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

originally posted by: Boadicea
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!).

The Federal RFRA excludes elected officials.

First, a technical but important legal point: Title VII expressly excludes elected officials. But Kentucky, like about 20 other states, has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statute that requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.
...
But in any event, if Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, she wouldn’t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty, and decline to issue such licenses at all — denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.

Sourc e

Source

The term “employee” means an individual employed by an employer, except that the term “employee” shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.

So, there may be a case to remove her name from the forms under the Kentucky RFRA, but not the federal RFRA.

So if Kim Davis does indeed go through the state courts, and ask for a modest exemption under the state RFRA — simply to allow her to issue marriage licenses (opposite-sex or same-sex) without her name on them — she might indeed prevail.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

Totally agree. But by prohibiting the deputies in her office from issuing marriage licenses, she was forcing her religion on others.

I support Kentucky removing her name if THEY feel it's reasonable to change their law, etc., but I don't think she has a "right" to the accommodation, because the legislature may find that denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

So, Kentucky could have a meeting of the legislature, decide to change the law so her name isn't on the form, go through all the red tape and printing of new forms to make that happen, and she'd be accommodated.

What happens when a month from then, some other Kentucky official decides he doesn't want to do one aspect of his job, because of his own closely-held religious belief. He has a different accommodation in mind, but there's a little obscure law that prevents it... Should the legislature meet again, change some other obscure law, to accommodate this new case?

How much money does the state of Kentucky have that they can continue to spend it and their time on what amounts to frivolous lawsuits and needless litigation, just so someone can show public disapproval of the civil rights of others?

a reply to: Boadicea

Do you agree with the Separation of Religion and State? so when she took the Job she had to understand that her Religion couldn't interfere with her Job.

i've said this a million times, Marriage Equality has always been around, since the Constitution was created under the 14th amendment, States purposely ignored that Law and created other ones so they could avoid Equal Rights for everyone, the Supreme Court ruled that States had to follow the Constitution.

I support the right to believe what you want, when it starts to interfere with peoples lives and it starts to impose it's will on other people is when it becomes wrong, when someone uses their Religion as a way to discriminate and use it for hate that is beyond "Believing" in a Religion, and using it as a Weapon

The media circus has done it's job well, from hiding what's really important and bigger, more important things going on right under our noses

One hand deceives while the other carries out shameful things.

Most are over involved with themselves and petty things to take actual notice.

The movie idocracy isn't too far off the mark...

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

Are you saying this isn't an important issue?

Here's the real solution and one I also suggested. But now I've got Ben Swan who's saying the same thing.



So there ya go. Solved. She doesn't have to be the one giving them out. That's why the other clerks are there. This whole BS accommodation where she is demanding to have her name removed off the paperwork is just petty game playing. If she wants that done she can resign her position and go home. Otherwise her name stays on the paperwork but someone else can issue the license. It's a win win for everyone and nobody has to worry about their Religious Beliefs, go to jail, pay a fine, or argue about this any longer.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Really? REALLY??? This is the law! I didn't write it. I didn't pass it. I'm just demanding that it be respected. And while I don't agree with the Clerk's position, I do want the law followed. I don't want anyone forced to take part in abortions or executions either. Aren't I awful???

Yes, really! And no it isn't the law.

As for being the equivalent of segregation, no, it is not. Allowing people to live their conscience is no comparison to the government telling people where they can and cannot live. But I'll play... tell me all about how well those laws worked. Tell me all about how well those laws worked for the people of Ferguson and Baltimore and the countless other areas still stuck in the same damn situation. We never got rid of haters and we never will. We just criminalized it and then pick and choose who we prosecute. I often wonder if discrimination laws haven't done more harm than good... as evidenced by this glorious post racial America.

Then you don't know what Segregation is. Segregationists used these EXACT same arguments to try to argue against having to associate with black people. "I shouldn't have to serve these people if I find them to be distasteful! It's against my beliefs!"

There are no laws that require us to acquiesce to Davis pushing her religious tyranny on gay people trying to get married. That is why she was sued and held in contempt of court then jailed. Like I said to you originally, this lady is 100% in the wrong legally and morally.

