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 Freed. Drama Queen Mike Huckabee: Lock Me Up!

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
Here is a source for the information I've been able to learn.
www.newsweek.com...

Specifically this:


A status report reviewed by Bunning found the marriage licenses had been altered to remove Davis' name. On the line reserved for her name, the form instead read "Rowan County." "Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alternations affect the validity of the licenses," Bunning wrote.
Davis previously requested her name be removed from the licenses. "Just remove her name from the marriage licenses. That’s all she has asked from the beginning," her attorney said in a statement on September 3.




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I have a question. Your link says :



Davis previously requested her name be removed from the licenses. "Just remove her name from the marriage licenses. That’s all she has asked from the beginning," her attorney said in a statement on September 3.


But, just recently from those same lawyers on her behalf:




The Rowan County clerk’s legal team, from the right-wing organization Liberty Counsel, filed an emergency appeal Friday seeking to delay the requirement that her office issue the licenses, the Associated Press reports. The filing, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argues that since the same-sex couples who sued Davis over her decision to cease issuing marriage licenses to any couples, gay or straight, received their licenses from Davis’s deputies in her absence, her office should not be required to grant any more once she returns to work — which she is expected to do Monday. www.advocate.com...


Those things don't match up. So either one of the press releases is wrong or statements from those lawyers must not be trusted as being truthful.


BTW, you should take note that your own link makes no mention of the state making any changes for her. The clerks removed her name if that is factual so obviously she could have done that herself. The state didn't need to change anything for her. Try to remember at her work "she is the state".
edit on 12-9-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
No that would be the Americans with Disabilities Act, not religious protection.
The accommodation that was granted was removing her name from the document. That was only one of several changes made to the document due to the court's ruling. I don't see how anyone could argue that it was an unreasonable accommodation to remove the name of the county clerk from the document.
She requested this relief in a legal manner from the two authorities in the Commonwealth who could enforce the law (to which they had sworn an oath) and do exactly what they did after they let her sit in jail for days.
This governor vetoed this law. He didn't like it. The legislature over-rode his veto. He was furious. So was the Attorney General. So, when faced with a decision to abide by the law and issue a reasonable accommodation, they did nothing---which led to Kim Davis refusing to issue any marriage licenses. She asked for a stay until her requests to the Commonwealth could be addressed. The governor ignored her pleas. That's how she ended up in Federal Court being sued by the ACLU.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




No that would be the Americans with Disabilities Act, not religious protection.


It was your link. Here, Let me show you.



446.350 Prohibition upon government substantially burdening freedom of religion
-- Showing of compelling governmental interest -- Description of "burden."
Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act
or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be
substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence
that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to
act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall
include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion
from programs or access to facilities.

Effective: June 25, 2013
History: Created 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 1, effective June 25, 2013


Again, can you please explain the burden as the law defines a burden?




The accommodation that was granted was removing her name from the document. That was only one of several changes made to the document due to the court's ruling. I don't see how anyone could argue that it was an unreasonable accommodation to remove the name of the county clerk from the document.


No, the county clerks in her office supposedly took her name off. There was no accommodation granted by any authority. It was done at her office which was something she had authority to do herself.


You can now thank her for wasting taxpayer dollars.
edit on 12-9-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Grimpachi
The accommodation that was granted was removing her name from the document. I don't see how anyone could argue that it was an unreasonable accommodation to remove the name of the county clerk from the document.


Maybe they felt that it was ridiculous to have to do that since being the Head County Clerk which is her position and that those documents always have that signature on them and that is her job and she knows all this being that she's worked in that office for 27 years and is now in charge of it for the past year.

It may seem like a simple thing to do, but who knows. Someones signature has to be on it so it is official. So who's is going on it now??? If that is what the Head County Clerk is supposed to have as their signature it's going to require a whole new set of rules being set and everything. All over this one Clerk and her BELIEFS. Maybe she should just do her job.

