Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

[paddymurphy]

Does anyone really need to read beyond those two sentences to realize what an idiot Odium is?

Is it warm where you are? Dank? Moist? Saturated with a foul odor?

Pull your head out of your ass!

Tell me more about This is EXACTLY like using military to enforce white genocide.

I really enjoy a good laugh from the Idaho nutbags.

I'm not white, asshole. Why don't you ask the one who said it?

You are a Latino cat killer. We know who you are, psycho boy. She can believe whatever she wants, but she must do her job according to the law or resign.

Bullshit. If the law is unconstitutional then it isn't valid.

The law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that laws the restrict gay couples fro marrying were unconstitutional. That is why she is being ordered to issue the licenses consistent with the law that now allows gay couples to marry. Maybe you were out killing cats when that ruling was in all the news.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

She won't quit. You butt fuck tyrants may get her fired but she won't quit. This is EXACTLY like using military to enforce white genocide.

Does anyone really need to read beyond those two sentences to realize what an idiot Odium is?

Is it warm where you are? Dank? Moist? Saturated with a foul odor?

Pull your head out of your ass!

Tell me more about This is EXACTLY like using military to enforce white genocide.

I really enjoy a good laugh from the Idaho nutbags.

I'm not white, asshole. Why don't you ask the one who said it?

LOL- you are the stupid asshole who not only celebrates murderers- you clearly get confused about how posting works.

Odium racist posts about white genocide- I point out he is an idiot- and you jump in being an asshole.

I don't care what color you are- but Odium does.

Actually I jumped on you for having your head up your ass and you were responding to Odium's post that contained more than just a white genocide reference. The fact that you saw only that is why I responded the way I did.

And you celebrate abortion on demand. That makes you an evil fuck of the first echelon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does anyone really need to read beyond those two sentences to realize what an idiot Odium is?

Is it warm where you are? Dank? Moist? Saturated with a foul odor?

Pull your head out of your ass!

Tell me more about This is EXACTLY like using military to enforce white genocide.

I really enjoy a good laugh from the Idaho nutbags.

I'm not white, asshole. Why don't you ask the one who said it?

You are a Latino cat killer. We know who you are, psycho boy. She can believe whatever she wants, but she must do her job according to the law or resign.

Bullshit. If the law is unconstitutional then it isn't valid.

Yep, cat killer, you are full of it. SCOTUS opined and the far right has whined. She either obeys or goes aways.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Is it warm where you are? Dank? Moist? Saturated with a foul odor?

Pull your head out of your ass!

Tell me more about This is EXACTLY like using military to enforce white genocide.

I really enjoy a good laugh from the Idaho nutbags.

I'm not white, asshole. Why don't you ask the one who said it?

You are a Latino cat killer. We know who you are, psycho boy. She can believe whatever she wants, but she must do her job according to the law or resign.

Bullshit. If the law is unconstitutional then it isn't valid.

Yep, cat killer, you are full of it. SCOTUS opined and the far right has whined. She either obeys or goes aways.

Back on ignore you go, troll.

 

[EverCurious]

Here is a link to Kim Davis's emergency application directed to Justice Kagan. It is 50 pages!

Kim Davis SCOTUS Stay Application

I'm not sure that I want to wade through it. Anyone else want to read it?

"She is one of 120 Kentucky County Clerks, and oversees one of approximately 137 marriage licensing locations spread throughout Kentucky. No marriage license can be issued from her office without her authorization and without her personally affixing thereto her name and endorsement."

~ Her argument:
"But such individual rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty are neither absolutely surrendered at the entry door of public service nor waived upon taking an oath of office. To suggest otherwise creates a religious (or anti-religious) test for holding office – which the United States and Kentucky Constitutions expressly forbid."

~ I find her points a bit interesting, because yeah they kind of already do all of this...

"For if that were true, a person who religiously objects to wartime combat would be forced to shoulder a rifle regardless of their conscience or be refused citizenship; a person who religiously objects to work on the Sabbath day of their faith would be forced to accept such work regardless of their conscience or lose access to state unemployment benefits; a person who religiously objects to state-mandated schooling for their children would be forced to send their children to school regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to state-approved messages would be forced to carry that message on their vehicles regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to capital punishment would be forced to participate in an execution regardless of their conscience or lose their job; a person who religiously objects to providing abortion-related and contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees would be forced to pay for such coverage regardless of their conscience or face staggering fines."

