Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[JimmyV]

Ms. Davis was elected to do a job.

You and I are agreeing on the overall outcome. I just don't think that Brown v. Board of Education is the binding precedent that gets you there.

 

[Uncle Remus]

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. District Judge David Bunning issued an order Tuesday saying Davis shall be released from the custody of the U.S. Marshals.

The judge's order says Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this order and appropriate sanctions will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered, according to the filing.

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/...to-visit-jailed-Kentucky-clerk-325646471.html

 

[sam_gordon]

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/...to-visit-jailed-Kentucky-clerk-325646471.html

Assuming marriage licenses are still handed out in Rowan County, I don't see a problem with her being released.

 

[kamik86]

It is a bit different, because with respect to schools, it was easily shown that the "equal" part was not true. The schools were not equal in any way, shape or form. With respect to handing out marriage licenses, it could be equal. The recipient has no vested interest in whether her license is signed by, and handed over by Mary, or by Fred. The license is the license. So "separate but equal" is not the problem here. The problems lie in the fact that the County cannot, and should not, set up a system that creates inherent humiliation due to sexual preference. A same sex couple should not suffer indignity at the hands of the state by having certain state workers turn their backs on them and refuse to help them. For Mary to say: "I refuse to help you. But Fred here will take good care of you" may seem like a solution for Mary. And Mary might think this is a good solution for the couple who wants the license. But it does not remove the feeling of humiliation that can ensue by having someone tell them that they are not good enough or worthy of the paid employee doing what she is supposed to do according to the law. In essence, she is saying, "I refuse to follow the law, but that's OK, because others will in my stead.

The other problem comes from the fact that a County could run into a situation where all of the clerks want to "conscientiously object". If the State allows for "opting out", and everyone opts out, what then?

For this to be seperate but equal it would mean any time that the office is open at least one person would be able to give out a same sex licence. So they would have to make sure they schedule so that Mary and John that both object are never the only two in the office.

If you let someone go on lunch at staggered times that includes at lunch time. Its not equal if someone may have to wait an hour for someone to get back from lunch that can help them while everyone else can be helped by anyone.

 

[JimmyV]

If you let someone go on lunch at staggered times that includes at lunch time. Its not equal if someone may have to wait an hour for someone to get back from lunch that can help them while everyone else can be helped by anyone.

That's why I said that it could be equal. But it would take a lot of work. All the more reason why Davis' suggested solution shouldn't be catered to.

 

[JimmyV]

Assuming marriage licenses are still handed out in Rowan County, I don't see a problem with her being released.

Me neither. This is not a whole lot different from a person who has to spend the weekend in jail and then is issued a restraining order. That person is set free with specific guidelines. Violate the guidelines and back you go. Hopefully she learned her lesson and will not stand as an obstacle like she said she would when she appeared before the judge.

Edit to add...this still doesn't mean that she should be allowed to keep her job if she refuses to do it. But the next step is up to the State, and not to the courts.

 

[Gracie09]

You and I are agreeing on the overall outcome. I just don't think that Brown v. Board of Education is the binding precedent that gets you there.

You can also look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited separate facilities for public accommodations. then piggyback the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection. There are many ways to the same result.

 

[JimmyV]

You can also look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964

...doesn't address sexual preference.

 

[kamik86]

...doesn't address sexual preference.

Gender is covered though correct (was about to double check but computer is being annoying about searches at the moment)

You could actually just call this one gender... two women or two men can't get a licence where one of each can would be discrimination based on gender.

 

[Gracie09]

Gender is covered though correct (was about to double check but computer is being annoying about searches at the moment)

You could actually just call this one gender... two women or two men can't get a licence where one of each can would be discrimination based on gender.

Also the EEOC has added sexual orientation as a protected class.

 

[longboard55]

I have not really followed this, is there a reason she was just not put in another postion.

 

[gwynne]

I have not really followed this, is there a reason she was just not put in another postion.

Well, probably because she ran for this office and swore an oath to do this job. (County clerk-- Rowan County, she's an elected official.)


Yep, it's too bad they couldn't just pop her into another job that she would actually agree to do.

 

[daughtersrus]

I have not really followed this, is there a reason she was just not put in another postion.

She was elected so she can't be fired or moved to a different position

 

[Uncle Remus]

And it might not be over yet:

“The problem here is that the attorney says she has not changed her mind, that Kim Davis is adamant that as long as her name appears on those marriage licenses, she objects and she will attempt to stop those licenses from being distributed,” Savidge reported. “Which means if she goes back on the job as is expected, she will bring the process to a halt. That’s what her attorneys believe.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/law...fter-release-from-jail/#.Ve8hcjCp0xx.facebook

 

[gwynne]

And it might not be over yet:



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/law...fter-release-from-jail/#.Ve8hcjCp0xx.facebook

If true, that figures. Actions like that will keep the cash rollin' in, cameras on.

 

[mnrose]

Oh good grief. Just let the licenses be issued.

 

[jrmasm]

Throw her back in jail and let her rot until she agrees to resign or issue the licenses herself as her job dictates.

 

[Jennasis]

I guess it will have to be impeachment then, eh?

 

[gwynne]

I've been glancing at CNN now and then. Some of the signs held high by her fervent supporters are totally shocking to me. And I don't shock easily.

 

[Tiggeroo]

very bothered by her release and return to her job. I think she should have chosen to step down. I am a fairly conservative Christian in some areas (not this) and also pretty strongly pro-women's rights. There are things that could change at a job I would have that I would be uncomfortable doing but they would be legal. Imagine you work at an upscale restaurant and they decide, for some odd reason to put in a lounge with strippers. Imagine you believe this is degrading to women. You would have to serve meals and drinks to these patrons. You might have to issue paychecks to people working in this part of the club. You either leave or do your job. What if the attorney where you work decides to defend a child molester and there is a good deal of proof that he is guilty. You have to spend a lot of time involved in this case. If the attorney wins there will be more cases like it. It is unfortunate but sometimes we are asked to do legal things at our jobs that we are morally opposed to. We need to decide how strongly we are morally opposed and whether we are willing to compromise our morals for the paycheck and pension. Different people will decide differently. Sometimes the price of following your values is a financial one. If it has been decided that gay marriage is legal and the office she is in charge of needs to issue these certificates she has a choice to make. I may not be opposed to gay marriage but I would respect her right to step down from office and announce why she is stepping down. That is making a statement. I am also very troubled by her remarks concerning being placed in a woman's prison. To actually say she hates lesbians and would die if forced to be near them(or something like this) is awful. God does not hate a person. Jesus dined with and loved all people, including those who were considered sinners in his time. He would spend the night in their home and treat them with love. What God does she follow? People like this are a disgrace to Christianity.
But that is just a personal opinion. Legally you need to follow the law if you work in a job like hers. It is not a law she would be required to support if she was just a private citizen.