Here's another thing. She has said that she will issue them as long as her name is not on them. WTF??? How is that holding to your beliefs??? I would think she would want out of doing anything being that it's God's Word and all. So I guess God is ok with handing them out, just not signing it??? There is no sense to it at all. It's just a bunch of game playing BS.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee
Her belief doesn't trump anything. She asked for a reasonable accommodation---the removal of her name from the license. She, as a citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled by statue to this accommodation of her faith. The statute that entitles her to that relief from the Commonwealth has not been overturned by any court. The part of Kentucky law that was overturned was the Constitutional Amendment which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
These are two entirely separate areas of law. That's apparently what is confounding the "journalists" who are reporting and pontificating on this issue.
She didn't lose her rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth when the gay marriage section of the Constitution was struck down.
It was her respect for the law that drove her to deny all marriage licenses---so she wouldn't break the law according to the recent ruling. Had she simply followed her religious beliefs she would have simply refused only gay applicants. Instead she opted for the legal resolution available to her under Commonwealth law---a request for a reasonable accommodation.
The relief she requested has now been granted. Her name has been removed from the form along with all the other changes needed because of the court ruling. This could have been avoided if the governor had simply complied with the law he swore to uphold.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Annee
Her belief doesn't trump anything. She asked for a reasonable accommodation---the removal of her name from the license.



I don't care.

It's not a reasonable or legitimate reason not to do your job. Especially as an elected position.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
Are you saying that being forced to resign your job wouldn't be a burden?
Issue licenses with your name on them to anyone who walks through the door or resign your job. Those were her choices on the day that she asked for relief under Commonwealth law.
Fortunately for me, I don't have to explain the burden. I'm not her attorney or the Commonwealth's attorney. I just know what the law says and that it has never been overturned or repealed.
As for how the accommodation came about, see my earlier post. That's the information I have. I don't know if it was reported so I don't know if there's a link to back it up. I have no reason to doubt the sources with whom I've spoken.
She was told that she did not have the authority to alter the document. I don't recall right off which office fed her that information but I believe the documents do have to be uniform throughout the state. She was told that if she took a sharpie and blacked out her name she would be defacing an official document and if she printed them up without her name she would be altering an official document.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee
You do understand that issuing marriage licenses is only one tiny part of her job? Her office has continued to function despite the circus created by the media.
How is it unreasonable to ask the state to resolve this dilemma with the simple removal of a name?
This woman has worked in this office practically all her life. Do you think she's suddenly lost her mind and decided to become a criminal because of her faith?
No. This woman knows how government works---or is supposed to work---so she appealed to the system she has served faithfully for years. The governor and the attorney general threw her under the bus. Because they object to the law under which she sought relief. That's my opinion but it based on some mighty strong evidence.
They could have showed a bit of character and actually enforced the law they had sworn to uphold. That would have prevented this entire circus. I've said it before and I'll say it again, greed and petty politics are at the root of this whole mess. The lawyers and the media saw the potential and so did the pols.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
Well now, that's breaking news. I have no idea. Statements from lawyers are rarely to be trusted in my estimation.
I tend to agree with the guy in the article


Davis wants the injunction to stay on hold as long as it takes to appeal the underlying ruling. Before she was jailed, she had asked the Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court to place a hold on it, without success, and she is unlikely to succeed in her latest effort, some legal experts say. “I hate to use a religious metaphor, given the circumstances,” University of Louisville constitutional law professor Sam Marcosson told the AP, “but this strikes me as a Hail Mary pass.”


Just off the top of my head I can only think that this is an attempt to get a stay until the legislature can meet and sort this out.

On the matter of "she is the state" you are mistaken. She cannot design official state documents, deface or alter them. They are issued out of Frankfort and must be uniform throughout the state.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

This latest attempt by her legal team convinces me what I said all along is true: she does not want ANY same-sex marriage licenses coming out of her county, regardless of whether her name is on the licenses or not. It's not just about her personal belief being accommodated - she (and her legal team) wants her county to be a theocracy.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
I've said it before and I'll say it again, greed and petty politics are at the root of this whole mess.


