Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[Gumbo4x4]

idk no one seemed to care. Maybe its because it was NYC and we are very multicultural (the public schools even have a Muslim holiday off this year). Maybe its because it was a university and we attract faculty, staff, and students from all over the world. Everyone just respected their right to practice their religion. If I had to deal with 2 or 3 more students on a Friday, no big deal. If someone asked about it, I imagine we shrugged and said they're Jewish and that was that.

For whatever reason, nobody felt as though they were getting the short end of the stick. That's what it really boils down to.

 

[dinolounger]

You will never get an answer. I promise.

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.

 

[Gracie09]

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.

people have answered you multiple times. You just don't like the answer.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Deputy clerk Brian Mason has stated that he will continue to issue marriage licenses even if Kim Davis orders him not to. He said he will tell her he can't obey her order and will follow the judge's order.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

and.......score.

 

[dinolounger]

people have answered you multiple times.

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.

 

[Chocolate Cake]

Oh, really? They will get an answer when my question --

Your question was answered.

Now, do you think it would be ok for an employee at the DMV to deny a female their driver's license?

 

[Chocolate Cake]

Deputy clerk Brian Mason has stated that he will continue to issue marriage licenses even if Kim Davis orders him not to. He said he will tell her he can't obey her order and will follow the judge's order.

Good. I would never obey an insane person.

 

[Gracie09]

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.

Civil rights act of 1964. If you have a business open to the public you have to serve the public regardless of race, gender, disability or sexual orientation. It's just that simple.
And you're the one who brought up truck drivers

 

[Chocolate Cake]

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.

Do you believe a principal should be able to deny a female student entrance to a school because she is a girl?

 

[Chocolate Cake]

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 do think a flower shop should serve everyone.

So, there. I answered your question with a short and concise answer.

Your turn.

 

[GaryDis]

Civil rights act of 1964. If you have a business open to the public you have to serve the public regardless of race, gender, disability or sexual orientation. It's just that simple.

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. The baker and florist cases that keep getting raised are under various state or local laws.

 

[Chocolate Cake]

Dear Dinolounger:

Do you think it would be ok for an employee at the DMV to deny a female their driver's license?

It is a yes or no question. It shouldn't take you too much time to answer it.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Good. I would never obey an insane person.

Yep, I am the one who first pegged her as 'crazy woman'.

And just a note: some of the tangents here are ?????????
A person being forced to do their job, and serve ALL, as an agent of the government is nowhere near close to any of the other examples given.
And, in the end, she must serve everyone under current U.S. Civil Rights laws, just as a baker, florist, or anyone else.
I think what matters most in issues like this one, which can involve religious beliefs, is that RELIGIOUS organizations are exempt.

 

[DisneyBabies]

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.

How many times would you like me to answer you?

Here's the first time:

But in your world (and that of the Justice Department) it is apparently UNREASONABLE for a Christian florist to to use her faith as a reason to refuse to provide flowers to a same you know what wedding. Even though a floral shop is a common privately owned enterprise that is in no way, shape or form a public service or accommodation (the definitional tact the Feds took when women sued private men's clubs to gain access. Said women argued not getting access to the clubs hindered their careers. So you are implying same you know whats can reasonably argue their lives will be ruined if they don't get a particular vendor for their wedding?!?) Yes, it is unreasonable because you can not discriminate against someone based on their religion, color or sexual preference. The florist being a Christian had nothing to do with it ... if she was a Muslim, the end result would have been the same. If you want to only serve cakes or make flower arrangements for one group of persons, you need to find a church who believes the same as you and affiliate your business with them as they are not covered the same as individuals or businesses when it comes to religious freedom. No one said those couples lives were ruined ... they said they were unlawfully discriminated against ... which is true.

And for the second time:
It was proper because you can not discriminate against someone based on their religion, color or SEXUAL PREFERENCE.


Do I get an answer now? Here was the question:

And I'd love for you to explain to me how Disney (or any other company ... and you can't use a church or church based business as an example) refuse to sell products or provide services based on "lifesyle". Oh, and you can't use the Plan-B example either as it falls under reasonable accommodation and does not interfere with others Civil Rights.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I'm allergic to straw. I don't like bait either.

 

[Chocolate Cake]

@dinolounger You there?

Do I get an answer now? Here was the question:

You will never get an answer. I will never get an answer.

 

[Wishing on a star]

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.

Dinolounger, I do agree that ONLY certain things are under attack anymore. Christian bashing, Women/Parents, etc...
As a woman, a parent, and a person with some basic christian beliefs, I will def. give you that!!!

And, yes, there are agendas out there. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!!!

However, I would have to disagree that a business (not a private members only organization or church) being required to abstain from blatant and open discrimination is 'forcing certain people to support things they don't agree with'.

That I think is the point of contention.
I, personally, would not make that assertion or assumption.

 

[Gracie09]

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. The baker and florist cases that keep getting raised are under various state or local laws.

::sigh:: the eeoc and other federal agencies and courts have interpreted the act to include sexual orientation under the sex title. In addition, many state laws (including Washington) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Local laws often even go further in codifying these right. That is why cases are often brought under state and local laws instead of or in addition to federal laws. If you are open to the public you are open to the public. Why sexual orientation was not included in the original text of the act has a lot to do with the times in which it was written. Similar to why the rights of women weren't originally written into the 14th amendment but now it it interpreted as applying equally to women and men

 

[daughtersrus]

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.

It's really very simple. It's illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, orientation...

Now it's your turn.

A simple yes or no is fine.

Should it be legal for a woman to be denied an education or a drivers license because of her gender if the one providing these services said it would violate their religion to provide them to a woman?