This County Clerk Business...Insanity!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Maybe she can meet Wife #1 one while she is in the pokey to go along with Husband #3.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Maybe she can meet Wife #1 one while she is in the pokey to go along with Husband #3.

Dude.

That is so gay!

Kim Davis Jailed in Contempt of Court Finding

originally posted by: beezzer

Dude.

That is so gay!

Er. Mah. Gerd. Hermahserxerls.

1. the lot of you realize she had this job before this was even a problem right?

2. anyone giving her grief about being married multiple times realizes what being saved/or converted really means right?

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
2. anyone giving her grief about being married multiple times realizes what being saved/or converted really means right?

Yeah, it means you can be a hypocrite.

a reply to: beezzer

When am i going to be your Candidate!!!

a reply to: EverydayInVA

But she is using her "Laws" to justify her discrimination and going against the constitution anyway

I see the point in the OP. Policy changed and she wasn't comfortable with it. The easy answer is quit. If you want to be a political/religious martyr though you've got to know the times you're living in. You aren't going to get a lot of love for religious bigotry today. Society has moved on. So.... jail.

This woman is on her 4th marriage......I can certainly see why. She is in an elected position. Yea, go figure. The fine folks of Rowan County Kentucky are to blame. So here's a heads up.......Stay the hell away from Rowan County Kentucky. Its obvious that in Rowan County it's fine to marry numerous times ( probally all performed in church). But it's against her faith to do her damn job. Re-call the bitch....let her stand in that un-employment line a day or three.

A question? If she has been married & divorced 3 three times and she's on her fourth.....are the 3 ex-husbands still legally her brothers. LOL inbreed Kentucky humor this damn early in the am.

originally posted by: EverydayInVA

2. anyone giving her grief about being married multiple times realizes what being saved/or converted really means right?

Means nothing.

At least not where her job is concerned. She was elected to hand out marriage licenses among other things. She's failing to do that.

She's in violation of her employment contract. Those gay couples pay her salary, she has the obligation to serve them under the law, or she can go home.

Apparently she chose jail. I can at least respect her for committing to her convictions.

~Tenth

Technically, Kim Davis holds an elected position.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I'm telling you, Tenth, this isn't Canada. These people will fight tooth and nail to force their religious right to public disapproval, discrimination and bigotry. Amen!

Should we kill 'em or just lock them types up?

Or try something wacky like forgive them, be patient, and talk with them.

Dunno.

I say shewt 'em.

With assault guns.

I think the basic ATS consensus is that it is too easy to kill them. You have to shame them and force them to break their religious beliefs and force them to oppose what they believe to be their God's rules. Many here would simply love to tear down their religion as a whole, strip the pope and kick him into the gutter and tear down all their churches. The mood on ATS appears to support this and it has grown more radical. Everyone is OK and can do anything they want and expect to be accepted for whatever they choose to be or choose to do legal or not...but believe in God? Chastise them, force them to disobey their beliefs, etc. Basically force them to rape their religion while we are supposed to watch and laugh at their pain.

Ain't that grand!

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I'm telling you, Tenth, this isn't Canada. These people will fight tooth and nail to force their religious right to public disapproval, discrimination and bigotry. Amen!

Should we kill 'em or just lock them types up?

Or try something wacky like forgive them, be patient, and talk with them.

Dunno.

I say shewt 'em.

With assault guns.

I think the basic ATS consensus is that it is too easy to kill them. You have to shame them and force them to break their religious beliefs and force them to oppose what they believe to be their God's rules. Many here would simply love to tear down their religion as a whole, strip the pope and kick him into the gutter and tear down all their churches. The mood on ATS appears to support this and it has grown more radical. Everyone is OK and can do anything they want and expect to be accepted for whatever they choose to be or choose to do legal or not...but believe in God? Chastise them, force them to disobey their beliefs, etc. Basically force them to rape their religion while we are supposed to watch and laugh at their pain.

Ain't that grand!

No one is forcing her to do anything but her job. No one has taken her freedom of religion away from her. If she doesn't want to do her job because of religious belief, maybe this was a poor career choice she made? These are choices she made on her own accord and now wants to cry foul? Boo Hoo. If you can't or don't want to do the scope of work outlined in your job description why take the job? There's also a thing called separation of church and state.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

A Christian Author summed it up perfectly:



~Tenth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: F4guy
If you are waiting for legal prcedent to be set, don't waste your time. The precedent is there already.

There is no precedent set for someone who defies the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality. There's another clerk in KY who is also refusing to issue licenses. If Kim Davis ends up fined or in jail (which as the only options she has if she doesn't resign) it will set precedent for this particular nuance of the law.

District Courts don't set precedent. It is allowed to refer to a case as being persuasive, but precedent is set by Circuit Courts of Appeal (only for that particular circuit) or by the Supreme Court (for the entire country.)

originally posted by: F4guy
District Courts don't set precedent. It is allowed to refer to a case as being persuasive, but precedent is set by Circuit Courts of Appeal (only for that particular circuit) or by the Supreme Court (for the entire country.)

