Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Kondor3]

...Difficult? Even her attorney says that her spirits are high and that she is happy that she is becoming a "martyr"! (while being paid to not do her job).

Yes.

Difficult.

She is in jail.

She will eventually lose her job.

She knew both of these things were going to happen, prior to making her choice, to take a stand against a wicked legal ruling.

On the macro level, she may very well be 'content' that things are unfolding in this fashion, but I seriously doubt that anyone can be 'happy' sitting in a jail cell, separated from family and friends and the free air, as a matter of choice, in order to take a stand.

Yes.

Difficult.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...Difficult? Even her attorney says that her spirits are high and that she is happy that she is becoming a "martyr"! (while being paid to not do her job).

Yes.

Difficult.

She is in jail.

She will eventually lose her job.

She knew both of these things were going to happen, prior to making her choice, to take a stand against a wicked legal ruling.

On the macro level, she may very well be 'content' that things are unfolding in this fashion, but I seriously doubt that anyone can be 'happy' sitting in a jail cell, separated from family and friends and the free air, as a matter of choice, in order to take a stand.

Yes.

Difficult.

Well, I'll say this. I certainly hope so!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Come on, guys! Trump has spoken on this! That should settle it for you!

 

[Flopper]

We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.

Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.

Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.

Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.

Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.

Sue who? The Supreme Court.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...Yes...we know you support Christian Sharia...

You know no such thing.

Also, you cannot even define and articulate this made-up term, "Christian Sharia Law", so, I'm not going to sweat your brickbats.

....putting your interpretation of your religion before the U.S. Constitution and our secular laws.

1. I am a Christian-leaning Agnostic - a Doubting Thomas

2. I do not put my 'religion' ahead of the Constitution.

3. I merely hold that our Constitution has recently been interpreted incorrectly, in contravention to the interests of the Nation and its People, in favor of a tiny minority of sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).

4. I advocate revisiting recent SCOTUS rulings on the subject, and a different attack-angle, in order to overturn such bad rulings, as is my right, under the Constitution

5. Our 'secular' laws have vast, deep roots in the Laws of Antiquity (Greece, Rome) and post-Imperial, Medieval and Renaissance CANON law, and modern-day adaptations.

6. We are a Secular Christian Nation - with a healthy separation between Church and State - but a country in which the vast majority are of a Christian 'confession'.

Your brand of secular bigotry is refreshing I suppose but bigotry never the less. Sexual deviants? Really? In any case lets talk about the high court.

You think that the Obergefell ruling was wrong? Surely you must have followed the case closely and studied the ruling in depth in order to come to that conclusion? You did read the opinion, right?

Please tell us what your legal theory in support of that view is. I hope that you can do that without falling back on Roberts pathetic "leave it to the democratic process" cope out or Scalia and Thomas' inane, fear based rant that ignored the constitution all together.

I would be most interested in knowing what your "new attack angle " would look like.

Regarding Roberts, my guess is that he was OK with the majority ruling, judging from his relatively mild rebuke of it. I believe that he voted against equality, at least in part, because he knew what Kennedy would do. That way he could preserve his own conservative legacy, while knowing that his tenure would not be tainted by having presided over a court that would have been on the wrong side of history.

 

[WinterBorn]

We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.

Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.

Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.

Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.

Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.

And her resignation would have solved the problem.

A perfect example of this sort of bullshit is this: If I worked in a restaurant, and they added pork to the menu. My religion forbids eating pork. So I don't eat it. And now I am going to make sure you can't eat it here either.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.

Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.

Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.

Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.

Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.

You probably believe this over the top, inane equine excrement also......

Kim Davis' Lawyer Invokes Nazi Gas Chambers, Warns Of Massive Persecution Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 9/4/2015 10:35 am\

On Wednesday, anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’ lawyer Mat Staver, founder of the right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel, compared Davis to a Jew living in Nazi Germany. Following a judge’s order yesterday that Davis remain in custody of U.S. Marshals for continuing to defy the courts, Staver appeared on “Washington Watch” where he once again brought up Nazi tyranny.