~ In order: The draft, getting fired, child neglect/abuse, huh? That's a dumb one if your employer says you can't have x bumper sticker you can be fired (see the shooter guy who couldn't wear his Obama pin), getting fired, if I'm not mistaken ACA does that?

~ So she's basically trying to say that the State Constitution should "outweigh" the SOCTUS ruling, that's not happening:

"The district court has acknowledged that “this civil action” presents a constitutional “debate,” “tension,” and “conflict” between “two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence.” Davis’ individual liberties are enumerated in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which predate and survive this Court’s ruling in Obergefell. Such rights deserve protection before the “demands of the State” irrevocably crush the “conscience of the individual.”
In the district court’s view, Plaintiffs’ rights trump Davis’ religious rights. But Davis’ individual liberties are enumerated in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and a
state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which predate and survive this Court’s ruling in Obergefell. Such rights deserve protection before the “demands of the State” irrevocably crush the “conscience of the individual.”

~ I can't imagine that's going to fly frankly, Alaska constitution has considered marijuana for private use legal since it's inception as a state. The Feds overruled that and /forced/ Alaska to make it illegal during the war on drugs; I can't recall if we went to the SCOTUS or not, but the Feds said basically "You will comply or you will have zero federal funding." Same shit, different layer cake.

~ She's kind of breaking the oath she took in taking office, regardless of her attempt to put religious spin on the oath:

"Before taking office as Rowan County clerk, Davis swore an oath to support the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Kentucky “so help me God.” KY. CONST. § 228."

And here's the rub, she's not only denying SSM's but /all/ marriages in her area:

"Expressly to avoid disparate treatment of any couple and ensure that all individuals and couples were treated the same, Davis suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses in Rowan County. VC, ¶ 29. She instructed all deputy clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses because licenses are issued on her authority, and because every license requires her name to appear on the license as the authorizing person."

~ Ouch

"The district court also rejected Davis’ claims under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“Kentucky RFRA”), KY. REV. STAT. § 446.350, the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution, and similar Kentucky Constitution provisions. See App. A-16 to A-28. In rejecting Davis’ religious liberty, conscience, and speech claims, the district court incorrectly concluded that the Kentucky marriage license form “does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage” and instead merely “asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that
the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.”9 According to the district court, the burden on Davis’ religious freedom is “more slight,” and she “remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs” since she “may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County jail,” and “believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” Id. at 27. But, according to the district court, “her religious convictions cannot excuse her” from authorizing SSM licenses.

[...]

"On August 26, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied Davis’ emergency motion to stay the Injunction pending appeal. See App. D. In denying the stay request, the Sixth Circuit stated that [t]he injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk,” and further stated that “In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court.”

~SCOTUS will follow the same lines of thought I'm sure.


~ I have to wonder if she ensures that every marriage license she signs is for a Christian couple, or a couple who is of "good moral standing"... Does this mean we can we then hold her morally and/or legally responsible for every marriage she allowed which ended in divorce over the past 30 years? How about where there was domestic abuse?

Thing is, it is not for a state worker to determine an applicants "moral status" when providing services of any kind. I suspect this office will be looked upon no differently than the folks who authorize welfare, or unemployment, or social security applications. If one were to argue that the applicant wasn't Christian therefore couldn't receive a marriage license it would fail, thus too will the argument that because they're the same sex will fail as well.


Later on she argues for "religious accommodations," presumably that she will only sign "traditional" marriage papers. Problem is she has to sign /all/ of them, thus the only "accommodation" would be hiring a second clerk to do her job... That's not reasonable. I'm not sure if they can like fax the paper's to the next county for a signature or not, because it's gotta be notarized and shit, can't do that over a fax heh. I just don't think there /is/ an accommodation that would work for her position. Clearly it needs to be specified from now on that part of that job is signing off on SSM's, in the mean time I guess give her early retirement and move forward.

 

[paddymurphy]

Tell me more about This is EXACTLY like using military to enforce white genocide.

I really enjoy a good laugh from the Idaho nutbags.

I'm not white, asshole. Why don't you ask the one who said it?

You are a Latino cat killer. We know who you are, psycho boy. She can believe whatever she wants, but she must do her job according to the law or resign.

Bullshit. If the law is unconstitutional then it isn't valid.

Yep, cat killer, you are full of it. SCOTUS opined and the far right has whined. She either obeys or goes aways.

