Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

And just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.

Oathkeepers has promised to intervene to prevent anyone from taking Kim Davis into custody should the issue arise again.

I really don't know how they're going to stop it considering it happens right in the court room.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

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.

Cool - so if a chick walked in there and wanted one of those, why not do it?

I swear I saw a commercial a year or so ago where a long-haired woman walked into a barber shop and pointed to a picture of a really short man's cut on the wall. Then it showed her walking out looking awesome in her very short hair. i swear I don't know what it was for - it always made me smile though.

 

[pryncess527]

And unlike Kim Davis, the barber said:

Interval says he wasn’t aware he was legally compelled to service both men and women. But he plans on paying the fine because he respects the law.

Sometimes our choices have consequences. Grown-ups accept those consequences. This guy was wrong, and he may or may not change his policies as a result of this incident, but at least he's accepting the consequences of his choice.

And fwiw, a court did determine that the City and County of San Francisco had exceeded its authority and violated state law by issuing the marriage licenses. So what Gavin Newsome did was determined to be wrong. However, once he was told it was wrong, he did not continue to do it, so was not held in contempt of court.

 

[ariel71]

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.

Good way to get people to respect your opinion or "thought-provoking" , but here goes...

Attorneys General and district attorneys, in every jurisdiction, make decisions every day on what laws and cases they will defend, prosecute, or appeal. I'm sure they knew that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and would never stand up on appeal (considering it had already lost on appeal). Perhaps they thought it wasn't a prudent use of fiscal resources. Perhaps they thought that times had changed and that Prop 8 would have likely been defeated had it been on the ballot this year and were therefore presuming that they were following what was probably the will of the people. Perhaps they could see through arguments like yours where the pretend hand-wringing was about some sort of sudden keen interest in jurisprudence. "No, really, it has NOTHING to do with the nature of this particular law - we swear!"

All laws are not the same. In this case, you're talking about a law that denied a civil right while providing no identifiable "benefit" to anyone. To expect that every single case in every instance gets appealed to its fullest without considering legal merit is just silly.

 

[gwynne]

And just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.

Oathkeepers has promised to intervene to prevent anyone from taking Kim Davis into custody should the issue arise again.

I really don't know how they're going to stop it considering it happens right in the court room.

Exactly right. From my reading around the net, they seem to be very excited about being armed. Scary.
Maybe someone needs to tell them the US Marshall service/local law enforcement is never going to allow any regular 'ole citizens (individuals or gangs) into any courtroom armed.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Exactly right. From my reading around the net, they seem to be very excited about being armed. Scary.
Maybe someone needs to tell them the US Marshall service (and local law enforcement) is never going to allow any regular 'ole citizens (individuals or gangs) into any courtroom armed.

AM I BEING DETAINED!!!!???????

God, I love those videos!

 

[bcla]

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.

That was Gavin Newsom - the current Lt Governor of California. Not to get into too much politics, but he basically gave conservatives a rallying cry after trying that stunt. The irony is that he was considered "conservative" for San Francisco. He also wasn't a San Francisco native. He grew up in Marin County and went to college at Santa Clara University. He moved to San Francisco and was named a Supervisor when there was an opening that allowed the Mayor to appoint someone. After he left as Mayor he moved back to Marin.

The other thing about San Francisco is that it's a combined city and county government, so he was also head of the county. Most mayors in California wouldn't have any power over what a county clerk could or couldn't do.

Also - he didn't go to jail since he didn't defy any standing court order. Once the state Supreme Court determined that they were not valid, the office stopped issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

 

[Jennasis]

Cool - so if a chick walked in there and wanted one of those, why not do it?

I swear I saw a commercial a year or so ago where a long-haired woman walked into a barber shop and pointed to a picture of a really short man's cut on the wall. Then it showed her walking out looking awesome in her very short hair. i swear I don't know what it was for - it always made me smile though.

I suppose they would cut a woman's hair like the puc if one asked. My story was in response to poster wondering what the barber cut hair with that he didn't have the right supplies, like scissors.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

I suppose they would cut a woman's hair like the puc if one asked. My story was in response to poster wondering what the barber cut hair with that he didn't have the right supplies, like scissors.

Yeah that was me. Same theory though. If you use clippers to cut a guys hair, you could use them to cut a woman's hair.

 

[luvsJack]

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.

Hold on. I wasn't throwing up a smoke screen or trying to say "look what the barber did, that makes it ok!" I just honestly asked a question.

I am well aware that there is a difference in the two cases. I found it curious and I personally think, stupid, that this woman is going to great lengths to demand her right to have her hair cut in a barber shop.

 

[Chocolate Cake]

And just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.

Oathkeepers has promised to intervene to prevent anyone from taking Kim Davis into custody should the issue arise again.

I really don't know how they're going to stop it considering it happens right in the court room.

I am strangely excited to see this go down!

 

[Chocolate Cake]

Did anyone ever answer the question "What if a male refused to issue a female her driver's license based on his religious convictions"?

 

[Jennasis]

Yeah that was me. Same theory though. If you use clippers to cut a guys hair, you could use them to cut a woman's hair.

Of course he could. I wonder what type of hair cut the woman asked for? And if he knew how to do such a cut.

 

[bcla]

I am strangely excited to see this go down!

