law was followed, her legal rights were respected and addressed -- despite the best efforts of many -- which is a win for all of us. Especially, but not limited to, those couples who were denied a marriage license and equal opportunity under the law.


Oh.....It's not over! LOL Batten down the hatches!



You're right again! This apparently ain't over by a long shot!!!

But I want the process to play out. It must play out for everyone's benefits -- the good, the bad, and the ugly.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
To all --

I'm doing my best to keep up with everyone's replies and I have the feeling I'm missing some despite my best efforts... I apologize. I keep getting lost in my own thread!!! If I haven't replied to a comment, its merely incompetence not deliberate avoidance so feel free to poke me...

And thanks to everyone for your comments. Agree or disagree, all are appreciated



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




First, would not any court ruling therefore only apply to Ms. Davis, but not her predecessors nor the governing (county and/or state) authorities?


The Contempt of Court charge was against her personally. She, personally, needs to follow the law. The law applies to all, even Ms Davis' predecessors.



Second, wouldn't it have been more practical and effective for the state and/or county to be sued to bring the county clerk's office into conformance with the law for now and eternity?

Third, therefore, isn't this really an attack on individual rights as opposed to an attack on lack of due process?


Kim Davis, filed suit against Governor Beshear on August 4, 2015.

Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 33 Filed: 08/04/15 Page: 1 of 32 - Page ID#: 701

Fasten your seat belts!
edit on 9-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I'm in disbelief that she didn't lose her job. Who cares what her religion is. Most people don't even believe in these fairy tales anyways. Yet, she has a right to deny someone's rights?

If this is a reflection of the Christian faith, then they are some of the most hateful and spiteful people I know. Maybe we should start protesting to remove these churches from our neighborhoods. Seems all they like to spread is hate anyways.

Anyone who backs this woman should be ashamed of themselves.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: amicktd

Who cares what her religion is.


No one cares. Nor should they. Our only concern is to ensure that her natural and Constitutional rights are respected, including her inalienable right to freedom of religion and conscience. At least some of us do care about protecting rights... should I assume you are not one of them?


Most people don't even believe in these fairy tales anyways.


Maybe... maybe not. But those of us who do believe in "fairy tales", still have the Constitutional right to our beliefs and the free exercise thereof... are you suggesting otherwise? Are you so all-knowing and all-seeing that you would deny others their right to their conscience? Because you know best and therefore we all must obey your will? Or, if not yours, then whose?


Yet, she has a right to deny someone's rights?


Of course not... likewise, no one has a right to demand any service from anyone else. In this case, people have a right to equal application of the law, and therefore a marriage license. No one has the right to demand that a specific individual personally provide that license. Those who would demand their "rights" while denying someone else their rights are demanding privileges and entitlements -- not rights.


If this is a reflection of the Christian faith, then they are some of the most hateful and spiteful people I know.


Because all Christians are exactly alike? Because only Christians would deny their personal service to others? Because it's more hateful to say, "Hey, I don't want to stop you from doing what you want to do, but I don't want to be part of it," as opposed to someone saying, "Hey, I think you fairy-tale believers are some of the most hateful and spiteful people I know and by golly whiz you're going to do what I want, when I want, how I want and where I want whether you like it or not because I am perfect and all-knowing"???


Maybe we should start protesting to remove these churches from our neighborhoods. Seems all they like to spread is hate anyways.


So you are not familiar with the many charitable services churches provide, from feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless and clothing the poor? Has it never occurred to you that many many individuals do the same because of their faith? Yes, much hate and harm has been perpetuated in the name of religion... likewise, much good has been done in the name of religion. Religion, like anything, is what we make of it.


Anyone who backs this woman should be ashamed of themselves.


Fair enough... because I would posit that anyone who cannot see past their own self-serving interests to understand the importance of protecting her natural and Constitutional right to freedom of religion and conscience should be ashamed of themselves... So, think what you will of me, but I will damn sure support her Constitutional and legal rights because in doing so, I am also supporting and protecting my rights and everyone's rights. Including yours.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Once again, tell me how any of that was taken away from Her? her Belief? she had it before during and after.. she even had it during her divorces and her admitting adultery

no one has explained how this "Freedom of Religion" has been taken away from anyone...



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Your religious rights end when they encroach on others rights it is this simple.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

The Contempt of Court charge was against her personally. She, personally, needs to follow the law. The law applies to all, even Ms Davis' predecessors.


My bad... I should have said successors, not predecessors. I'm sure not going to get the right answers if I don't use the right words, eh? My apologies.