Back on ignore you go, troll.

Can I go on ignore too?

I got this from your Facebook page.

 

[JakeStarkey]

saintmike is a psycho Catholic of the old French conservative school. He hates equally, whether cats or blacks.

The woman will obey or go away.

ps: he has put me on ignore a dozen times and always come back for more degradation,

 

[Debra K]

Here is a link to Kim Davis's emergency application directed to Justice Kagan. It is 50 pages!

Kim Davis SCOTUS Stay Application

I'm not sure that I want to wade through it. Anyone else want to read it?

"She is one of 120 Kentucky County Clerks, and oversees one of approximately 137 marriage licensing locations spread throughout Kentucky. No marriage license can be issued from her office without her authorization and without her personally affixing thereto her name and endorsement."

~ Her argument:
"But such individual rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty are neither absolutely surrendered at the entry door of public service nor waived upon taking an oath of office. To suggest otherwise creates a religious (or anti-religious) test for holding office – which the United States and Kentucky Constitutions expressly forbid."

~ I find her points a bit interesting, because yeah they kind of already do all of this...

"For if that were true, a person who religiously objects to wartime combat would be forced to shoulder a rifle regardless of their conscience or be refused citizenship; a person who religiously objects to work on the Sabbath day of their faith would be forced to accept such work regardless of their conscience or lose access to state unemployment benefits; a person who religiously objects to state-mandated schooling for their children would be forced to send their children to school regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to state-approved messages would be forced to carry that message on their vehicles regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to capital punishment would be forced to participate in an execution regardless of their conscience or lose their job; a person who religiously objects to providing abortion-related and contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees would be forced to pay for such coverage regardless of their conscience or face staggering fines."

~ In order: The draft, getting fired, child neglect/abuse, huh? That's a dumb one if your employer says you can't have x bumper sticker you can be fired (see the shooter guy who couldn't wear his Obama pin), getting fired, if I'm not mistaken ACA does that?

~ So she's basically trying to say that the State Constitution should "outweigh" the SOCTUS ruling, that's not happening:

"The district court has acknowledged that “this civil action” presents a constitutional “debate,” “tension,” and “conflict” between “two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence.” Davis’ individual liberties are enumerated in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which predate and survive this Court’s ruling in Obergefell. Such rights deserve protection before the “demands of the State” irrevocably crush the “conscience of the individual.”
In the district court’s view, Plaintiffs’ rights trump Davis’ religious rights. But Davis’ individual liberties are enumerated in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and a
state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which predate and survive this Court’s ruling in Obergefell. Such rights deserve protection before the “demands of the State” irrevocably crush the “conscience of the individual.”

~ I can't imagine that's going to fly frankly, Alaska constitution has considered marijuana for private use legal since it's inception as a state. The Feds overruled that and /forced/ Alaska to make it illegal during the war on drugs; I can't recall if we went to the SCOTUS or not, but the Feds said basically "You will comply or you will have zero federal funding." Same shit, different layer cake.

~ She's kind of breaking the oath she took in taking office, regardless of her attempt to put religious spin on the oath:

"Before taking office as Rowan County clerk, Davis swore an oath to support the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Kentucky “so help me God.” KY. CONST. § 228."

And here's the rub, she's not only denying SSM's but /all/ marriages in her area:

"Expressly to avoid disparate treatment of any couple and ensure that all individuals and couples were treated the same, Davis suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses in Rowan County. VC, ¶ 29. She instructed all deputy clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses because licenses are issued on her authority, and because every license requires her name to appear on the license as the authorizing person."

~ Ouch

"The district court also rejected Davis’ claims under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“Kentucky RFRA”), KY. REV. STAT. § 446.350, the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution, and similar Kentucky Constitution provisions. See App. A-16 to A-28. In rejecting Davis’ religious liberty, conscience, and speech claims, the district court incorrectly concluded that the Kentucky marriage license form “does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage” and instead merely “asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that
the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.”9 According to the district court, the burden on Davis’ religious freedom is “more slight,” and she “remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs” since she “may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County jail,” and “believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” Id. at 27. But, according to the district court, “her religious convictions cannot excuse her” from authorizing SSM licenses.

[...]

"On August 26, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied Davis’ emergency motion to stay the Injunction pending appeal. See App. D. In denying the stay request, the Sixth Circuit stated that [t]he injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk,” and further stated that “In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court.”