Staver accused Davis’ critics of turning America into Nazi Germany: “Back in the 1930s, it began with the Jews, where they were evicted from public employment, then boycotted in their private employment, then stigmatized and that led to the gas chambers. This is the new persecution of Christians here in this country.” - See more at: Kim Davis' Lawyer Invokes Nazi Gas Chambers, Warns Of Massive Persecution

Funny thing is, if this were Nazi Germany, it is people like Staver and James who would be handing the gays over to them.

 

[dcraelin]

Simple Question:

How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!

she wasn't issuing ANY marriage licenses..which most likely means she was denying far more real marriages than gay marriages.

Real Marriages?

First off explain to me what a real marriage is to you?

Also the woman in question is a pathetic joke!

She has been married four times to three different men and what I read she got pregnant while being married to one guy and the father of her twins was by another guy that was husband number three, so she committed adultery which is also a sin, but please let ignore her sins,right?

In the end her suppose found religious moral ground is just her ignorant ass way to be a bigot and so many fools are defending her while ignoring what type of white trash that woman really is, but hey at least she is denying Gay couples to be treated equal, right?

Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really doubt all the "info" you've presented.....it seems like a naked political based smear....but even if true doesnt negate her beliefs.

And dont pretend not to know what I mean by real marriages.

Amazing how powerful lawyers and judges can ignore the law and face no consequences, but this lady when acting out of conviction is thrown in jail.

former Attorney general Brown of California shirked his duty in defending prop 8, and faced no consequences. The same with the AG who came after him....I think this also happened in other states. If this lady faces jail time for not doing her duty....so should they.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Simple Question:

How many divorced couples has the Clerk issued marriage licenses for, and if any then she need to drop the Christian act because she is full of shit when using her so-call Christianity to support her bigoted hatred to deny same sex couples the same rights as divorce couples enjoy!?!

she wasn't issuing ANY marriage licenses..which most likely means she was denying far more real marriages than gay marriages.

Real Marriages?

First off explain to me what a real marriage is to you?

Also the woman in question is a pathetic joke!

She has been married four times to three different men and what I read she got pregnant while being married to one guy and the father of her twins was by another guy that was husband number three, so she committed adultery which is also a sin, but please let ignore her sins,right?

In the end her suppose found religious moral ground is just her ignorant ass way to be a bigot and so many fools are defending her while ignoring what type of white trash that woman really is, but hey at least she is denying Gay couples to be treated equal, right?

Kim Davis (county clerk) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really doubt all the "info" you've presented.....it seems like a naked political based smear....but even if true doesnt negate her beliefs.

And dont pretend not to know what I mean by real marriages.

Amazing how powerful lawyers and judges can ignore the law and face no consequences, but this lady when acting out of conviction is thrown in jail.

former Attorney general Brown of California shirked his duty in defending prop 8, and faced no consequences. The same with the AG who came after him....I think this also happened in other states. If this lady faces jail time for not doing her duty....so should they.

Real marriages...? Like Davis' 4 marriages. It's the truth. It's been reported y numerous sources. Or, maybe you were thinking of Newt Gingrich's marriages.

Davis was not thrown in jail for her convictions . or simply for not doing her job. She was jailed for contempt of court. Brown was not in contempt of any court

You seem to be another one of these folks who, in the absence of anything of substance, just throws as much dung as you can at the wall and hope that something sticks.

 

[Faun]

We don't put people in prison because they are accused of violating the law.

Given: Jude 1 mandates the refusal to promote a homosexual culture under threat of eternal peril for failing to do so.

Given: Kim Davis has the 1st Amendment as her legal right.

Given: She was jailed for following a mandate that if she didn't, would land her for eternity in the pit of fire.

Therefore: she must sue for violation of her civil rights.

Sounds like she took a job not well suited for her. Her other option to protect her standing in the Lord's grace while staying out of jail would have been to find a new line of work.

 

[Coyote]

...Sounds like there is a gang war in the works between Christian Sharia and the Gay Mafia. Who do you think will win? One gang has God on their side and the other has extravegent costumes.

Tee-hee. Good one. It does rather sound like that, doesn't it? Then again, in all seriousness, if conservatives take it all in 2016, it may become real enough, quickly enough, in a metaphorical legal sense. Time will give us that answer.