That would be her greed, and petty politics. All she had to do was her job, if she did not want to do her job she should have resigned.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
It doesn't matter what "they think" ----they swore to uphold the law and under the law she is entitled to the protection of her faith.
It is the governor who should have done his job. It is the Attorney General who should have done his job. By simply enforcing the law and making the changes, this bungle-up would have never happened.
What you are saying is that it is okay for the governor and AG to ignore the law because they don't agree with the law but it isn't okay for her ignore the law because she doesn't agree with the law. In fact she didn't ignore the law. She sought refuge in the law. I'll bet she believed that justice is blind.
Her mistake was trusting the system that she has faithfully served for over 20 years. And not having the good fortune to have a good publicist.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce
Her greed?
Let's look at the lawyers' paychecks out of this and see who comes out with the biggest bank account.
Petty politics is the governor's race and the attorney general race. Those polls are really tight right now. When Conway came out with his mouthful of horse manure about the case, he lost points. He needs riding out of town on that fence he's trying to straddle.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
I'm not willing to speculate what she wants since I've never spoken with the woman.
I just want to see equal application of the law for all citizens. As a citizen I don't want the government being able to tell me that I must do something that violates my moral convictions. As a citizen I don't want the people who work in government to be obligated to violate their moral convictions---no matter the source of those convictions---be it a religion or a philosophy.
My moral convictions prevent me from giving health insurance companies any more of my money. I pay the fine.
Kim Davis has moral convictions that prevent her from affixing her name to a same-sex marriage license. She's paid with several days of her life spent in jail so far. What convictions do you hold that would compel you to go to jail for an indeterminate time if faced with that decision?

ETA: That final question was not aimed at you or anyone---just something that needs pondering from time to time.
edit on 12-9-2015 by diggindirt because: clarity



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt



just something that needs pondering from time to time.


Another question you need to ponder about is was George Wallace right? He had conviction too.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: diggindirt



just something that needs pondering from time to time.


Another question you need to ponder about is was George Wallace right? He had conviction too.


Yes, and ISIS members have convictions too. Convictions aren't always good.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
I just want to see equal application of the law for all citizens.


That is what Davis does NOT want, she wants different laws for different citizens!


As a citizen I don't want the government being able to tell me that I must do something that violates my moral convictions.


In this case it was her job, but she did not want to do her job! She should have simply resigned if she did not want to do her job.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce
Her job is not issuing marriage license. Her job is being county clerk. She was doing it quite nicely until the governor violated her right to request reasonable accommodation and got her sent to jail.
Please show me in any of her legal pleadings where she has asked different laws for different citizens?
She asked from the very beginning to have her name removed, a measure that was ultimately implemented.

So you are the governor of Kentucky. You know that you are obligated by a law that you vetoed to offer this woman relief when she makes this request. You are well aware of the law because you had quite a bit to say to some of your fellow party members when your veto was over-ridden.
Your know that this woman has spent decades in the faithful service of the Commonwealth. But because you do not agree with the law you ignore her request. You swore an oath to uphold the laws of the state and yet you fail to do so and a woman goes to jail and the media has their usual feeding frenzy when someone has the temerity to stand up for their moral convictions. (Especially if the standee doesn't have a good publicist.)
If you are the governor you have the choice to abide by the law and grant her right to reasonable accommodation or to violate the oath you took by refusing to act, who will hold you accountable?
According to the statutes it was the Attorney General who was supposed to order him to enforce the law. Unfortunately, he had been very vocal in his opposition to the law so he forgot his oath and was too busy campaigning for governor that he wasn't able to act until Kim Davis had sat in jail for several days and his internal poll numbers began to edge downward a bit.
So, upon seeing those numbers beginning to slide, he shook off his lethargy and had a huddle with the governor.
Men of character would have prevented this entire sideshow.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join