Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[FlightlessDuck]

Can you really not say gay? I mean let's be real here, it should just be a "marriage", because gay people don't drive gay cars, and eat gay cake on their birthday... but now the LGTBQA community gets lumped into "you know what" It's so terrible you can't even say the word gay? Really?

What if they were lesbians?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I don't think it's a decision to not use gay, but that the sex portion

Yay! No asterisks!

 

[Wishing on a star]

Even without using the word sex (which seems to be allowed now) as I posted earlier, the word gender is the correct and appropriate term, and has never been censored.

It is very clear that this poster just refuses to refer to this, in any direct way.
It seems very clear that they are using the phrase 'you know what', like a toddler would to refer to 'naughty private parts'. Not only is this poster refusing to use the normal and correct words, they are using a phrase that, IMHO, definitely implies a negative connotation.

It is REALLY hard to even consider the possibility of having a reasonable or intelligent conversation with a person who...
1. Can't even bring themselves to utter the correct words for the issue at and... and,
2. Can come across with the immaturity of a toddler.

We all know the old saying, right????
NEVER ARGUE WITH A TODDLER.. THEY ALWAYS WIN!!!

 

[kimblebee]

Now for the real test...

Dick Van Dyck


ETA YAY not censored LOL

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Even without using the word sex (which seems to be allowed now) as I posted earlier, the word gender is the correct and appropriate term, and has never been censored.

It is very clear that this poster just refuses to refer to this, in any direct way.
It seems very clear that they are using the phrase 'you know what', like a toddler would to refer to 'naughty private parts'.

It is REALLY hard to even consider the possibility of having a reasonable or intelligent conversation with a person who...
1. Can't even bring themselves to utter the correct words for the issue at and... and,
2. Can come across with the immaturity of a toddler.

We all know the old saying, right????
NEVER ARGUE WITH A TODDLER.. THEY ALWAYS WIN!!!

I really was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't easy, trust me, but it was my bullet to take!

 

[Wishing on a star]

As long as there was no serious injury! Hahaha!

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Now for the real test...

Dick Van Dyke [edited]


ETA YAY not censored LOL

I actually specifically asked about getting that fixed several years ago. It's been censor free for some time.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Even without using the word sex (which seems to be allowed now) as I posted earlier, the word gender is the correct and appropriate term, and has never been censored.

If a gay cis man married a gay trans man, is that still a "same gender" marriage?

 

[sam_gordon]

According to one of our local news stations, Davis will get paid for the time she was in jail and these days she's not at work. Apparently elected officials get paid whether they show up to work or not. I see a problem there.

 

[GatorChris]

I've read a lot of opinions going back and forth here. Entertaining to say the least! I've seen good arguments, straw man, and some good'ol hating from BOTH sides. But one of the questions we're hearing here in California is this: if Kim Davis went to jail for not issuing marriage licenses (which is her public duty), why didn't Gov. Jerry Brown or Attorney General Kamala Harris go to jail for not defending Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court (which is their public duty but on a larger scale)? And I'm not talking about what side of the debate you fall on when it comes to gay marriage. If we're talking about upholding the law, it shouldn't matter of what persuasion you are. It should be about the law. What Kim Davis did was put herself above the law, and she paid a harsh penalty for that. So why don't we hold that standard in all situations? Does the law apply to everyone or just those of one side of the argument? Has hate so blinded both sides of the equations that we can't "just get along"?

Just a statement to provoke thought on both sides. You can quote me, but I don't want to get into a back and forth - and won't. That only creates more bad emotion, which we seem to have in abundance.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

If a gay cis man married a gay trans man, is that still a "same gender" marriage?

Now you're getting into checking my privilege territory.

 

[mnrose]

I've read a lot of opinions going back and forth here. Entertaining to say the least! I've seen good arguments, straw man, and some good'ol hating from BOTH sides. But one of the questions we're hearing here in California is this: if Kim Davis went to jail for not issuing marriage licenses (which is her public duty), why didn't Gov. Jerry Brown or Attorney General Kamala Harris go to jail for not defending Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court (which is their public duty but on a larger scale)? And I'm not talking about what side of the debate you fall on when it comes to gay marriage. If we're talking about upholding the law, it shouldn't matter of what persuasion you are. It should be about the law. What Kim Davis did was put herself above the law, and she paid a harsh penalty for that. So why don't we hold that standard in all situations? Does the law apply to everyone or just those of one side of the argument? Has hate so blinded both sides of the equations that we can't "just get along"?