~SCOTUS will follow the same lines of thought I'm sure.


~ I have to wonder if she ensures that every marriage license she signs is for a Christian couple, or a couple who is of "good moral standing"... Does this mean we can we then hold her morally and/or legally responsible for every marriage she allowed which ended in divorce over the past 30 years? How about where there was domestic abuse?

Thing is, it is not for a state worker to determine an applicants "moral status" when providing services of any kind. I suspect this office will be looked upon no differently than the folks who authorize welfare, or unemployment, or social security applications. If one were to argue that the applicant wasn't Christian therefore couldn't receive a marriage license it would fail, thus too will the argument that because they're the same sex will fail as well.


Later on she argues for "religious accommodations," presumably that she will only sign "traditional" marriage papers. Problem is she has to sign /all/ of them, thus the only "accommodation" would be hiring a second clerk to do her job... That's not reasonable. I'm not sure if they can like fax the paper's to the next county for a signature or not, because it's gotta be notarized and shit, can't do that over a fax heh. I just don't think there /is/ an accommodation that would work for her position. Clearly it needs to be specified from now on that part of that job is signing off on SSM's, in the mean time I guess give her early retirement and move forward.

I read her previously filings with the district court and the court of appeals. I skimmed through the emergency petition and I didn't notice any new arguments. All of her arguments are spurious, frivolous, or fallacious. I think she just wants the media attention so the gay-haters will be frothing at the mouth and eager to send her donations.

 

[EverCurious]

Here is a link to Kim Davis's emergency application directed to Justice Kagan. It is 50 pages!

Kim Davis SCOTUS Stay Application

I'm not sure that I want to wade through it. Anyone else want to read it?

"She is one of 120 Kentucky County Clerks, and oversees one of approximately 137 marriage licensing locations spread throughout Kentucky. No marriage license can be issued from her office without her authorization and without her personally affixing thereto her name and endorsement."

~ Her argument:
"But such individual rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty are neither absolutely surrendered at the entry door of public service nor waived upon taking an oath of office. To suggest otherwise creates a religious (or anti-religious) test for holding office – which the United States and Kentucky Constitutions expressly forbid."

~ I find her points a bit interesting, because yeah they kind of already do all of this...

"For if that were true, a person who religiously objects to wartime combat would be forced to shoulder a rifle regardless of their conscience or be refused citizenship; a person who religiously objects to work on the Sabbath day of their faith would be forced to accept such work regardless of their conscience or lose access to state unemployment benefits; a person who religiously objects to state-mandated schooling for their children would be forced to send their children to school regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to state-approved messages would be forced to carry that message on their vehicles regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to capital punishment would be forced to participate in an execution regardless of their conscience or lose their job; a person who religiously objects to providing abortion-related and contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees would be forced to pay for such coverage regardless of their conscience or face staggering fines."

~ In order: The draft, getting fired, child neglect/abuse, huh? That's a dumb one if your employer says you can't have x bumper sticker you can be fired (see the shooter guy who couldn't wear his Obama pin), getting fired, if I'm not mistaken ACA does that?

~ So she's basically trying to say that the State Constitution should "outweigh" the SOCTUS ruling, that's not happening:

"The district court has acknowledged that “this civil action” presents a constitutional “debate,” “tension,” and “conflict” between “two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence.” Davis’ individual liberties are enumerated in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which predate and survive this Court’s ruling in Obergefell. Such rights deserve protection before the “demands of the State” irrevocably crush the “conscience of the individual.”
In the district court’s view, Plaintiffs’ rights trump Davis’ religious rights. But Davis’ individual liberties are enumerated in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and a
state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which predate and survive this Court’s ruling in Obergefell. Such rights deserve protection before the “demands of the State” irrevocably crush the “conscience of the individual.”

~ I can't imagine that's going to fly frankly, Alaska constitution has considered marijuana for private use legal since it's inception as a state. The Feds overruled that and /forced/ Alaska to make it illegal during the war on drugs; I can't recall if we went to the SCOTUS or not, but the Feds said basically "You will comply or you will have zero federal funding." Same shit, different layer cake.

~ She's kind of breaking the oath she took in taking office, regardless of her attempt to put religious spin on the oath:

"Before taking office as Rowan County clerk, Davis swore an oath to support the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Kentucky “so help me God.” KY. CONST. § 228."