So the contempt of court charge would only apply to Ms. Davis, obviously. But my question is more broad: Because the plaintiffs sued Ms. Davis and only Ms. Davis, would not any ruling apply only to Ms. Davis? Wouldn't that mean that we could go through the exact same thing with a future county clerk who took the same or a similar position? Or would case law automatically apply to all future county clerks?


Kim Davis, filed suit against Governor Beshear on August 4, 2015.

Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 33 Filed: 08/04/15 Page: 1 of 32 - Page ID#: 701


I was reading that last night... although I'm going to read it again. Why do you think the governor has refused to respond to Ms. Davis' request for reasonable accommodations? I can't think of any good reason for him to do so. And yet, in the end, the forms were altered just as she requested. Likewise, why wouldn't the plaintiffs have sued the governor instead of or in addition to Ms. Davis? And/or sued the county clerk's office?

This is why I feel so strongly that this is all an organized effort to attack individual rights... NOT to ensure equal application of the law. (And why I'm being so stubborn about this! It's not that I agree with and support Ms. Davis, but I'm looking at the big picture and how these decisions can affect all of us... and not in a good way.) If you -- or anyone -- can help me understand this, I would be greatly appreciative!


Fasten your seat belts!


Fastened... and my barf bag is at the ready! (I think we're all going to need one before this is over.)
edit on 9-9-2015 by Boadicea because: clarity



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Those who would demand their "rights" while denying someone else their rights are demanding privileges and entitlements -- not rights.


I can certainly agree with that! Kim Davis demands her right to impose her religious beliefs (which is an imagined right), while denying the citizens of Rowan County marriage licenses that they are legally entitled to!! She is demanding privileges and entitlements -- not rights.
edit on 9/9/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Fortunately, I don't have to solve this problem. I am asking you to post links to the laws to which you keep bringing up and saying would have to be changed. If such a statute exists please post the link.

What on earth do you mean by "what exactly is she asking for?" Her requests are the very ones you posted from the linked document.
Again, county clerks don't certify marriages---the Commonwealth of Kentucky does. She is merely a clerk for the Commonwealth. She is asking, as a clerk for an accommodation because of her religious beliefs as allowed under the religious exemptions law. She gave them six options.
Now the Attorney General (the self-same one who refused to do his job and defend the Kentucky Constitution as he is statutorily required to do--- yet didn't get impeached and is now running for governor) has declared that there is no reason to appoint a special prosecutor at this time. www.kentucky.com... In this case I believe "at this time" means if it happens it won't happen until after November because causing her to be prosecuted before the election could cost him votes.
Wouldn't it be just the height of hypocrisy to prosecute her when he refused to fulfill the requirements of his statutory duty in Bourke v. Beshear? He followed his "feelings" not statutory law. How does he get a pass for disobeying law and this elected official doesn't get that luxury? time.com... Either elected officials follow the law or they don't. She has requested an exemption under law. She is following the law in her pleadings before the court whereas he basically said, "I'm not going to do it because I don't feel like it and you can't make me because even the Pope is talking about gays in a friendly way."



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Because the plaintiffs sued Ms. Davis and only Ms. Davis, would not any ruling apply only to Ms. Davis? Wouldn't that mean that we could go through the exact same thing with a future county clerk who took the same or a similar position? Or would case law automatically apply to all future county clerks?


The case was against Ms. Davis, both personally AND in her official capacity as county clerk. Source



And/or sued the county clerk's office?


Yep. They did.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



Why do you think the governor has refused to respond to Ms. Davis' request for reasonable accommodations?


I think it's because he wasn't asked, he's being sued to comply with Ms Davis' demands. He, and his attorneys, naturally, will be defending the Governor's Same Sex Marriage decree. The Judge may order arbitration to find a suitable "reasonable accommodation". But, I think that any of Ms Davis' proposed "reasonable accommodations" will require laws, statutes and/or protocols to be rewritten.

I think it's appropriate for this to go through the courts.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

Once again, tell me how any of that was taken away from Her? her Belief? she had it before during and after.. she even had it during her divorces and her admitting adultery

no one has explained how this "Freedom of Religion" has been taken away from anyone...


Everyone has an inalienable Constitutional right to the free expression of their religion and/or conscience. This right is established in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights; and defined and expanded upon in Title VII of the legal code and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (not my title!). Consequently, the government may not force anyone to act against their religious beliefs and/or conscience, nor can any employer force anyone to act against their religious beliefs and/or conscience. In a situation where the employee's religious beliefs and/or conscience conflict with their job duties, the RFRA and Title VII requires that reasonable accommodations be made.