ETA: You and I both know that if Davis were a gay woman denying marriage licenses to straight people, that we wouldn't be handling her with kid's gloves. She'd be out on the street in a skinny minute, if not in jail. We only feign this "reasonable accommodation" because it is a popular Christian hobby to adopt persecution complexes when new legal rulings or laws go against what they want.

originally posted by: Boadicea
She clearly cannot perform her job duties as currently expected, yes, I agree. She is also an elected official, which mucks it all up a bit too. But there obviously was a simple "reasonable accommodation" that will not only serve Kim Davis' purposes, and the public, and the office, which has all been implemented... and none of it required Ms. Davis going to jail or violating her conscience. If that is not good enough, than it indicates that the real goal is to punish dissenters and always was. (The fact that the lawsuit filed was against Ms. Davis personally -- not the county or the state -- and the demand that she personally issue the marriage license already proves that).

The only "reasonable accommodation" that we should be expected to provide to Davis is the ability to resign with dignity. She passed up that chance already since she refuses to step down.

I am not misrepresenting anything. This is natural law... organic law... Constitutional law. We have the right to think and act according to our conscience, as supported and evidenced by the RFRA and Title VII. She has the legal right to refuse to act against her conscience, and the governing authorities have a legal responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations. She did apply the law equally -- she refused to give anyone a marriage license. That is applying the law equally. She did not write the law... she just applied the law and exercised her rights under the law. Just as the gay couples trying to obtain a legal marriage license have. The problem is with the law, and those authorities who could have -- and should have -- worked within the law to accommodate her religious objections. The problem is not Ms. Davis.

There is no such thing as "natural law". Only the laws we, humans, have written and enforce.

Really? That was the job description on the ballot people voted for her? Wow. Who woulda thunk it???

Well that is what she is currently doing.

So be it... but I am and have been saying that it is something different. We can tar and feather Ms. Davis and run her out of town on a rail, and guess what? The same legal issues will still be on the books. The same governing authorities that execute and enforce the laws (or not) will still be there. So, forgive me my asinine ways, but I will continue to look at the root of the problem, and not blame one little woman for the hellhole we've made for ourselves.

There are no legal issues. This whole stupid controversy was settled with the interracial marriage ruling decades ago. We are just rehashing old arguments here. Davis ISN'T treading new ground.

Yes, indeed we do. My in-laws know personally, as they came from different states, and one state had laws against their interracial marriage and another state did not... so guess where they got married? If the laws had not changed (prior to the Civil Rights Act), then my husband and I would have been in the same situation. I have lived with and dealt with racism, and ya know what? Because I am a White woman who made a conscious decision to marry another race, I am the brunt of the greatest hatred by those so inclined to hate, so please don't try to lecture me on racism and segregation. I will continue to demand non-discrimination and equal application of the law by government... and I will continue to respect people's right to live their conscience as they see fit. Even if it means they hate me and will not serve me. I will find someone who will or do it myself. The principles are greater than the person.

I don't care about your history ma'am. I just care about what you are saying to me. It's nice that you are tolerant enough to go to other sources in cases of intolerance against you or your husband, but that shouldn't be something expected of people. That is why we passed the Civil Rights Acts.

That's great... now she doesn't even deserve a job or the means to care for herself and her family? All because she dared to exercise her natural and legal rights under the law? We really need a legal system that provides one set of rules for some and another set of rules for others... rights for none and privileges for some... Yeah, that'll fix everything, right?

She is MORE than free to get a private sector job that will put up with her stupidity (though I'm sure that any company that is willing to put up with her intolerance would be sued as well for violating Civil Rights). She just shouldn't be having a government job and be able to discriminate against people.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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!

But that is my point. Even drivel like Fox News is agreeing with me. That should tell you something. I mean, if you can't even get the flagship for hypocrisy, fearmongering, and strawmans to agree with you, you PROBABLY have a lost cause.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

Are you saying this isn't an important issue?

It's the standard, "I don't care about this issue, and the media should be talking about the issues -I- find important instead" whine rhetoric. Just ignore it.

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

She's the only one who violated someone's rights. I don't care if you are a christian, muslim, atheist, terrorist, etc. That's her right to believe whatever she wants. The problem is she is putting her rights before everyone else's as if her rights are more important than others. If she doesn't want to issue licenses, then so be it, all she had to do was quit her job. But, instead she decided to break the law and violate others rights instead. See the hypocrisy here?