And here's the rub, she's not only denying SSM's but /all/ marriages in her area:

"Expressly to avoid disparate treatment of any couple and ensure that all individuals and couples were treated the same, Davis suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses in Rowan County. VC, ¶ 29. She instructed all deputy clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses because licenses are issued on her authority, and because every license requires her name to appear on the license as the authorizing person."

~ Ouch

"The district court also rejected Davis’ claims under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“Kentucky RFRA”), KY. REV. STAT. § 446.350, the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution, and similar Kentucky Constitution provisions. See App. A-16 to A-28. In rejecting Davis’ religious liberty, conscience, and speech claims, the district court incorrectly concluded that the Kentucky marriage license form “does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage” and instead merely “asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that
the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.”9 According to the district court, the burden on Davis’ religious freedom is “more slight,” and she “remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs” since she “may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County jail,” and “believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” Id. at 27. But, according to the district court, “her religious convictions cannot excuse her” from authorizing SSM licenses.

[...]

"On August 26, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied Davis’ emergency motion to stay the Injunction pending appeal. See App. D. In denying the stay request, the Sixth Circuit stated that [t]he injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk,” and further stated that “In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court.”

~SCOTUS will follow the same lines of thought I'm sure.


~ I have to wonder if she ensures that every marriage license she signs is for a Christian couple, or a couple who is of "good moral standing"... Does this mean we can we then hold her morally and/or legally responsible for every marriage she allowed which ended in divorce over the past 30 years? How about where there was domestic abuse?

Thing is, it is not for a state worker to determine an applicants "moral status" when providing services of any kind. I suspect this office will be looked upon no differently than the folks who authorize welfare, or unemployment, or social security applications. If one were to argue that the applicant wasn't Christian therefore couldn't receive a marriage license it would fail, thus too will the argument that because they're the same sex will fail as well.


Later on she argues for "religious accommodations," presumably that she will only sign "traditional" marriage papers. Problem is she has to sign /all/ of them, thus the only "accommodation" would be hiring a second clerk to do her job... That's not reasonable. I'm not sure if they can like fax the paper's to the next county for a signature or not, because it's gotta be notarized and shit, can't do that over a fax heh. I just don't think there /is/ an accommodation that would work for her position. Clearly it needs to be specified from now on that part of that job is signing off on SSM's, in the mean time I guess give her early retirement and move forward.

I read her previously filings with the district court and the court of appeals. I skimmed through the emergency petition and I didn't notice any new arguments. All of her arguments are spurious, frivolous, or fallacious. I think she just wants the media attention so the gay-haters will be frothing at the mouth and eager to send her donations.

Meh no different than wasting their money on fancy churches, doesn't really matter to me honestly - their money. I waste money on video games so I can't really talk heh

But yea, I don't see anything in her plea that's going to outweigh the district courts opinion that she's just certifying the shits correct on the application rather than endorsing it.

I'm waiting for "the next attempt" - when the bible thumper sues for religious discrimination because the application for the clerk job now requires they sign off on SSM licenses...

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

Good..don't take their assault without fighting back!

The operative being "targeted"....Which is how these libs operate. They carefully pick their battles. Most likely due to the eagerness of a complicit main stream media to report with an extreme left wing bias.

Seems that she targeted gays. Had she simply followed the law, no one would know her name.

Well, that's taking the easy way out.
The Clerk is being singled out by the militant gay community because of her religious beliefs.
And because Kentucky law does not preclude a person of religious conviction from holding public office or in the employ of the public, the governor along with the militant gays are indeed targeting her based on their hatred of Christianity.....See how this works?

And why do you think that the governor is not a Christian?

Governor Beshear learned his values growing up in Dawson Springs -- a small town in western Kentucky. His father and grandfather, both Baptist ministers, instilled in him a responsibility to God and family. His mother, who found time to give back to her community while raising five children, inspired him to serve his community and state. 

At the University of Kentucky, where he received his undergraduate and law degrees, he served as president of the student body. That experience drew him to serve in the U.S. Army reserve as an intelligence analyst and also perform duties in the Judge Advocate General’s office.

 

[Debra K]

Here is a link to Kim Davis's emergency application directed to Justice Kagan. It is 50 pages!

Kim Davis SCOTUS Stay Application

I'm not sure that I want to wade through it. Anyone else want to read it?