Just a statement to provoke thought on both sides. You can quote me, but I don't want to get into a back and forth - and won't. That only creates more bad emotion, which we seem to have in abundance.

She went to jail for failing to follow a court order (contempt of court). Was there a court order requiring Gov Brown or the AG to support Prop 8 before the Supreme Court? I don't believe so. I personally believe that anyone has the right to decide whether a law is constitutional and follow it (or not) as there conscious dictates. Of course, failing to follow a law makes one vulnerable to later court action, which ultimately could go against you (as it did in Ms. Davis' case).

Ultimately, of course, Gov Brown and the AG were proven correct as prop 8 was tossed out as unconstitutional. Ms. Davis was free to fail to support gay marriage and to refuse to issue licenses to gay people up to the point that the Supremes ruled against her point of view. After that, she failed to follow the law at her own risk. She needs to stop complaining about it.

 

[bcla]

According to one of our local news stations, Davis will get paid for the time she was in jail and these days she's not at work. Apparently elected officials get paid whether they show up to work or not. I see a problem there.

She's salaried. There is apparently a mechanism for withholding pay from county officers for failure to perform their required duties, but it would require a ruling from a state court.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=22892

61.120 Salary -- Deduction from for failure to perform duty.

(1) If any officer paid in whole or in part out of the State Treasury or by any county fails or neglects to perform his duties, without a good excuse set out in full by his affidavit and certified by order of court to the Finance and Administration Cabinet or other paying officer, there shall be thereafter deducted from his salary such an amount as the total number of days during the year in which he failed or neglected to discharge his duty bears to the whole number of days in the year for which he received compensation. So much of the amount deducted as is necessary shall be applied to the payment of the special officer who performs the duty of the officer so failing.

(2) Before the court enters an order under KRS 61.130, the court or judge designated in KRS 61.130 shall inform the officer accused of failure to perform or neglect of duty of the accusations and shall conduct a hearing on the accusations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court or judge shall enter findings of facts and conclusions of law and an appropriate order. Either party may appeal the order to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and such appeal shall be advanced on the docket for immediate review. Provided, however, that the notice of appeal and order appealed from shall be filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days after the order appealed from was filed with the county clerk or Circuit Court clerk.

(3) The court or judge designated in KRS 61.130 may appoint a hearing commissioner to conduct the hearing authorized by subsection (2) of this section. If a hearing commissioner is appointed, the case shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding hearing commissioners. ​

 

[ariel71]

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/09/08/barbershop-fined-for-refusing-to-cut-womans-hair/

I didn't actually read it here but just heard it on the news while I was getting ready this morning. On the news they said she was suing him, here it says he was fined. So whichever.

While I don't know if it applies in this case, I do think there are technical differences between cutting/styling long(er) hair vs short hair and that a barber/hair dresser should be able to specialize if they want to. Speaking in generalities, most men tend to have short hair and most women don't. That said, IF the distinction is due to the barber's abilities with certain styles, I don't think the sex of the customer should matter.

We can discuss private entities, discrimination, and protected status for years since it's ever-evolving, but it's still very different than a government official using one's office to deny someone a legal right.

 

[bcla]

She went to jail for failing to follow a court order (contempt of court). Was there a court order requiring Gov Brown or the AG to support Prop 8 before the Supreme Court? I don't believe so. I personally believe that anyone has the right to decide whether a law is constitutional and follow it (or not) as there conscious dictates. Of course, failing to follow a law makes one vulnerable to later court action, which ultimately could go against you (as it did in Ms. Davis' case).

During that time they weren't telling county clerks that they should issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. If they had, that would have been violating the law as it stood.

