Kim Davis... Gay Marriage... Religious Freedom Restoration Act... Reasonable Accommodations...

a reply to: Boadicea

How is it Debatable? if you have a Job that is supposed to perform certain actions and you refuse to help those that go against your "Religion" how is that even debatable? that is repulsive...

As far as Kim Davis she was refusing to allow anyone to issue Marriage Licenses, she is using the Government and her position to deny Same Sex Couples, she wants Religious Tyranny. that goes far beyond the right of belief.. which she always had anyway

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The inconvenience the plaintiffs experienced was that if they really wanted to get a marriage license they would have to drive to the next county because the office where they applied was not issuing licenses.
You are saying they were denied their right to get married. They were not. They could have driven to the next county and gotten the license.
The inconvenience the state experienced was to follow the SCOTUS ruling, meaning they must change the wording of the license. Such a move isn't done overnight since the wording of such documents must be consistent throughout the state.
Mrs. Davis asked for accommodation under existing Commonwealth law. Her request was ignored despite the fact that the existing Commonwealth statutes concerning religious freedom have not been overturned by the courts. So long as that statute is on the books she is entitled to its protections.
You are saying that Mrs. Davis should have to give up the position to which she was elected in order to accommodate the couples seeking licenses despite the fact that doing so would violate her religious beliefs which are protected by statutory law. That would mean that the rights of the couples trump her rights. No equal rights in that equation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Forcing Davis to sign those certificates or resign IS respecting everyone's natural rights.

Forcing anyone to do anything respects no one's natural rights. Ignoring the legal rights of some to entitle others respects no one's rights.

No the "forcing" is making her apply the law equally to everyone as well as do her job in full. She NEVER had a right to discriminate against someone based on religious reasons.

I can think of half a dozen ways off the top of my head that the laws can provide for and promote and reward non-discrimination without violating anyone's rights. The fact that no one (here or elsewhere) seems interested in doing so only tells me that this isn't about respect or even tolerance for anyone's rights. It's all about using force to deny rights to some and entitle others.

And in the end, that will only continue to hurt us all.

Funny that most people around the country disagree with Davis and her ideas of what rights she thinks she has isn't it (including the judge presiding over her case)?Text

It matters not one whit what "most people around the country" think. What matters is equal application of the law. If you cannot see that, you are indeed not looking with open eyes. She has the legal right under Kentucky statutes to seek accommodation, which she did. The simple fact is that the judge did not take her rights into consideration at all when he ordered her to do something which would have violated her conscience or give up the post to which she was elected.
If what most people around the country had any effect on the law the jails wouldn't be full of people for the simple "crime" of being in possession of leafy green plants.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

If I remember correctly, Kim Davis wrote a letter of protest to the Gov's decree....In all likihood, the Gov probably got 1000's of letter urging him to resist the SCOTUS ruling. I don't believe that the Governor is under any obligation to answer or consider those letters.

A request for reasonable accommodations as a public official to the governor is far more than a mere letter of protest. The governor also took an oath to uphold the state Constitution, and that includes protecting the rights of County Clerks under the law.

Kim Davis did not have the right to dictate her "reasonable accommodation" demands to the Governor, or a judge or to lawmakers.

Of course not. But she had a legal right to request and suggest reasonable accommodations, and she had a right to have any/all such requests and suggestions given due consideration by the responsible authorities, those who could have and should have protected everyone's rights. And although those responsible authorities never addressed Ms. Davis directly, they did in fact implement at least one of those requests/suggestions. Obviously, Ms. Davis' reasonable accommodations were in fact reasonable.

She took it upon herself to refuse service to same sex applicants, thus bringing a lawsuit down on herself from the couples that she discriminated against.

According to the AP she refused service to ALL applicants, not just same sex applicants.

Now, she's asking the Supreme Court of the United States to intervene and allow her a "stay" so that she can continue to defy the SCOTUS ruling and continue to deny same sex couples marriage licenses in "HER" county office, until she can appeal the 6th Circuit Court ruling to a higher court.

According to her attorney's website -- which requests donations, so I don't think I'm allowed to link to -- there are two actions pending:

1 -- An request for an order providing relief pending appeal against Gov. Steven Beshear at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is an emergency request for the Governor to accommodate Kim’s religious convictions.

2 -- An appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Judge Bunning’s Contempt Order. The appeal was to the verbal order, as Judge Bunning had not issued a written Contempt Order.

Since her request has been implemented, though not addressed, I'm not sure why this is still necessary, unless she feels the changes need to be made permanent or official or something. Likewise for the contempt orders, I'm not sure why it is necessary since she is out of jail... or does the contempt charge stand just in case she violates it later?

I would be shocked if the justices grant her such a stay.