"She is one of 120 Kentucky County Clerks, and oversees one of approximately 137 marriage licensing locations spread throughout Kentucky. No marriage license can be issued from her office without her authorization and without her personally affixing thereto her name and endorsement."

~ Her argument:
"But such individual rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty are neither absolutely surrendered at the entry door of public service nor waived upon taking an oath of office. To suggest otherwise creates a religious (or anti-religious) test for holding office – which the United States and Kentucky Constitutions expressly forbid."

~ I find her points a bit interesting, because yeah they kind of already do all of this...

"For if that were true, a person who religiously objects to wartime combat would be forced to shoulder a rifle regardless of their conscience or be refused citizenship; a person who religiously objects to work on the Sabbath day of their faith would be forced to accept such work regardless of their conscience or lose access to state unemployment benefits; a person who religiously objects to state-mandated schooling for their children would be forced to send their children to school regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to state-approved messages would be forced to carry that message on their vehicles regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to capital punishment would be forced to participate in an execution regardless of their conscience or lose their job; a person who religiously objects to providing abortion-related and contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees would be forced to pay for such coverage regardless of their conscience or face staggering fines."

~ In order: The draft, getting fired, child neglect/abuse, huh? That's a dumb one if your employer says you can't have x bumper sticker you can be fired (see the shooter guy who couldn't wear his Obama pin), getting fired, if I'm not mistaken ACA does that?

~ So she's basically trying to say that the State Constitution should "outweigh" the SOCTUS ruling, that's not happening:

"The district court has acknowledged that “this civil action” presents a constitutional “debate,” “tension,” and “conflict” between “two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence.” Davis’ individual liberties are enumerated in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which predate and survive this Court’s ruling in Obergefell. Such rights deserve protection before the “demands of the State” irrevocably crush the “conscience of the individual.”
In the district court’s view, Plaintiffs’ rights trump Davis’ religious rights. But Davis’ individual liberties are enumerated in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and a
state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which predate and survive this Court’s ruling in Obergefell. Such rights deserve protection before the “demands of the State” irrevocably crush the “conscience of the individual.”

~ I can't imagine that's going to fly frankly, Alaska constitution has considered marijuana for private use legal since it's inception as a state. The Feds overruled that and /forced/ Alaska to make it illegal during the war on drugs; I can't recall if we went to the SCOTUS or not, but the Feds said basically "You will comply or you will have zero federal funding." Same shit, different layer cake.

~ She's kind of breaking the oath she took in taking office, regardless of her attempt to put religious spin on the oath:

"Before taking office as Rowan County clerk, Davis swore an oath to support the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Kentucky “so help me God.” KY. CONST. § 228."

And here's the rub, she's not only denying SSM's but /all/ marriages in her area:

"Expressly to avoid disparate treatment of any couple and ensure that all individuals and couples were treated the same, Davis suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses in Rowan County. VC, ¶ 29. She instructed all deputy clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses because licenses are issued on her authority, and because every license requires her name to appear on the license as the authorizing person."

~ Ouch

"The district court also rejected Davis’ claims under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“Kentucky RFRA”), KY. REV. STAT. § 446.350, the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution, and similar Kentucky Constitution provisions. See App. A-16 to A-28. In rejecting Davis’ religious liberty, conscience, and speech claims, the district court incorrectly concluded that the Kentucky marriage license form “does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage” and instead merely “asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that
the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.”9 According to the district court, the burden on Davis’ religious freedom is “more slight,” and she “remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs” since she “may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County jail,” and “believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” Id. at 27. But, according to the district court, “her religious convictions cannot excuse her” from authorizing SSM licenses.

[...]

"On August 26, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied Davis’ emergency motion to stay the Injunction pending appeal. See App. D. In denying the stay request, the Sixth Circuit stated that [t]he injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk,” and further stated that “In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court.”

~SCOTUS will follow the same lines of thought I'm sure.


~ I have to wonder if she ensures that every marriage license she signs is for a Christian couple, or a couple who is of "good moral standing"... Does this mean we can we then hold her morally and/or legally responsible for every marriage she allowed which ended in divorce over the past 30 years? How about where there was domestic abuse?

Thing is, it is not for a state worker to determine an applicants "moral status" when providing services of any kind. I suspect this office will be looked upon no differently than the folks who authorize welfare, or unemployment, or social security applications. If one were to argue that the applicant wasn't Christian therefore couldn't receive a marriage license it would fail, thus too will the argument that because they're the same sex will fail as well.