 

[bcla]

While I don't know if it applies in this case, I do think there are technical differences between cutting/styling long(er) hair vs short hair and that a barber/hair dresser should be able to specialize if they want to. Speaking in generalities, most men tend to have short hair and most women don't. That said, IF the distinction is due to the barber's abilities with certain styles, I don't think the sex of the customer should matter.

We can discuss private entities, discrimination, and protected status for years since it's ever-evolving, but it's still very different than a government official using one's office to deny someone a legal right.

The federal Civil Rights Act doesn't actually have any protections for access to public accommodations on the basis of sex. I believe there is employment protection however. That doesn't mean there might not be state laws. Even so, there are exceptions carved out which may

Someone mentioned a women's only fitness club. I think the name is "Curves" although I thought that poster said "Shapes". A lot of state or local laws do address this specifically with an exemption. As far as a barber goes, I suppose he could offer to give a woman a short cut and see what she feels about it. There's no particular reason why a business operator needs to do anything differently than normal operating procedure. If they don't have the skill set to cut long women's hair or don't stock women's hair care products, they can't be required. However, that's very different than maybe having a diner and saying no women or no men. There's got to be some sort of rational basis. Even so, many states don't have such an exception written into the law.

 

[JaxDad]

During that time they weren't telling county clerks that they should issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. If they had, that would have been violating the law as it stood.

FWIW, the mayor of San Francisco back in the early 2000s (Newsom?) directed clerks to issue licenses for same sex marriages, which was in violation of CA state law at that time. I'm pretty sure he did not go to jail. I also don't think the marriages were ultimately allowed to stand.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/09/08/barbershop-fined-for-refusing-to-cut-womans-hair/

I didn't actually read it here but just heard it on the news while I was getting ready this morning. On the news they said she was suing him, here it says he was fined. So whichever.

Yeah, that's discriminatory. If he only does "men's style" haircuts then he can let women know that when they come in. If they're okay with a more masculine look, then why can't he cut their hair? Maybe he doesn't want girl cooties in the he-man woman-hater's club. He said he doesn't have the equipment to cut women's hair. He doesn't have scissors? What does he cut the guys hair with? Hedge shears? Chainsaws?

I think it's fine to specialize in a certain style - like masculine, barber-shop cuts, but I don't think it's okay to discriminate by gender.

 

[ariel71]

The federal Civil Rights Act doesn't actually have any protections for access to public accommodations on the basis of sex. I believe there is employment protection however. That doesn't mean there might not be state laws. Even so, there are exceptions carved out which may

Someone mentioned a women's only fitness club. I think the name is "Curves" although I thought that poster said "Shapes". A lot of state or local laws do address this specifically with an exemption. As far as a barber goes, I suppose he could offer to give a woman a short cut and see what she feels about it. There's no particular reason why a business operator needs to do anything differently than normal operating procedure. If they don't have the skill set to cut long women's hair or don't stock women's hair care products, they can't be required. However, that's very different than maybe having a diner and saying no women or no men. There's got to be some sort of rational basis. Even so, many states don't have such an exception written into the law.

Which is why I didn't mention the Civil Rights Act or other laws and only give my opinion about what could be construed as a "rational basis" for this case if a such a law existed in that jurisdiction.

Talking about trucking, or barbers, or bakers, or candlestick makers is a smokescreen for those trying to find some little nugget that somehow proves that because "B" happened and it seems wrong, therefore "A" must also be just as wrong. Governments are not private employers, delivering boxes is not signing a marriage license allowing a fundamental civil right, and prohibiting people without shoes from a store is not the same as racial discrimination.

 

[Jennasis]

Yeah, that's discriminatory. If he only does "men's style" haircuts then he can let women know that when they come in. If they're okay with a more masculine look, then why can't he cut their hair? Maybe he doesn't want girl cooties in the he-man woman-hater's club. He said he doesn't have the equipment to cut women's hair. He doesn't have scissors? What does he cut the guys hair with? Hedge shears? Chainsaws?

I think it's fine to specialize in a certain style - like masculine, barber-shop cuts, but I don't think it's okay to discriminate by gender.

There is a well known barber shop in NYC (DH used to go there). The barbers ONLY used clippers/ No scissors. There was a chart on the wall or about 12 men's hairstyles to choose which style you wanted. That's all they did.