As I said above, I don't know why it would be necessary now, since her request has already been implemented. But I would not have been shocked one way or another.

a reply to: diggindirt

They made accommodations but it still wasn't good enough for her. You don't get it. This isn't about her being allowed her conscientious objection, it's about her trying to stop Same Sex Marriage while she can and has influence over it.

She doesn't like the law being in favor of Equal Protection. She doesn't like the idea that Gay people have the same freedoms as she does. She's a crusader for her version of Theocratic Authority.

In the end I hope she loses not just her job, but any and all respect from everyone who understands what it means to have Equal Rights. She's abusing her position and power for her own Pride to be some kind of Religious Warrior. But in the end I'm betting it's going to backfire on her and then she'll really have something to complain about but nobody is going to care anymore. So sorry Kim, but you did this to yourself.

a reply to: Boadicea

I don't think her accommodations have been met, in her opinion. .

An attorney for jailed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Friday that the marriage licenses issued by her deputies to several same-sex couples are invalid.

“They are not worth the paper they’re written on,” Mat Staver said outside the Carter County Detention Center, where Davis is being held on a contempt charge.

The licenses issued to same-sex couples Friday aren’t valid, Staver argued, because they were issued under the county clerk’s authority — but Davis hasn’t granted that authority.

The marriage forms issued Friday did not bear Davis’s name because of her refusal to endorse them. Instead, the clerk’s office included a space for a deputy clerk to sign his or her name.

The Governor nor the State Legislature has released the County Clerk's from their duties to authorize and certify the marriage licenses that are issued through their offices. The Rowan County attorney made the call to remove her name, but the spirit of the state law says that those licenses were authorized through the County Clerk's Office, anyway.

Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins has previously said deputy clerks don’t need Davis’s approval to issue valid marriage licenses.

SOURCE

a reply to: diggindirt

The Law is that Same Sex couples can get married and it's against the Law for her to deny them, at no point was her Freedom of belief taken away

originally posted by: ArtiZen
a reply to: Boadicea

you seem to think only one religion owns or controls the domain of marriage.

Oh dear... welcome to ATS... I understand that sometimes it's a little tedious to read through long OPs and even longer threads, but it does help avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions about other ATSers.

I can assure a brief history lesson will show that no religion owns marriage. In fact many of the rituals involved in religious marriage ceremonies outdate their modern day counterparts by 1000's of years.

A history lesson eh? Tell ya what... just to make sure we're on the same page... check this out and then please feel free to school me...

Also as an elected government official you cannot pick and choose what laws you uphold. If she can't fulfill her sworn duties as a court clerk than she can resign. It really is that simple.

Well, of course not. Consequently, you must agree that she has to uphold all laws, including the state and federal RFRA, which grants protections to employees' objections on religious grounds... which law requires reasonable accommodations be considered and implemented where possible. Only once such reasonable accommodations have been considered, found unreasonable, and no mutually agreeable reasonable accommodations have been found...only then must Ms. Davis resign. It really is that simple: Ms. Davis has rights too. Rather than creating an obvious conflict, it was the duty and the responsibility of state authorities to protect Ms. Davis' rights AS WELL AS the rights of the citizens wanting to get married.

a reply to: Boadicea

Also, I just now found this, issued Monday Aug. 31, 2015. We're a little behind here.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow a county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds to continue to deny marriage licenses to all couples, gay or straight.

The case concerns Kim Davis, an elected clerk in rural Rowan County, Ky. After the state’s governor told county clerks to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples, a federal court rejected Ms. Davis’s argument that she should be excused from the obligation given her religious beliefs.

Supreme Court Says Kentucky Clerk Must Let Gay Couples Marry

Strike 2!

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

How is it Debatable? if you have a Job that is supposed to perform certain actions and you refuse to help those that go against your "Religion" how is that even debatable? that is repulsive...

It is debatable because there is an RFRA which provides legal rights for religious and conscientious objection. Refusing to acknowledge that simple truth doesn't make it any less true. That is the law.

As far as Kim Davis she was refusing to allow anyone to issue Marriage Licenses, she is using the Government and her position to deny Same Sex Couples, she wants Religious Tyranny. that goes far beyond the right of belief.. which she always had anyway

Okay. We're just going in circles. You've made it pretty clear that you will ignore/deny/refuse to recognize Kim Davis' rights under the law. From where I'm sitting, you are denying her the same due process and equal application of the law that gays have fought so hard for. And which I supported for the same reasons I support Kim Davis.

We will have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: diggindirt

They made accommodations but it still wasn't good enough for her.

I didn't see that... what accommodations did the make and/or offer? I don't need a link, just as you remember it is fine.

She doesn't like the law being in favor of Equal Protection. She doesn't like the idea that Gay people have the same freedoms as she does. She's a crusader for her version of Theocratic Authority.

