Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[plutotek]

Personally, this circus has had one positive outcome; I have whittled my choices for presidential candidates down by three.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I don't see a problem with giving her another chance to comply. However, she stated she's going to go back to defying the order And as soon as she does, back to jail.

Which I disagree with.
All this has done, and will do, is to extend this woman's platform and her 15 minutes of fame.
I would want to find a way that she could never step into that public office ever again.

Is there such a thing as 'Unfit to serve...'

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Personally, this circus has had one positive outcome; I have whittled my choices for presidential candidates down by three.

I agree, as I've positively eliminated some people from my life based on their reaction and beliefs in all of this. I had no idea, but I'm glad I got a chance to see them for what they are. I have no time for such nonsense.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Personally, this circus has had one positive outcome; I have whittled my choices for presidential candidates down by three.

Yes, all we can hope is that this whole trainwreck backfires in a huge way.
Many others see these people for who they are.
And in the end, it costs them, and their agendas.

I do not think that this narrow minded agenda has any mass appeal!!!!

 

[andyman8]

OK, as far as I can tell, she was elected by and thus paid by the people of Kentucky. She needs to do what the laws of Kentucky dictate. When she is elected by God and her salary comes from God, then she can do what God tells her to do. Until then, do your job, lady!

I'm going to tread lightly, because while bringing religion into this discussion isn't allowed, it's hard not to in a case like this. Mods, feel free to delete this if it goes too far, but according to most religions (not all, but certainly the one she claims to believe in), it is not even her place to do God's job. Based on religious texts and teachings, ultimately, God is the only force responsible for judgment; he/she/it doesn't want anybody passing judgement on another. It's the whole "treat your neighbor as your own" thing. Treat everyone fairly and kindly, and let God do the judging.

 

[sam_gordon]

Which I disagree with.
All this has done, and will do, is to extend this woman's platform and her 15 minutes of fame.
I would want to find a way that she could never step into that public office ever again.

Is there such a thing as 'Unfit to serve...'

In order for her to not serve anymore, she'd either have to resign, be impeached, or die. Obviously, the latter isn't a good solution, the first is the best but probably won't happen, and the second can't happen without the legislature in session.

If she doesn't resign, and if she blocks licenses, the judge sends her back to jail and she stays in jail until January when the legislature meets.

 

[PlutoPony]

In order for her to not serve anymore, she'd either have to resign, be impeached, or die.

Does KY have a provision for a recall?
Any idea how the voters in her district feel about her now? I understand she came out the winner in a close Democratic primary...

 

[dinolounger]

And in other news, our Justice Department sued a trucking company because it fired Muslim drivers who refused to drive trucks transporting alcohol. So we have one standard for that faith (their religion trumps employment at will law), but if you are a Christian bakery owner and refuse to bake wedding cakes for certain constituencies, you are accused and convicted (because you can't use that religion as a reason to not be a public accommodation).

00percentfedup.com/fed-gov-sued-trucking-co-for-firing-muslims-who-refused-to-violate-religious-beliefs-and-transport-alcohol-what-about-that-whole-christian-bakery-thing/

 

[FlightlessDuck]

And in other news, our Justice Department sued a trucking company because it fired Muslim drivers who refused to drive trucks transporting alcohol. So we have one standard for that faith (their religion trumps employment at will law), but if you are a Christian bakery owner and refuse to bake wedding cakes for certain constituencies, you are accused and convicted (because you can't use that religion as a reason to not be a public accommodation).

00percentfedup.com/fed-gov-sued-trucking-co-for-firing-muslims-who-refused-to-violate-religious-beliefs-and-transport-alcohol-what-about-that-whole-christian-bakery-thing/

One is refusing to perform a task based on your religion, and the other is refusing service to an individual based on your religion.

If they were Christians fired for refusing to work on Sunday, I bet you the Justice Department would do the same thing.

 

[sam_gordon]

Does KY have a provision for a recall?
Any idea how the voters in her district feel about her now? I understand she came out the winner in a close Democratic primary...

According to http://www.recalltherogues.org/states.html, KY does not have a provision for a recall.

I'm not sure how the voters feel. There have been people on both sides at the courthouse (which is in a different county) and at her office. I don't know how many of them are Rowan Countians though.

 

[robinb]

On one hand I'm fine with her opting out as long as she sits down and shuts up about it. OTOH I can't help but wonder what would happen if the whole kit and caboodle decides to opt out?

 

[Gracie09]

One is refusing to perform a task based on your religion, and the other is refusing service to an individual based on your religion.

If they those were Christians fired for refusing to work on Sunday, I bet you the Justice Department would do the same thing.

And don't forget not allowing others to serve the individual.
Oh and the clerk is an extension of the govt. so it's as if the govt refused to serve the individual.
Also the flight attendant spoke to her company about an accommodation and they told her to do what she did- ask another flight attendant. And the flight attendant that complained also complained that the Muslim flight attendant wore a headscarf and carried a book with foreign writing. Because not serving a passenger a glass of wine is exactly the same as not serving or allowing to be served two people Who came in to exercise a government protected right because you judge their lifestyle as inappropriate

 

[dinolounger]

One is refusing to perform a task based on your religion, and the other is refusing service to an individual based on your religion.

