Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[Uncle Remus]

Short of posting the actual order, here's a simple explanation:

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who filed suit along with the gay couple, hailed the judge for enforcing a 2006 act that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“The law is clear,” Ferguson said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “If you choose to provide a service to couples of the opposite sex, you must provide the same service to same-sex couples.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominichold...law-denying-service-for-gay-weddin#.gjVPYM3An

So like Kim Davis, the florist was breaking the law.

 

[kay1864]

You will never get an answer. I promise. I have proposed this question several times to various people both on The Dis and IRL. The conversation shuts down after this very excellent question is asked. That is when the person arguing that the Kentucky Lady is right all of a sudden realizes she is wrong.

But they won't admit it. Crickets.

Wow. Your predictive powers are spot on. What's tonight's winning lottery number?

 

[dinolounger]

As much as I might like it to be, sexual orientation is not part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor any other federal law.

Finally, some intelligent life in this thread relative to a point I made pages ago.

Most other people here unfortunately have this fantasy in their head that there is some sort of nationwide, universal law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to anyone. There isn't, and as I pointed out earlier, many private enterprises refuse service based on attire, sociodemographics, income/assets and even race and religion. Or stated differently, no one has a constitutional right to demand service from any and all businesses.

But the lack of understanding of that fact is not surprising. People here with that fantasy in their heads may well be some of the same people Gallup surveyed who also have fantasies in their head that almost a quarter of the U.S. population is of same you know what orientation (which it is not, the real figure is 3.8%), that a third of the population is black (real figure is 12.6%) and that a third is hispanic (real figure is 17%).

 

[lsyorke]

and you also haven't answered the question whether you would be okay with a Muslim DMV clerk not issuing licenses to woman because according to their beliefs woman shouldn't drive. Or a Muslim teacher who refuses to educate girls.

Neither of those two situations are fact. Muslim woman drive and attend colleges, not sure where you got your information from. Extremists claiming to be Muslim are a different story

 

[Wishing on a star]

Most other people here unfortunately have this fantasy in their head that there is some sort of nationwide, universal law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to anyone. There isn't, and as I pointed out earlier, many private enterprises refuse service based on attire, sociodemographics, income/assets and even race and religion. Or stated differently, no one has a constitutional right to demand service from any and all businesses.

Sorry, but your argument is not as iron-clad as you would like to think.

Wouldn't the latest Supreme Court decisions now make it clear that these civil rights apply to sexual orientation. Not just race, gender, etc. Because, as I understand it, it is illegal to deny service and discriminate against black african americans, etc. In the US, discrimination based on certain factors is illegal and unconstitutional. (Marriage is a civil right, and is protected)

You can kind of try to twist words and use semantics, but yes, it is illegal and people, such as black people, DO have the right to expect service without discrimination based on certain criteria.

Also, I would like to point out that the examples you listed, such as attire, ability to pay, etc. have nothing to do with restrictions or discrimination based on factors that all of us are born with, have no control over, and (for the most part) can not change, such as color of ones skin (race), etc.

And, a reminder here, in this particular case in KY, every citizen DOES have a right to services from our government offices, without discrimination based on certain criteria.

PS: No personal offense intended here, at all... But I think I can have more respect for, and take more seriously, the comments of one who can use the correct and specific terms for the topic of conversation. Just IMHO, the term 'you know what' just inherently implies that there is something 'bad' and 'judgment' involved. The word 'gender' would work here, and be much easier and faster to type.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Finally, some intelligent life in this thread relative to a point I made pages ago.

Most other people here unfortunately have this fantasy in their head that there is some sort of nationwide, universal law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to anyone. There isn't, and as I pointed out earlier, many private enterprises refuse service based on attire, sociodemographics, income/assets and even race and religion. Or stated differently, no one has a constitutional right to demand service from any and all businesses.

But the lack of understanding of that fact is not surprising. People here with that fantasy in their heads may well be some of the same people Gallup surveyed who also have fantasies in their head that almost a quarter of the U.S. population is of same you know what orientation (which it is not, the real figure is 3.8%), that a third of the population is black (real figure is 12.6%) and that a third is hispanic (real figure is 17%).