Ms. Davis' requests for reasonable accommodation protected and respected both her rights and the rights of gay couples to marry. No one else has made any effort to protect and respect her rights.

a reply to: Boadicea

The were going to allow the deputy clerks to issue them instead. She didn't have to be personally involved in any same sex marriage as long as another clerk was willing to do it instead, but she refused to comply with that compromise.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't think her accommodations have been met, in her opinion....

What a frickin mess. None of this is necessary.

The worse it gets, the more convinced I am that this is all by design. I'm just not sure how many agendas are in play, much less the end game...

a reply to: Boadicea

Anyone that would support a Doctor or Paramedic or Police not doing their Job because it goes against their Religious belief is just as repulsive as that person.

She has her Rights, she has her Freedom of Belief, her "Religion" but going against the Supreme Court and against the Law is saying that her Religion is above other Law

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Boadicea

The were going to allow the deputy clerks to issue them instead. She didn't have to be personally involved in any same sex marriage as long as another clerk was willing to do it instead, but she refused to comply with that compromise.

But that did not even address her objection -- her name on the licenses -- and therefore wasn't an attempt to provide reasonable accommodations. It was an attempt to thwart her legal rights.

a reply to: Boadicea

So what?? It's printed on the paperwork. It would have been someone else, one of the clerks, who actually signed it off. She is still the head of the office so it's going to be on the paperwork.

To try and argue such a petty and ridiculous thing as that is stupid. This is effecting peoples lives over a pre-printed form??? Are you serious???

The judge offered to allow her to not be responsible for the licenses as long as she didn't stop her clerks from authorizing them and she refused. At that point she in no longer being reasonable she is demanding that her office not be subject to the law and there is no way that is going to happen. She doesn't control the institution of marriage in that county.

a reply to: mOjOm
She refused to allow her name on a piece of paper that doesn't need her name on it for it to be official. County clerks issue marriage licenses in the name of the Commonwealth---not in the name of certain individuals.
Do you have deeply held personal convictions that some things are wrong? Would you acquiesce to having your name on documents that contravened those personal convictions?
I've heard no words from her that suggest she wants a Theocratic Authority---could you link a quote where she said anything of the sort? She has spoken of her beliefs---not what others should believe or practice.

From your last paragraph I see that you have no compassion only a hope for revenge against someone with whom you disagree. You've been played right into the mindless divisions that some people in our government foment on a daily basis. I do feel sorry for you. That bitterness will eat you up. I can only say that I hope you find peace.

Tell me this please---why did those couples who attempted to get their marriage licenses from her not drive to the next county to get married if that was indeed their goal? Why did they instead decide to go to the bother and expense of filing a lawsuit? Was it because they wanted to force their views on someone who disagreed with them?

See, we could all guess and opine about reasons for the actions of certain people but that gives no solutions to the problems created by this SCOTUS decision.

a reply to: mOjOm

She doesn't control the institution of marriage in that county.

Apparently she does since no licenses were issued pursuant to her actions as an elected official until her requested reasonable accommodation was implemented. The proof is in the pudding.

I'm more concerned that one person should be given that authority and power of "approval." By all means, establish a means to "certify" that the couples meet the legal requirements, but no one should be in a position to approve/deny a marraige.

a reply to: Darth_Prime
When the law was suddenly changed by the court, she asked for a reasonable accommodation under a different law, a law which had not been changed by SCOTUS. Her request was not acknowledged so her right to accommodation was infringed. Do you not understand this?
Are you saying that she had no right to accommodation?
Equal application of the law. It's why defendants in criminal cases have the right to an attorney.
Apparently a lot of folks on this forum have read only those laws which they support and are perfectly willing to throw out applications of those with which they don't agree while shouting about equality.

a reply to: diggindirt

If my personal convictions were that strong I'd stop working at that job. That is what any normal person does when they have a conflict of personal values. I don't expect the rest of society to change for my personal beliefs. They are mine and mine alone and I don't force them on those who don't choose them. Especially not while acting as a PUBLIC SERVANT of the people and by their authority. At that point I'd say my personal beliefs don't make a difference since I'm not acting on my behalf but on behalf of the people and the law. Still, like I said, if I felt that I couldn't in good conscience do my job because of MY BELIEFS, I'd get a different job. Why can't she do that???

You can judge me all you want and question my compassion but that's on you. I'll tell you straight up that it's not a matter of compassion but a matter of patience at this point. Patience that has run out on the constant BS that too many people with the Christian Persecution Complex seem to be living by today. All they are doing is flipping the script to make their intolerance and bigotry into Religious Freedom. But anyone with eyes to see and a brain to understand knows what it's all about. I realize you refuse to see that and find it much easier to just judge me as an anti-christian hater so go right ahead if you want to, because what you think of me doesn't concern me at all.