The US Marshals Service has its own SWAT team. The members serve as regular Deputy US Marshals until called into this role. This could get interesting.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/ops.htm

 

[Gracie09]

Did anyone ever answer the question "What if a male refused to issue a female her driver's license based on his religious convictions"?

What do you think? Of course not. Which pretty much answers the question

 

[JaxDad]

That was Gavin Newsom - the current Lt Governor of California. Not to get into too much politics, but he basically gave conservatives a rallying cry after trying that stunt. The irony is that he was considered "conservative" for San Francisco. He also wasn't a San Francisco native. He grew up in Marin County and went to college at Santa Clara University. He moved to San Francisco and was named a Supervisor when there was an opening that allowed the Mayor to appoint someone. After he left as Mayor he moved back to Marin.

The other thing about San Francisco is that it's a combined city and county government, so he was also head of the county. Most mayors in California wouldn't have any power over what a county clerk could or couldn't do.

Also - he didn't go to jail since he didn't defy any standing court order. Once the state Supreme Court determined that they were not valid, the office stopped issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Thanks for the background.

I may be overly suspicious of all things political, but it seems like he knowingly violated state (and federal) law. Sure, he stopped when they "told" him it was illegal. I stopped speeding when that North Carolina cop pulled me over! And when the violation went before a judge, I paid a fine! I doubt this guy paid anything. The taxpayers paid for the litigation that surely resulted from his stunt. And the hundreds or thousands (?) of couples married as part of the stunt may have "paid" both monetarily and emotionally (although I guess most did not mind).

Nope. It sucks no matter which "side" does it.

 

[bcla]

Thanks for the background.

I may be overly suspicious of all things political, but it seems like he knowingly violated state (and federal) law. Sure, he stopped when they "told" him it was illegal. I stopped speeding when that North Carolina cop pulled me over! And when the violation went before a judge, I paid a fine! I doubt this guy paid anything. The taxpayers paid for the litigation that surely resulted from his stunt. And the hundreds or thousands (?) of couples married as part of the stunt may have "paid" both monetarily and emotionally (although I guess most did not mind).

Nope. It sucks no matter which "side" does it.

There was no violation of federal law. Even though there was DOMA, that didn't specifically prevent states from recognizing same sex marriage. In fact Massachusetts had passed legislation to legalize SSM the previous year, but it wasn't in effect yet. He was violating the then current interpretation of state law, but he was citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Eventually the state supreme court followed that argument.

I'd just say that it was an interesting sideshow for a while. It did eventually spur a movement. The litigation was just a normal act of government.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

Of course he could. I wonder what type of hair cut the woman asked for? And if he knew how to do such a cut.

I would be interested in learning more about this case too. I wonder if it even got as far as her saying what kind of cut she wanted. If it was something he didn't know how to do, I'm sure he would have been in his rights to tell her that if he did it, it would look like the AFLAC duck took a whack at her and that he only had the training to do more masculine looking styles. If it was a very short guys cut he should have been able to handle it. If he out and out said "I don't cut women's hair." without getting more info, I would think that would be discriminatory. He's probably a really old-school guy who couldn't imagine a woman would want a buzz cut or something super short. I know I personally woudn't because my head looks like an egg, but it would feel great in the summer.

 

[ariel71]

Hold on. I wasn't throwing up a smoke screen or trying to say "look what the barber did, that makes it ok!" I just honestly asked a question.

I am well aware that there is a difference in the two cases. I found it curious and I personally think, stupid, that this woman is going to great lengths to demand her right to have her hair cut in a barber shop.

I apologize if I misread your intent and it wasn't meant to be a "gotcha" or slippery-slope argument like we've seen here and on other same sex marriage threads. For what it's worth, I personally agree with you on the stupidity part. It's not something I'd be fighting for even if there was a case for it.

 

[DisneyBabies]

Finally, some intelligent life in this thread relative to a point I made pages ago. And you are failing to see that that poster did not prove your point. Though Federal controls may not include sexual orientation as a protected status, state and/or local controls do, so the end result is the same. And you proved that you will ignore any part of a post that does not prove your point. Here was the entire post:

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.

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. No, most of us realize that there is no national law that holds all of the protected statuses, but we also realize that state and local laws would then take over, so the origin of the protected status does not matter; it's still a protected status. If you serve the public, you serve all of the public as long as they are wearing clothes and can pay for the services the are asking for. You can refuse to serve someone based on a protected status, but that person has the right to sue you and if they can prove you discriminated due to a protected status, you will lose.

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%). And the percentage of the population who are gay or black or Hispanic does not matter; they are who they are ... people ... just like you ... and deserve the same rights that you have. And I have to agree with others; we are not 5 years old ... learn to type the word gay.

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.

Pic #1 seems to be a church centered market, therefore protected fully by religious freedom.

Pic#2 is probably meant to be funny, but basically a warning that is you act up, you'll be thrown out which is true of any bar.

Pic #3 is ridiculously unenforceable and is obviously not a legal sign as it is attached to a cardboard box.

Pic #4 Again, unenforceable. You can post the sign all you want, but if you attempt to enforce it, you could wind up looking at fines or jail time just like every other person who has tried to discriminate in that manner.

it's the same thread after thread.

Yes, I've certainly notice that as well. I don't get it.

@robinb and @Goofy_Disney_Dad , does dinolounger do this often?