We could have this circular argument all day, so let me put what she did into perspective since you don't see whats wrong with what she did. Lets say my religions belief is to deny any type of service to only Christians. Sounds absurd right? Well it sounds just as absurd as christians denying marriage licenses for same-sex marriages to us non-religious types.

Now, lets put a little judgement on this woman's character. It's ok for her to have kids out of wedlock, to marry and divorce numerous times, violates others rights and judge others in a critical and mean way. But, its not ok for someone else to get married? Hmmmmm...I guess I missed the part in the Bible that says you can pick and choose which parts of the religion to follow. No wonder most think religion is a joke. Their own followers are the most hypocritical people on the planet. I think its time for her to get over herself already. This lady is a scumbag and should be an embarrassment to your entire religion.

Boadicea,

Please read my signature. Many people have tried to hide behind 'Freedom of Religion' as an excuse to be a bigot.

What if the county clerk was a Muslim who refused to issue liquor licenses or a Jew who refused to issue a food handler's permit to local business because alcohol or pork violates their "sincerely held" beliefs?

What if the county clerk was an atheist and refused to issue a building permit for a new church?

What she did was not freedom.

And she's not a hero.

a reply to: windword

I'm actually inclined to agree with you based on the interpretation from the text you posted of the act. But then it was done on the Clinton watch. We can therefore expect the statists to have left that loophole while pretending to protect religious rights and values. Not to mention it really violates the infamous separation of church snd state by indicating the state has a right to force people to act against their own religious and moral conscience if it serves the purposes of the common good which the state deems to be of importance at the time and which it can arbitrarily change as it did with the office of Kim Davis who is incidentally democrat. It's clear that the statists in office who drafted that saw down the road the opportunity to exploit the law for their agenda even if it wasn't to be apparent for several decades. This is what the Fabian social engineers are doing to a naive and unsuspecting populace. But there is actually a point here that sharia law is really unconstitutional so in my view any laws passed should be a protection to us from imposition of foreign cultural and religious norms. But the Progressive type statists would love nothing better than to allow sharia law in our courts. Take the case of AIG which practices certain aspects of sharia and got bailout money so federal funds were used to prop them up.

a reply to: [post=19795600]post] oh yes of course she's free to get a private sector job that won't infringe her religious liberty till the State tells all private sector businesses what they can and cannot do, which is a trend wf are currently seeing.

a reply to: Boadicea

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?

Well if you continue to take everything out of context and fail to actually understand what is going on, then yes I guess I don't care. But, she had every right to step down from a public service position to not violate her beliefs. Instead, she decided her rights were more important than others, even though her rights were never violated.

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?

The only one that trampled someone's rights was Kim Davis. She didn't allow same-sex marriages due to her beliefs. Are we suppose to bend over backwards because she believes in her own "fairy tale"? If she won't do her job as a public servant, then she should resign, plain and simple. I also see that you keep trying to turn it around on me like I denied someone's constitutional rights. So I ask you, who's rights did I violate again? I'll wait...

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.

Can you show proof that these gay couples demanded that Kim Davis specifically provide the license? But, we can obviously show proof that she denied their right to a marriage license. So I guess Kim Davis is the only one demanding privileges and entitlements -- not rights. The hypocrisy is astounding at this point, but I'll continue to play your biased game.

Because all Christians are exactly alike? Because only Christians would deny their personal service to others?

Seems like it. They pick and chose which commandments to follow, but none follow all of them. I've seen christians deny services to the gay community and haven't seen anyone in the gay community in a public service position deny christians their rights.

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"???

You can twist the story all you want, but that seems to be the way of the religious types anyways. I mean hell, you just quoted what I said and added a whole bunch of nonsense at the end as if thats what I said.

So you are not familiar with the many charitable services churches provide, from feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless and clothing the poor?

Unless they're gay right?

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.

Look you continue to attack me as if you have some vandetta against me. I'll go ahead and let it slide, so I don't lower myself to your standard, but the facts are there for everyone to see. So you can continue to not acknowledge the facts or actually do a little reading...your choice. You seem like a bigot to me though. Have a nice day, I won't be replying to anymore posts due to the staggering amount of bias you have displayed in this thread.


ETA: Kim Davis has been married 4 times. Has children outside of wedlock, but can violate someone else's rights because of their sexual preference. I guess her religion only applies when she can use it in a demeaning way towards others. You say she's a christian, but I say she's a bitch.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Boadicea

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

I agree. All rights end when they encroach on others rights. It is that simple.

