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: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt



Her job is not issuing marriage license.


What? That is one of her jobs.



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.


What violation? She is the ONE who refused the accommodation. I find it funny that you don't see the irony. You ragging on the governor for not following the law and yet you support Kim Davis for not following the law.




posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
the governor violated her right to request reasonable accommodation and got her sent to jail.


Garbage, she got sent to jail for contempt of court, you really do not know much about this!


So you are the governor of Kentucky.


It has nothing to do with the governor.


The Supreme Court refused to allow Davis to continue denying marriage licenses to couples. "It cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk's office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court," a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit wrote in refusing to extend an appeal for Davis. "There is thus little or no likelihood that the clerk in her official capacity will prevail on appeal," the panel further said.[23]


She refused to do what the Supreme court told her to do.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
This article is the best I've found. It really "spells" it out. I suggest reading the entire article.

Basically -- she doesn't qualify for "relief" because her job is clerical. Her job is to verify information on a form.

NOT to have an opinion/judge it --- or an opinion/judgement of those filing the form. That is not her job.

If she was required to officiate the marriage, then she'd have grounds.



The question still remains, what to do in the meantime? Well, it seems clear that unless and until the legislature comes up with a solution, Davis must either do her job, let her deputies do it for her, wait for the General Assembly to act, and reconcile herself that her position as an administrative functionary does not allow her to indulge her personal "beliefs" at the expense of others; resign her position, if she can't do that; or, go back to jail for contempt. The law is the law, until it isn't. Unless and until the law changes, the law as it stands is operative. And the law as it stands does not allow her to substitute her judgment -- be it "religious" or otherwise -- for that of the legislature, or the courts.

www.dailykos.com...

edit on 12-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien
I apologize for poor wording. I should have said that only part, a small part, of her job is to issue marriage licenses.

The violation of her rights---as I've explained many, many times--- came when the governor ignored her legal request for reasonable accommodations under Kentucky Revised Statutes. This was BEFORE the federal case was filed. She asked that her name be removed from the form in order for her to be able to issue the licenses without her name attached.

And again---you misunderstand---I am not supporting Kim Davis for breaking the law. I am supporting her right to protection of her moral convictions under existing Kentucky law. The law has not been overturned therefore the governor and attorney general were obligated to follow the law---just as she was obligated to follow a completely different law after the SCOTUS ruling.

I want equal protection for all. That's what our form of government was set up to do---protect individual liberty. I don't want anyone's rights trampled. Dr. King expressed it best:

"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals." and "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
I must disagree that the article "spells it out" as it considers only the federal law portion of the debate.
No mention, consideration or explanation of the state statute that has not been overturned. That law is conveniently ignored by the frenzy feeders---the law that says the Commonwealth must provide reasonable accommodation to a citizen being burdened by governmental decisions. Mrs. Davis is a citizen, she didn't lose her citizenship when she took an oath to become a public servant.
The government has a clear and compelling interest to provide marriage licenses to people who wish to marry. Government does not have a clear and compelling interest to include a single name on that license because it is the Commonwealth of Kentucky that issues the license. Therefore, removing her name from the form was a reasonable accommodation. If the governor and attorney general had simply obeyed the state law as well as the federal ruling nobody would have ever heard of Kim Davis.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




The violation of her rights---as I've explained many, many times--- came when the governor ignored her legal request for reasonable accommodations under Kentucky Revised Statutes.


Her rights have not been trampled. In fact her request was unnecessary because existing law already covered it.

KY Rev Stat § 61.035 (1996 through Reg Sess)

A simple sentence found in Kentucky law seems to clear things up. According to statute 61.035, “Any duty enjoined by law or by the Rules of Civil Procedure upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy.” If Davis can issue licenses, so can her deputies. There is little to suggest that these licenses would or could ever be rejected as legal and binding.

That means that it was never necessary for her name to appear on the forms. If she simply allowed her deputies to issue the marriage licenses she would have never seen jail.

Davis’ job in no way requires her to “condone or endorse same-sex marriage” in any way. “It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.” In other words, Davis’ primary responsibility is paperwork and filing, not authorizing or officiating.
If any official who refused to simply acknowledge the legal existence of same-sex marriage had to be accommodated, it could greatly undermine Obergefell‘s guarantee that same-sex couples have access to “civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.”



