Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[gwynne]

This is the second husband who is also the fourth husband who adopted the child she had with the third husband while married to the first husband?

and the gays are killing the sanctity of marriage

I went a-googling, and it's all there. Her life reads like a lifetime movie.
She's marched up that aisle plenty of times, not sure why she's so intent on not allowing others the same opportunities.

 

[Gracie09]

I went a-googling, and it's all there. Her life reads like a lifetime movie.
She's marched up that aisle plenty of times, not sure why she's so intent on not allowing others the same opportunities.

I bet Kirk Cameron plays the 2nd and 4th husband.

 

[mnrose]

That's been asked at least a dozen times in this thread and is repeatedly met with the sound of crickets.
Which strikes me as very telling.

Yup.

 

[gwynne]

I bet Kirk Cameron plays the 2nd and 4th husband.

I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. That's hilarious, and likely correct!

 

[Wishing on a star]

Good.

According to Davis' husband, her family has received death threats in the weeks since this has been building. IF true, that is just as wrong as what Davis did.

And, SOOOOOOO???????

That has anything to do with what?

Are you actually suggesting that what some other individuals might have done actually justifies her actions?
Seriously.... Seriously???????

We all know that gay and lesbian couples have been subject to discrimination, violence, and death threats, since... well... the beginning of time.
Does that justify anything for them?
Does that justify the gay black man who gunned down two innocent local TV reporters?

You can't argue one way, and not the other.
That would be total hypocrisy.

There is no argument that any action of discrimination or violence is ever 'just as bad' or is 'worse' or is 'justified'.

(NOTE: my disclaimer, again, one more time: This is coming from a poster who is more conservative christian than not.... I am not here to argue my own feelings or champion anyones rights (gay, christian, whatever...) This is about every human beings civil rights in this country. Period)

 

[pryncess527]

I'll also point out, that if the people of Kentucky want their court officials to be able to opt out of their duties based on religious ideas, then Kentucky might need to pass some new laws.

I don't like it, and I don't think it will hold up in court as Constitutional, but North Carolina passed legislation after the SCOTUS ruling that made it legal for individual magistrates to opt out of issuing marriage license on personal grounds. So the 32 people in NC who refuse to issue licenses will NOT be held in contempt of court (until/unless the law protecting them is challenged and found to be unlawful)

Kentucky did not pass such legislation. Perhaps Ms Davis should take this matter up with her legislature if she feels a new law is merited, but she does not have the right to violate current law.

 

[Gracie09]

I'll also point out, that if the people of Kentucky want their court officials to be able to opt out of their duties based on religious ideas, then Kentucky might need to pass some new laws.

I don't like it, and I don't think it will hold up in court as Constitutional, but North Carolina passed legislation after the SCOTUS ruling that made it legal for individual magistrates to opt out of issuing marriage license on personal grounds. So the 32 people in NC who refuse to issue licenses will NOT be held in contempt of court (until/unless the law protecting them is challenged and found to be unlawful)

Kentucky did not pass such legislation. Perhaps Ms Davis should take this matter up with her legislature if she feels a new law is merited, but she does not have the right to violate current law.

it is likely the NC law would be struck down by the USSC.

 

[Gracie09]

I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. That's hilarious, and likely correct!

thank you I am here every Friday. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

 

[pryncess527]

it is likely the NC law would be struck down by the USSC.

Oh totally -- it will never hold up. I was just pointing out for those who think that this is a Kentucky problem and Kentucky should handle it because it's their tax money and all that, that Kentucky DID have an option (albeit a short-term, legally questionable one) that would "protect" their employees, should the voters of the state feel so strongly that Kim Davis needs their protection. But no one bothered.

 

[Wishing on a star]

You are very right, Pryncess....
But, the difference is, in North Carolina, if I am right, others will step in and issue the licenses. Thus there will be no violation of the law, or of anyone's civil rights.

Hopefully, as often happens, the laws will catch up to the current realities.

This bat-crap crazy lady actually was standing guard, instructing the others in the office that they should follow her beliefs and orders, and not issue any licenses. Getting into arguments with the citizens of that county. etc... THAT IS ANOTHER OF THE BIG REASONS SHE WAS PUT IN JAIL.

I can see no justification, either religious or otherwise, for her actions.

 

[pryncess527]

You are very right, Pryncess....
But, the difference is, in North Carolina, if I am right, others will step in and issue the licenses. Thus there will be no violation of the law, or of anyone's civil rights.

Hopefully, as often happens, the laws will catch up to the current realities.

This bat-crap crazy lady actually was standing guard, instructing the others in the office that they should follow her beliefs and orders, and not issue any licenses. Getting in o arguments with the citizens of that county. etc... THAT IS ANOTHER OF THE BIG REASONS SHE WAS PUT IN JAIL.

I can see no justification, either religious or otherwise, for her actions.

You are correct. If the NC law existed in Kentucy, Kim Davis herself would have been able to refuse, but she would NOT have been able to block others in her office from issuing them. While it may happen, and while I expect the law to be overturned either way, you are correct that as of now no one in NC has been unable to get married because of the recusals. There are always other clerks who can/will step in.