So, when one party demands and/or forces another party to do something against their will, they are encroaching on the other's rights.

So, when one party demands and/or forces another to issue a license which they feel violates their religious beliefs, they are encroaching on that party's rights.

I'm so glad you agree

a reply to: Boadicea

Absolute no point from now on conversing with you on the topic is there.
People have explained to you the law and the situation many times over but you just ignore it.
Goodbye.

originally posted by: windword
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.

My apologies because my computer crashed last night and I lost all my open tabs, but... I do remember specifically reading of that one of the initial steps taken by Ms. Davis was to send a letter to the Governor requesting/suggesting reasonable accommodations be made, which he has never responded to. I do not remember if her letter was sent before or after the initial changes were made to the licenses which replaced "husband" and "wife" with spouse.

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.

I firmly agree! Well, at this point anyway. These are issues that should have been anticipated, and which need to be addressed and sorted out by the proper authorities. It's one of the reasons I am so appalled that all of this is falling on the shoulders of one woman. It is also why I am more and more convinced that much of this brouhaha is to simply create additional problems... keep us fighting... challenege individual and religious rights... in other words, for all the wrong reasons!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

But by prohibiting the deputies in her office from issuing marriage licenses, she was forcing her religion on others.

I don't necessarily disagree... in effect, others were inconvenienced, delayed, obstructed, etc. But the stated -- if not intended -- purpose of Ms. Davis' actions were not to deny others their rights, but simply to protect her rights.

I support Kentucky removing her name if THEY feel it's reasonable to change their law, etc., but I don't think she has a "right" to the accommodation, because the legislature may find that denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

Agreed. Ms. Davis (and all of us) have a right to TRY to find and implement reasonable accommodations... there is no guarantee that mutually acceptable accommodations can be found.

What happens when a month from then, some other Kentucky official decides he doesn't want to do one aspect of his job, because of his own closely-held religious belief. He has a different accommodation in mind, but there's a little obscure law that prevents it... Should the legislature meet again, change some other obscure law, to accommodate this new case?

This is a good point, and it is one reason I'm not sure government employees should have such "reasonable accommodations." I think we can agree that the purpose of government is to serve the best interests of ALL the people, without discrimination, with due process and equal application of the law... If, as an employee, one cannot do so for any reason, then that job/employer is not for you. However, others have made the argument to the contrary, hence the legal protections... and why we're arguing this today.

How much money does the state of Kentucky have that they can continue to spend it and their time on what amounts to frivolous lawsuits and needless litigation, just so someone can show public disapproval of the civil rights of others?

Another good point for not providing "reasonable accommodations." There are much better ways to spend the tax dollars of hard-working people.

But I have to say -- again -- that all of this should have been addressed and rectified (one way or another) by the governor as is his duty, instead of ignoring a County Clerk's objections. This could have and should have been handled much more practically and effectively. But I think someone(s) wanted this fight.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

Do you agree with the Separation of Religion and State? so when she took the Job she had to understand that her Religion couldn't interfere with her Job.

I do agree. I will even take it a step further and point out that the founding fathers established the separation clause to protect Christians from Christians!!! And I will state again that I am not sure government employees should even have "reasonable accommodations" because the first and primary purpose of government is to work for the best interests of ALL people with due process and equal application of the law. But nobody asked me and they passed the RFRA without any input from me. However, since they did establish the legal right to seek reasonable accommodations, the law needs to be followed.

i've said this a million times, Marriage Equality has always been around, since the Constitution was created under the 14th amendment, States purposely ignored that Law and created other ones so they could avoid Equal Rights for everyone, the Supreme Court ruled that States had to follow the Constitution.

No argument here, and I will say it goes far beyond marriage...

I support the right to believe what you want, when it starts to interfere with peoples lives and it starts to impose it's will on other people is when it becomes wrong, when someone uses their Religion as a way to discriminate and use it for hate that is beyond "Believing" in a Religion, and using it as a Weapon

I don't disagree. But that goes both ways. There is no more virtue in forcing someone to force their will on people of faith than there is in the faithful forcing their will on others. In private industry, both parties should agree to disagree and walk away. In public service, if one cannot serve the public without discrimination, then public service -- or at least that position -- is not for you.