I never gave that any thought, actually, so I did some research and found that even though the precedent may not be binding, it is still referred to as precedent, even in the lower courts.

Source

The most important precedent is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Every court is supposed to follow this precedent. The next best precedent is a decision of the appeals court for the circuit in which your district court is located. This is called “binding precedent” because it must be followed.

The third-best precedent is an earlier decision by the district court which is considering your suit. This may be by the judge who is in charge of your suit or by a different judge from the same court.

Also:

B. District Court Practices
While circuit courts currently follow a very strong version of stare decisis, there is generally no similar “law of the district” doctrine in federal district court.

Thus, one district judge is not bound by the earlier decision of another judge in the same district. This simple statement masks great diversity in the approaches that district courts have taken, are taking, and could take in the
future.

Historically, district judges extended great deference to the prior decisions within their district. Intra-district precedent normally would be followed

STARE DECISIS IN THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES

Thanks! I learned a little more!

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I'm telling you, Tenth, this isn't Canada. These people will fight tooth and nail to force their religious right to public disapproval, discrimination and bigotry. Amen!

Should we kill 'em or just lock them types up?

Or try something wacky like forgive them, be patient, and talk with them.

Dunno.

I say shewt 'em.

With assault guns.

I think the basic ATS consensus is that it is too easy to kill them. You have to shame them and force them to break their religious beliefs and force them to oppose what they believe to be their God's rules. Many here would simply love to tear down their religion as a whole, strip the pope and kick him into the gutter and tear down all their churches. The mood on ATS appears to support this and it has grown more radical. Everyone is OK and can do anything they want and expect to be accepted for whatever they choose to be or choose to do legal or not...but believe in God? Chastise them, force them to disobey their beliefs, etc. Basically force them to rape their religion while we are supposed to watch and laugh at their pain.

Ain't that grand!

No one is forcing her to do anything but her job. No one has taken her freedom of religion away from her. If she doesn't want to do her job because of religious belief, maybe this was a poor career choice she made? These are choices she made on her own accord and now wants to cry foul? Boo Hoo. If you can't or don't want to do the scope of work outlined in your job description why take the job? There's also a thing called separation of church and state.

Your statement that no one is forcing her to do anything is not the truth...and you know it. She is in jail until she does something she doesn't want to. She is being forced. You take a job and all is well...they change the rules...now you have to skin cats alive...you refuse to do it. That is where she was and now is in jail until she agrees to skin that cat. You may not value her religion as much as she does, but she values it to the extreme. It doesn't matter what you or anyone on ATS believes...it matters what she believes.

The funny part is that this is basically the same situation with gay people to begin with. They believe they are something else gender-wise. I'm fine with that...ATS is fine with that...hell, some on ATS fought that tooth and nail. Gay people who believe they are whatever they are are accepted and everyone who opposes that is evil. But here is this woman...same idea. But now the ones standing up for the gay people, condemn her. She didn't write her religion, she had nothing to do with what it says...she was likely raised with it and believes it just as strong as a gay person believes they are a woman in a man's body (for example). The difference...YOU don't support her so it is fine to punish her.

Go force the Muslim to remove her face wrap before having a driver's license photo taken. You won't do that...right? She is allowed to NOT do something without a problem. This woman is put in jail. Explain to me without all the BS and twisting of words just how that is fair???

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

She broke the law and made others do the same. She has every chance to quit or do the job she is very well paid for..she didn't.
Every other person has issued marriage licences but her.
You can not have a government job and force others to follow your religion.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
She is in jail until she does something she doesn't want to.

She could step down or agree not to interfere with the deputies to issue marriage licenses. Granted, those are things she doesn't want to do. But that's not forcing her to do something. Besides, we're ALL "forced" to obey the law OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES!!! If you get caught killing someone, you're going to be FORCED to do something you don't want to do. Go to prison.

You take a job and all is well...they change the rules...now you have to skin cats alive...you refuse to do it.

Then, you get another job. Rules change all the time. When she was elected, she didn't stipulate that she would only follow the laws in effect at that time. She was in the office for 28 years. Surely she knows that laws change sometimes.

That is where she was and now is in jail until she agrees to skin that cat.

OR quit her job, OR allow her deputies to obey the law, OR do what she doesn't want to do and obey the law herself.

It doesn't matter what you or anyone on ATS believes...it matters what she believes.

Why do her beliefs matter and no one else's?? But this isn't about our BELIEFS. It's about the LAW. None of us gets to break the law because of our beliefs.

The difference...YOU don't support her so it is fine to punish her.

No, she is breaking the law, so it's fine to punish her. If I break the law, it will be fine to punish me.

Go force the Muslim to remove her face wrap before having a driver's license photo taken. You won't do that...right? She is allowed to NOT do something without a problem. This woman is put in jail. Explain to me without all the BS and twisting of words just how that is fair???

The Muslim woman MUST (and should) remove her veil for a drivers license! Source