You don't seem to understand we don't care if it's 3.8%, they're still Americans with 14th amendment rights when it comes to marriage equality regardless of anyone's religious preferences.

 

[Wishing on a star]

EXACTLY, uncle remus.

People like to try to twist words, come up with numbers, play with semantics... anything to justify whatever they are trying to justify.

 

[GaryDis]

::sigh:: the eeoc and other federal agencies and courts have interpreted the act to include sexual orientation under the sex title.

I don't recall any such cases, other than in the context of sexual harassment or possibly transgender discrimination. Hence the continuing effort to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

But, wouldn't the latest Supreme Court decision now make it clear that these civil rights apply to sexual orientation. Not just race, gender, etc.

The term "civil rights" is usually precise enough in most contexts, but not right now. There are civil rights in terms of government services and privileges (such as marriage) and there are civil rights in the private sector (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as it applies to businesses). The former is constitutional, the latter legislative.

While the Supreme Court has included sexual orientation in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, it's not clear to me that they would extrapolate it to the various civil rights laws enacted by Congress.

 

[GaryDis]

no one has a constitutional right to demand service from any and all businesses.

While I agree with that, I don't see the relevance. People nevertheless have such rights. That they're the result of legislation instead of the constitution doesn't seem significant to the current discussion.

 

[sam_gordon]

Oh, really? They will get an answer when my question -- about why it was proper for the State of Washington to tell the Christian owner of a private flower shop that if she refused to do the flowers for a you know what marriage she would be fined and could be sued by the couple she did not want to provide services to:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...tian-florist-pay-fine-do-gay-weddings-or-else

No response will be taken as your completely agreeing with exactly the State of Washington did.

The judge feels she violated the state's discrimination law. It doesn't matter whether there's a federal law. If there's no federal law, state law comes into play. Now, where are all the threads you started about the "more important" issues?

 

[sam_gordon]

Finally, some intelligent life in this thread relative to a point I made pages ago.

Most other people here unfortunately have this fantasy in their head that there is some sort of nationwide, universal law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to anyone. There isn't, and as I pointed out earlier, many private enterprises refuse service based on attire, sociodemographics, income/assets and even race and religion. Or stated differently, no one has a constitutional right to demand service from any and all businesses.

Can you show where a business can LEGALLY refuse service based on race or religion? Yes, there are certain things businesses can refuse service for, sexual orientation is NOT one of them (at least in Washington, which is where your florist case is).

Here's some reading for you...

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices

Source

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Oh, really? They will get an answer when my question -- about why it was proper for the State of Washington to tell the Christian owner of a private flower shop that if she refused to do the flowers for a you know what marriage she would be fined and could be sued by the couple she did not want to provide services to:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...tian-florist-pay-fine-do-gay-weddings-or-else

No response will be taken as your completely agreeing with what exactly the State of Washington did.

Not that I wouldn't want to be thought of as approving Washington State's stand against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation among other things, but I'll answer so as to leave no doubt in anyone's mind. I ALMOST TOTALLY APPROVE OF WHAT THE JUDGE IN WASHINGTON STATE DID. My only bone to pick is the fine should have been more.

No, they have not. They go off on tangents about truck drivers and principals and never refer to the specific case I raised. And I know why: they don't want to admit that there is an intentional agenda in place to force certain people (read: of a specific religion) to support things they don't agree with.

People have constantly answered your questions. People have constantly demonstrated your posts factually incorrect, your logic faulty. You just choose to ignore them. And now you decide to play the secret agenda card. As if you yourself don't have an agenda.

Finally, some intelligent life in this thread relative to a point I made pages ago.

Most other people here unfortunately have this fantasy in their head that there is some sort of nationwide, universal law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to anyone. There isn't, and as I pointed out earlier, many private enterprises refuse service based on attire, sociodemographics, income/assets and even race and religion. Or stated differently, no one has a constitutional right to demand service from any and all businesses.

But the lack of understanding of that fact is not surprising. People here with that fantasy in their heads may well be some of the same people Gallup surveyed who also have fantasies in their head that almost a quarter of the U.S. population is of same you know what orientation (which it is not, the real figure is 3.8%), that a third of the population is black (real figure is 12.6%) and that a third is hispanic (real figure is 17%).