Forcing Ms. Davis to act against her religious beliefs and to issue marriage licenses with her name, thereby representing her personal approval, would be a violation of her rights.

Refusing to provide reasonable accommodations for Ms. Davis in accordance with the RFRA is a violation of her rights.

In my opinion, a very good argument can be made that public servants -- whether elected, appointed, or hired -- should take the position with the understanding that they must serve the public equally, and if they cannot do so, they should not take a public service position to begin with. However, that is not the current law, and I'm sure others can (and have) offered arguments to the contrary.

I will continue to stand for rights and the equal application of current law, regardless of what I think about the individuals involved and their specific beliefs. In other words, I will support Ms. Davis' rights for the same reason I support so-called "gay rights."



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Boadicea
Those who would demand their "rights" while denying someone else their rights are demanding privileges and entitlements -- not rights.


I can certainly agree with that! Kim Davis demands her right to impose her religious beliefs (which is an imagined right)...


That scares me... am I misunderstanding something? (I sure hope so) Our right to the free exercise of our religion, Title VII statutes and the RFRA are real. There is nothing imaginary about it.

Kim Davis does not have the right to force her will on others... and others do not have the right to force their will on Kim Davis. The most that should be done is that Ms. Davis should lose her position. Under no circumstances should she be forced to do anything.


...while denying the citizens of Rowan County marriage licenses that they are legally entitled to!! She is demanding privileges and entitlements -- not rights.


Technically, Ms. Davis denied the citizens of Rowan County marriage licenses with her name on it, which no one is legally entitled to. Ms. Davis has exercised her rights under the law... just as gay couples fighting for their right to marry have exercised their rights under the law.

If anyone denied the citizens of Rowan County marriage licenses, it was those with the power and authority to resolve this situation by removing her name -- as they have now done -- who denied citizens the marriage licenses they are legally entitled to.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




I am asking you to post links to the laws to which you keep bringing up and saying would have to be changed. If such a statute exists please post the link.


I know what you're asking me, but I still don't have to follow your orders or do your homework for you. The signature problem is all over the news. However, I found THIS this morning. If you had been following the thread, instead of dogging me to do your research for, you would have already seen it.



The KDLA form must include both a “marriage license” and a “marriage certificate.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 402.100. The marriage license section must include an “authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license” and “[t]he date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 402.100

(1). The marriage certificate section must include “the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued, and the county in which the license was issued” and “[a] signed statement by the county clerk or a deputy county clerk of the county in which the marriage license was issued that the marriage license was recorded.” Ky. Rev. Stat.§ 402.100(2), (3). The KDLA-prescribed form specifically uses the word “marriage” at sixdifferent places on the form (and one reference to “join[ing] together in the state of matrimony”). (A true and correct copy of a completed, KDLA-prescribed form of marriage license used in Rowan County prior to June 30, 2015, with personal information redacted, is attached hereto as

Exhibit A.
1)
12. Thus, every marriage license must be issued and signed in the county clerk’s name and by the county clerk’s authority. In other words, no marriage license can be issued by a county clerk without her authorization and without her imprimatur.

13. As an alternative to a marriage license issued by a county clerk, Kentucky marriage law provides for the issuance of a marriage license by a county judge/executive, the highest elected officer in a county, upon the absence of the clerk or vacancy in the clerk’s office. See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 402.240. This alternative procedure does not require the use of the KDLA marriage license form; rather, it authorizes the county judge/executive to issue a marriage license by “a memorandum thereof,” which is recorded by the clerk in the same manner as a KDLA form. See id.





Again, county clerks don't certify marriages---the Commonwealth of Kentucky does.


Not according to her law suit.


She is merely a clerk for the Commonwealth. She is asking, as a clerk for an accommodation because of her religious beliefs as allowed under the religious exemptions law.


She's suing for accommodation.


She gave them six options.


She doesn't get to call the shots! She doesn't order the Governor around. She doesn't get to order the legislators around. She doesn't get to make demands of the Supreme Court or any of the lower Circuit courts!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Boadicea

The case was against Ms. Davis, both personally AND in her official capacity as county clerk. Source


Thank you -- more reading! I was relying on Ms. Davis court documents, which stated only she was being sued. Maybe kinda sorta that's true, but I'll have to reserve judgment until I read the entire document.

I am actually relieved to know that was wrong information. I am still concerned about the implications for individual rights... but I am glad to know that the county is included.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join