 

[LAB81018]

You're wrong. She stopped issuing all licenses the day after the SCOTUS decision.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[kimblebee]

I bet Kirk Cameron plays the 2nd and 4th husband.

Holy poo that's funny!!!

 

[BostonJP]

I'd love to see a response from those who think she's being targeted or that her actions are justified or that it's understandable because she's standing up for her beliefs.

Would you feel the same way if it wasn't a belief/religion that you agreed with? Would you feel the same way if it was a Mormon following their beliefs and refusing to serve alcohol or cigarettes even though they worked at store that dispensed them? Would you feel the same if it was a Jewish person who would not give you the ham and cheese sandwich you ordered even though it's on the menu? What if it was a Muslim? Or a Quaker? Or a Christian Scientist?

You might not agree with their beliefs, but would you just as strongly support them????? Or is it only okay if it's your religion? And be honest!

Comparisons have already been made to Charee Stanley, the Muslim flight attendant who says she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol. She has filed a complaint with the EEOC, citing discrimination on the basis of religion, and has Muslim groups supporting her.

Obviously these two cases aren't even closely related, but be prepared for claims of hypocrisy from Davis' supporters if the EEOC actually takes up a cause on behalf of Ms. Stanley.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I watched "Misery" last night for the first time in a long time and it was more enjoyable than normal but much creepier as well. Not sure what to think about that.

 

[Christine]

Comparisons have already been made to Charee Stanley, the Muslim flight attendant who says she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol. She has filed a complaint with the EEOC, citing discrimination on the basis of religion, and has Muslim groups supporting her.

Obviously these two cases aren't even closely related, but be prepared for claims of hypocrisy from Davis' supporters if the EEOC actually takes up a cause on behalf of Ms. Stanley.

There are similarities and differences here though. Stanley is working for a private entity and, while her beliefs seem to be getting in the way of doing her duties, sometimes if it's really important to people, an employer can make accommodations. I mean, what's the likelihood that she is the ONLY flight attendant on the plane. Someone could step in and serve the alcoholic beverage. A company should *have* to do this but they could.

In the Kentucky case, this is a woman whose actions can control the outcome of people's lives. She also has authority and the ability to force her staff to obey her, even illegally. She has also taken a sworn oath to uphold the laws. I'm sure the flight attendant didn't enter into anything so serious.

Of course, I work as a public servant and EEOC complaints are entirely different. There are job duties that you signed on for and sometimes they might interfere with your religious beliefs. EEOC makes an attempt to arbitrate that and find reasonable accommodations. If the reasonable accommodations cannot be made and the job duties *must* be performed, then the employee does not win.

 

[JaxDad]

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

No problem!

 

[BostonJP]

if it's really important to people, an employer can make accommodations. I mean, what's the likelihood that she is the ONLY flight attendant on the plane. Someone could step in and serve the alcoholic beverage

From what I know about the case, that's exactly what happened - they assured her that they could make accommodations, but a coworker complained that she was refusing to do her job. If the company did actually suspend or punish her after promising her accommodations, then I believe she does have a case.

Unless she refused to do any work or ensured that nobody on the plane was served alcohol, any comparison between her and Kim Davis is tenuous.

 

[NotUrsula]

Apparently she now wants her name to be removed from an "authorization statement" which is required to be included with all marriage licences.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jailed-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-offers-remedy-sex/story?id=33532686

I'm not sure what exactly the "authorization statement" is. My guess it's a preprinted form that has the head clerk's name on it that attests that all the paperwork is in order.

Yes, that's what it is; all licenses have her signature on them as the head of the department that issues them (sort of like the way the Secretary of the Treasury's signature is on all US Currency.) She doesn't want her name on the licenses that she objects to.
I'm not sure if it is a state law that requires that, or local ordinance. Either way, it could be changed, but there is no valid reason to do so. She CHOSE to run for this office, and no one is holding a gun to her head to force her to do this specific job. If there are parts of your job that you find morally objectionable but which are not illegal, then the standard option open to all is to find another job. Her issue is that she took over this office from her mother, and since it's been in the family for something like 35 years, she seems to think that it is hers by entitlement. She CLAIMS that it is discriminatory to give her no choice but loss of livelihood, but again, an elected official really cannot claim that in any way, because she serves at the will of the people.

PS: The issue with folks from outside the county coming in to apply matters because they probably would not be doing it except to establish a test case. While they presumably have the right to apply for a license anywhere they want to be married, it isn't a good move to do it for this reason, because it obfuscates the key issue, which is simply that this clerk is refusing to do her job. Many a discrimination case has been dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing, so it would be much better to have all the official complaints come from local residents.

 

[NCRedding]

The NC law only allows recusal by magistrates and assistant or deputy register of deeds staff, all of whom are appointed, not elected. The elected Register of deeds (who issue marriage licenses in NC) is not subject to the NC law allowing recusal. The NC law would not help Kim Davis.