There you go again insulting people and questioning their intellect. And then you wonder why you convince absolutely nobody.
And there you go again with the red herring. Nobody thinks there is any universal law that says one can't discriminate against anyone for any reason. Nobody. And Washington State, where the florist is, has a law against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
But there are also various federal laws and state laws and federal and state court decisions that outlaw certain types of discrimination.

And there you go again with your 3.8% spamming it again and again despite the fact that it has already been disposed of as a legit argument. Once again civil rights aren't determined by how big a demographic group is.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I just ordered this book on Amazon and can hardly wait for it to arrive. I hear it's really popular and effective. I bet Kim Davis, and others would benefit from such information moving forward.

 

[bcla]

Finally, some intelligent life in this thread relative to a point I made pages ago.

Most other people here unfortunately have this fantasy in their head that there is some sort of nationwide, universal law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to anyone. There isn't, and as I pointed out earlier, many private enterprises refuse service based on attire, sociodemographics, income/assets and even race and religion. Or stated differently, no one has a constitutional right to demand service from any and all businesses.

But the lack of understanding of that fact is not surprising. People here with that fantasy in their heads may well be some of the same people Gallup surveyed who also have fantasies in their head that almost a quarter of the U.S. population is of same you know what orientation (which it is not, the real figure is 3.8%), that a third of the population is black (real figure is 12.6%) and that a third is hispanic (real figure is 17%).

Uh - true the Civil Rights Act doesn't include any language on sexual orientation. It does however give protections on the basis of race or religion.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.​

 

[robinb]

Neither of those two situations are fact. Muslim woman drive and attend colleges, not sure where you got your information from. Extremists claiming to be Muslim are a different story

Kim Davis is also an extremist and she was elected as the county clerk.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Oh, really? They will get an answer when my question -- about why it was proper for the State of Washington to tell the Christian owner of a private flower shop that if she refused to do the flowers for a you know what marriage

A Voldemort marriage?

 

[dinolounger]

Something else the lynch mob in here have all missed. The title of this thread is outdated and incorrect. Kim Davis is no longer in jail.

If you have a business open to the public you have to serve the public regardless of race, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

Only in your fantasy world.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

No, they have not. They go off on tangents about truck drivers and principals and never refer to the specific case I raised. And I know why: they don't want to admit that there is an intentional agenda in place to force certain people (read: of a specific religion) to support things they don't agree with.

I wonder if I'm muted. *hits mic* "Is this thing on?"

That's because the company can get another employee to ship the alcohol. The company receiving the shipment still get their alcohol and will likely be never aware there was an issue. The florist is discriminating against an individual by denying a service to a protective status.

The florist isn't being "unreasonable", he or she is discriminating against a client for being gay. I don't understand why this is the same thing. I don't see a double standard. If this florist was one employee of a floral shop, and another employee at that same shop sold the couple flowers, THEN we'd be talking about the same thing.

 

[Gracie09]

Something else the lynch mob in here have all missed. The title of this thread is outdated and incorrect. Kim Davis is no longer in jail.



Only in your fantasy world.

As stated before most of those signs aren't worth the money spent to put them up. I can put up a sign that says no blacks or Irish in my place of business it doesn't mean the courts would uphold my right to serve who I want. In fact I am sure they would t. The only one that may be legally enforceable is the first one as it appears to be at a house of worship. And their religious rights to worship as they wish in their Temple would be upheld. The second one isn't telling anyone not to enter. Just saying what the establishment is. In any club if you aren't respectful of the other patrons you could be asked to leave. The third one I suspect is photoshop. But if it isn't it is not enforceable. The fourth is likely also not enforceable. But it would probably depend on state gun laws
Btw you still haven't answered the questions.
And you seemed to have missed the multiple posts about Kim being released and how long until she is back in jail

 

[Ceila]

Something else the lynch mob in here have all missed. The title of this thread is outdated and incorrect. Kim Davis is no longer in jail.



Only in your fantasy world.

I'm firmly convinced that dinolounger is, at this point, just messing with everyone. Nobody, and I really mean nobody, could post those pics as any kind of "proof" of any of her ridiculous claims. And seriously, come on, who really cares whether the thread title is updated? Someone has been bored lately and having some (odd) fun on this thread.