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Davis’ job in no way requires her to “condone or endorse same-sex marriage” in any way. “It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.” In other words, Davis’ primary responsibility is paperwork and filing, not authorizing or officiating.


And that is what the judge said: "She is NOT burdened".

Her job is clerical. She is to verify the written information on the forms. Period.

Her name on any marriages license has nothing to do with the marriage itself. She is validating only the written information.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
I want equal protection for all.


Except gay people apparently!



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Not only that she doesn't have to personally certify the information her deputies can by law.


When she stands behind the counter in her government position at work and declares that no marriage license will be issued because of "Gods Law" then she becomes the worst kind of offender to the constitution in direct violation of the first amendment.

She implements religious law at her office. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".


Either her supporters have very poor comprehension of the constitution or they simply disregard it when they do not like it.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Annee

Not only that she doesn't have to personally certify the information her deputies can by law.



I know. And that's exactly what the judge made happen.

As a major supporter of Separation of Church and State ---- you don't have to convince me how outrages "God's Law" is.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The fact that she was able to use her government position to implement religious law at her office is what got my attention.


She is very lucky she wasn't brought up on charges for that.


If she does it again I hope they throw the book at her.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Annee

The fact that she was able to use her government position to implement religious law at her office is what got my attention.


Oh, you know it got my attention.

This isn't over yet. I'm still hoping they throw the book at her, use her as an example, and set a precedence.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
Exactly! So why is Jack Conway not prosecuting her under that statute?
As I've said time and time again, he can't have it both ways. She was either interfering with the orderly administration of the duties of her office or she was seeking refuge under a state law that remains valid. In asking to have her name removed from the document, she was seeking refuge under the "reasonable accommodation" law. (Criminey, I'm tired of typing that phrase!)
It is a fact that her name never needed to appear on the document so why was her legal request to remove her name from the form not acted upon until she had sat in jail for days?
Under standing law (already referenced numerous times)---she has the right to seek accommodation does she not?
She has the right to have her request considered and answered in a timely manner---does she not?
(Just a note here---"in a timely manner" if I remember correctly, means that if harm is imminent, the issue goes to the front of the judicial calendar. "Harm" in this case could be prosecution or other consequences such as losing her job due to inaction by the appropriate governmental agency. If I'm wrong in my recall I'm sure an attorney will come along and correct me.)a reply to: Grimpachi



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
I want equal protection for all.


Except gay people apparently!


Where in my posts did you get that idea? I've posted relentlessly that I support all people's rights---have done so all my adult life and borne the brunt of people like you who attempt to put feelings into my heart that have never been there.
My personal thoughts are that government should have gotten out of the marriage business years ago. Marriage was co-opted from religion to gain power over the governed. If government wants to okay contracts, let them okay the contract between two people to unite. Marriages should be carried out by religious people if that is what they desire. Mine is a civil union conducted by a judge for the sole reason of the economic gains to be had from that document and to avoid the numerous legal hassles encountered by those of us who preferred to "shack up." Our devotion to one another didn't change one bit from the five years we'd spent "living in sin" on the day that we "made it legal." But my personal views are just that---mine---they don't yet constitute law so they're basically irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




It is a fact that her name never needed to appear on the document so why was her legal request to remove her name from the form not acted upon until she had sat in jail for days?


Because she refused to let her deputies serve those wanting licenses.



Under standing law (already referenced numerous times)---she has the right to seek accommodation does she not?


And several times you have been told there was nothing that needed to be changed. Laws were already in place. She didn't need a special one specifically written for just her.




She has the right to have her request considered and answered in a timely manner---does she not?


It was considered and dismissed based on she has referenced no legal precedent which warranted any changes.




Just a note here---"in a timely manner" if I remember correctly, means that if harm is imminent


You keep forgetting her request was reviewed and denied. Just because she doesn't like the answer doesn't mean she should get her way.




"Harm" in this case could be prosecution or other consequences such as losing her job due to inaction by the appropriate governmental agency. If I'm wrong in my recall I'm sure an attorney will come along and correct me.)


Not even her own crazy lawyers have tried to push that narrative so you should count yourself as probably being wrong.

Before gays were given equal rights the duty of the county clerk was to certify that the information provided was accurate and that the couple were qualified to marry under Kentucky law.


After gays were granted equal rights the duty of the county clerk is to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.