Flawed attempt at distinguishing the examples. You are saying it was OK for the Muslim truck drivers to refuse to transport alcohol (which could be called a task or service) based on the their religious faith, but it's not OK for a county clerk or a private entity to refuse to perform a task or service (which baking a cake or issuing a wedding license is) based on their religious faith.

So you support a double standard where one faith is granted priority over the other, plain and simple. And don't even try to say the distinction has to do with public vs. private enterprise. When the Justice Department sued the trucking company, the company tried to defend itself based on being a private enterprise that offered employment at will and the Justice Department said that was irrelevant, because if the Muslim Drivers had been government employees the same legal standard would have applied (they could refuse to perform a task or provide a service based on their religious faith).

So we are in a realm where the Federal Government discriminates based on religious denomination. And some people actually support that.

 

[Gracie09]

Flawed attempt at distinguishing the examples. You are saying it was OK for the Muslim truck drivers to refuse to transport alcohol (which could be called a task or service) based on the their religious faith, but it's not OK for a county clerk or a private entity to refuse to perform a task or service (which baking a cake or issuing a wedding license is) based on their religious faith.

So you support a double standard where one faith is granted priority over the other, plain and simple. And don't even try to say the distinction has to do with public vs. private enterprise. When the Justice Department sued the trucking company, the company tried to defend itself based on being a private enterprise that offered employment at will and the Justice Department said that was irrelevant, because if the Muslim Drivers had been government employees the same legal standard would have applied (they could refuse to perform a task or provide a service based on their religious faith).

So we are in a realm where the Federal Government discriminates based on religious denomination. And some people actually support that.

What your missing is that Kim Davis not only refused to serve individuals, but refused to allow others to serve them. The Muslim truck drivers did not refuse to allow others to drive the alcohol. Also marriage is a civil right. Transporting alcohol is not. Different standard apply.

 

[bcla]

And in other news, our Justice Department sued a trucking company because it fired Muslim drivers who refused to drive trucks transporting alcohol. So we have one standard for that faith (their religion trumps employment at will law), but if you are a Christian bakery owner and refuse to bake wedding cakes for certain constituencies, you are accused and convicted (because you can't use that religion as a reason to not be a public accommodation).

00percentfedup.com/fed-gov-sued-trucking-co-for-firing-muslims-who-refused-to-violate-religious-beliefs-and-transport-alcohol-what-about-that-whole-christian-bakery-thing/

There is such a thing as reasonable accomodation for religious beliefs. One was A&F's dress policy as it related a Muslim woman who normally wore a headscarf. A job reassignment to deliver something other than alcohol should be considered reasonable.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation
The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.​

The thing about Kim Davis is that she had a government job that is considered a "ministerial duty" meaning there is a procedure to be followed and not much room to waver from it. The other deal is that other deputy clerks have been issuing the licenses in her place, and it has been legal according to the Kentucky Attorney General. So she specifically doesn't have to issue those marriage licenses, but sought to block them. There is no reasonable accommodation to allow Kim Davis to stop her deputy clerks from issuing otherwise legal marriage licenses.

 

[DebbieB]

What your missing is that Kim Davis not only refused to serve individuals, but refused to allow others to serve them. The Muslim truck drivers did not refuse to allow others to drive the alcohol. Also marriage is a civil right. Transporting alcohol is not. Different standard apply.

I agree. The judge ruled that she did not have to issue the licenses but she could also not prevent others in the office from doing so. Just like pharmacists can refuse to fill a Plan B prescription because they don't believe in it for religious reasons but other pharmacists can fill the prescription.

My bet is she will go back to stopping the deputies from issuing them and it will be back to square one.

 

[PlutoPony]

How does she stop the deputy clerks from issuing licenses, especially since they have orders from a judge to do so and report their activities to him bi-weekly?
If she takes that approach, doesn't that really put the deputies between a rock and a hard place?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

What your missing is that Kim Davis not only refused to serve individuals, but refused to allow others to serve them. The Muslim truck drivers did not refuse to allow others to drive the alcohol. Also marriage is a civil right. Transporting alcohol is not. Different standard apply.

If you are a truck driver who works for a company that delivers alcohol, you deliver alcohol. If your religion forbids it, work somewhere else.

 

[dinolounger]

A Because not serving a passenger a glass of wine is exactly the same as not serving or allowing to be served two people Who came in to exercise a government protected right because you judge their lifestyle as inappropriate

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no constitutional right to be able to demand products or services from any private enterprise. Private enterprises -- including Disney -- can refuse to sell products or provide services based on "lifesyle" and do that all the time:

 

[eliza61]

If you are a truck driver who works for a company that delivers alcohol, you deliver alcohol. If your religion forbids it, work somewhere else.

Oh thank God, Gumbo. I thought I was the only one who was thinking it. I would have more respect for this woman if she resigned due to a conflict of religious belief but that's not what she's doing. Basically she's saying I will break the law and you have to let me because I'm a Christian.

Slap her back in jail. Period.