I don't think you will see a change even if conservatives make significant wins (and that is doubtful) - there is something called "extinction burst" and some of that is what we are seeing in this. It echos the tactics and behavior of the pro-segregationist states and municipalities that opposed desegregaton of public schools. The reality is - the number of people in favor of gay marriage has been steadily increasing and the demographics of that change point not to conservatives "giving up" but rather to increasing numbers of young people supporting it, including young Christians who don't support the emphasis on the social religious politics of the traditional Christian right. That tide is only going to increase with time.

 

[Coyote]

Lets be honest here: marriage is just a empty status symbol to gays. They will never have kids outside of mistaken unions or adoption. We are all children of hetrosexuals, and no amendments or bitching about the unfairness of life will change that ditty,

Not necessarily. Sexual orientation doesn't affect the plumbing. My father was homosexual and he had two kids.

Your father was bisexual, obviously. Which means he just did whatever got his jollies. Which means it was about behavior and not something he "was". It was something he did sometimes.

People need to learn the difference betwen a verb and a noun.

No. He wasn't.

Homo and hetero are orientations. Nothing prevents either in engaging in different behaviors - a hetero can engage in homo acts and a homo can engage in hetero acts. "Bi" simply means someone who is comfortable swinging both ways. For people of my father's generation and religious upbringing - being homosexual was abhorant and like many homosexuals of that era he married and had a family, against his natural inclination. He was a very tormented person as a result. If he had been born today his life path might have been very different but that is neither here nor there. The point is - homosexuals can choose to engage in acts to have children naturally. We are not all children of heteros because plumbing is irrelevant.

 

[Lakhota]

Mike Huckabee to visit Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in jail - CNN.com

He should just stay with her.

 

[boedicca]

The clerk's civil rights were violated. The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.


Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)...

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The clerk's civil rights were violated. The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.


Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)...

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?

SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR! SHE REFUSED!!

 

[boedicca]

The clerk's civil rights were violated. The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.


Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)...

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?

SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR! SHE REFUSED!!

Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this. Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.

(And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing. All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The clerk's civil rights were violated. The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.


Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)...

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?

SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR! SHE REFUSED!!

Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this. Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.

(And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing. All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)

My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming

 

[boedicca]

The clerk's civil rights were violated. The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.


Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)...

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?

SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR! SHE REFUSED!!

Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this. Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.

(And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing. All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)

My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming

I doubt that the CLERK is Empress of her County with Supreme Power. She has a boss. Work duties can be reassigned to accommodate Constitutionally Protected Rights.

The fact that you would rather see her life destroyed says a great deal about your corrupt little soul.

 

[Lakhota]

The clerk's civil rights were violated. The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.


Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)...

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?

SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ACCOMODATION. SHE ORDERED HER STAFF NOT TO ISSUE LICENSES. THE JUDGE OFFERED TO LET HER GO IF SHE JUST PROMISED NOT TO INTERFEAR! SHE REFUSED!!

Her manager should have relieved her of responsibility for this. Throwing her in Jail is a Totalitarian Thought Police Tactic.

(And btw, typing in caps in all in red doesn't make your crap any more convincing. All red is actually a violation of the board rules as red is used for moderation.)

My crap?? I think that you are just making this stuff up because you're out of ammunition. Who is her manager? Who would have such authority? I'll admit that I don't know but I suspect that the answer is no one since she is an elected official. She could have arranged here own accommodation. She did not. She was offered an accommodation by the judge. She turned it down. Now stop squirming

I doubt that the CLERK is Empress of her County with Supreme Power. She has a boss. Work duties can be reassigned to accommodate Constitutionally Protected Rights.

The fact that you would rather see her life destroyed says a great deal about your corrupt little soul.

Her immediate "boss" is the legal system that sent her to jail. Apparently you don't know much about county government.

 

[Faun]

The clerk's civil rights were violated. The county could have made an accommodation by having other staff handle the gay marriage licenses.


Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)...

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?

She could have observed her bullshit religion and not issue a marriage license. All she had to do was let her office issue it, which is ultimately what happened anyway. But she wouldn't permit anyone in her office to do so. She was forcing her religious views upon everyone else in her office.