Davis’ job in no way requires her to “condone or endorse same-sex marriage” in any way.

So exactly how have her duties changed?



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
No, I'm not forgetting that her request was reviewed and denied. Her request was ignored until she had been in jail for days and Jack Conway's internal poll numbers were dropping because he was trying to straddle the fence.
Failing to act in a timely manner is seen legally as the same as not acting at all.
Her duties changed when the law changed. Prior to the ruling her name only went on marriage licenses for straight people, a law which suited her religious beliefs. Any government policy or law change must take into consideration the religious beliefs of the citizens. SCOTUS ruled on that a very long time ago. I can't give you a quote or a link right at this moment but I remember the case of a Carolina woman who was a woman of a faith that prohibited working on Saturday. When her boss suddenly decided that she must work on Saturday she quit her job and applied for unemployment. The state department in charge of unemployment said they would not accord her benefits because it was her own fault that she no longer had a job. When the matter came before SCOTUS, they decreed that reasonable accommodations must be made if the demanding party cannot show infringements caused by the accommodation.

I'll try to find a link to that case. I remember it simply because we had to deal with it when we had students who weren't permitted to work on Saturday or Sunday due to their religious belief. Since our class was indeed "work", we had to excuse them and find a way for them to make up the missed days. The fact that they would be required to work one Saturday and one Sunday during the six week class was not disclosed on the syllabus or the description of the class in the handbook. We learned from that.

The Kentucky law requiring the government to make reasonable accommodation has not changed.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




Her duties changed when the law changed.


Her duties remain the same. Any and all accommodations by law were already in place.

The ONLY thing that has changed is that there is a court order barring her from interfering with her deputies issuing marriage licenses.

Of which her lawyers are trying to fight.




I can't give you a quote or a link right at this moment but I remember the case of a Carolina woman who was a woman of a faith that prohibited working on Saturday.


That nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with Kentucky law. Nice try though.




The Kentucky law requiring the government to make reasonable accommodation has not changed.


And Kentucky has still found that nothing needs to be accommodated for.

Let me repeat: Kentucky has not made any accommodations for her that were not already available. She won nothing.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
If the government starts giving gay people marriage certificates, and you issue marriage certificates and are against gay marriage -- step down from your position in protest, taking your vauable job skills and years of experience with you. That simple. Raising a huge fuss and refusing to comply with the new law is simply making yourself a victim. I have no sympahy for someone who chooses to make themselves a victim.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom
SCOTUS disagreed with your opinion in Sherbert v. Verner. This is the case I referenced in the above post.
www.oyez.org...




Facts of the Case Adeil Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was fired from her job after she refused to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The South Carolina Employment Security Commission denied her benefits, finding unacceptable her religious justification for refusing Saturday work.

Question Did the denial of unemployment compensation violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?





Conclusion Decision:
7 votes for Sherbert, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion
Yes. The Court held that the state's eligibility restrictions for unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her faith. Furthermore, there was no compelling state interest which justified such a substantial burden on this basic First Amendment right.


So far as I am aware Shubert v. Verner has not been overturned.
The court opined that the burden of showing a compelling governmental interest in on the government. The agency of government taking the action must prove that the service or governmental interest can only be accomplished by compelling the person of faith to act contrary to their beliefs. They also ruled that courts must apply strict scrutiny to each case.

The only case of which I'm aware where the ruling came close to being overturned was the Oregon case of a couple of employees of a drug rehab center were fired for using illegal drugs as part of their membership in the Native American religion. www.oyez.org...

Mrs. Davis did not make herself a victim. The ruling of the court struck down a portion of the Kentucky Constitution, not the entire body of Kentucky law. Nonetheless, she took the oath when that part of the Constitution was in effect. She no doubt knew of the Kentucky Religious Protection Act and believed that accommodations were available. She had every reason to believe that the governor and attorney general would follow the law. If the government is of the opinion that the changes she requested were unreasonable they have the obligation to make their case, not ignore the quite legal request for relief. She became a victim when the agency required to protect her religious rights (the Commonwealth of Kentucky) failed to do their statutory duty and the media descended on her like flies on roadkill.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
It is interesting that the Oath Keepers offered armed resistance against anyone whom would arrest Kim Davis again - even against US Marshal's.

news.yahoo.com...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join