Later on she argues for "religious accommodations," presumably that she will only sign "traditional" marriage papers. Problem is she has to sign /all/ of them, thus the only "accommodation" would be hiring a second clerk to do her job... That's not reasonable. I'm not sure if they can like fax the paper's to the next county for a signature or not, because it's gotta be notarized and shit, can't do that over a fax heh. I just don't think there /is/ an accommodation that would work for her position. Clearly it needs to be specified from now on that part of that job is signing off on SSM's, in the mean time I guess give her early retirement and move forward.

I read her previously filings with the district court and the court of appeals. I skimmed through the emergency petition and I didn't notice any new arguments. All of her arguments are spurious, frivolous, or fallacious. I think she just wants the media attention so the gay-haters will be frothing at the mouth and eager to send her donations.

Meh no different than wasting their money on fancy churches, doesn't really matter to me honestly - their money. I waste money on video games so I can't really talk heh

But yea, I don't see anything in her plea that's going to outweigh the district courts opinion that she's just certifying the shits correct on the application rather than endorsing it.

I'm waiting for "the next attempt" - when the bible thumper sues for religious discrimination because the application for the clerk job now requires they sign off on SSM licenses...

She already commenced that action through a third party complaint against the governor. She claims the governor's mandate (that clerks obey the Obergefell opinion or resign) substantially burdens her religious freedom and that there were less restrictive means through which gays could get marriage licenses rather than seeking them from her office. For instance, she claims the governor could have called a special session of the legislature to consider amending the law to give her a religious accommodation. But doing that would be very expensive for the state and the governor refused to call a special session. The regular legislative session isn't schedule to convene until January. During the last session, Kim Davis and other county clerks and deputy clerks lobbied their representatives in the legislature to enact legislation giving county clerks the right to "opt out" of issuing marriage licenses, and the legislature ignored their requests.

 

[WorldWatcher]

She already commenced that action through a third party complaint against the governor. She claims the governor's mandate (that clerks obey the Obergefell opinion or resign) substantially burdens her religious freedom and that there were less restrictive means through which gays could get marriage licenses rather than seeking them from her office. For instance, she claims the governor could have called a special session of the legislature to consider amending the law to give her a religious accommodation. But doing that would be very expensive for the state and the governor refused to call a special session. The regular legislative session isn't schedule to convene until January. During the last session, Kim Davis and other county clerks and deputy clerks lobbied their representatives in the legislature to enact legislation giving county clerks the right to "opt out" of issuing marriage licenses, and the legislature ignored their requests.

I find it that the only "accommodation" is to allow the clerks to "opt out" meaning citizens of her county would be denied equal access to government services in the county in which they live.

Why couldn't the county clerks have asked for an option whereby a member of their staff could be authorized to sign the certificate in stead of the elected clerk. Under her "accommodation" she wins by denying service to the citizens she was elected to serve. Under the deleted signature option both party wins, she doesn't have to sign it and the citizens get equal access to government service.


>>>>

 

[thereisnospoon]

Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

Good..don't take their assault without fighting back!

The operative being "targeted"....Which is how these libs operate. They carefully pick their battles. Most likely due to the eagerness of a complicit main stream media to report with an extreme left wing bias.

Spoon, your lack of cognitive aility is either congenital or you were dropped on your head. All criminals are targeted, bub. She can believe whatever she wants, but in her government job, she must follow the law.

Keep repeating the same nonsense. Goes great with your credibility

 

[thereisnospoon]

Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

Good..don't take their assault without fighting back!

The operative being "targeted"....Which is how these libs operate. They carefully pick their battles. Most likely due to the eagerness of a complicit main stream media to report with an extreme left wing bias.

Spoon, your lack of cognitive aility is either congenital or you were dropped on your head. All criminals are targeted, bub. She can believe whatever she wants, but in her government job, she must follow the law.

The issue at hand is the governor's unequal enforcement of the law....
THAT is the subject on which we focus. Not your whiny ass liberal talking points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

Good..don't take their assault without fighting back!

The operative being "targeted"....Which is how these libs operate. They carefully pick their battles. Most likely due to the eagerness of a complicit main stream media to report with an extreme left wing bias.

Spoon, your lack of cognitive aility is either congenital or you were dropped on your head. All criminals are targeted, bub. She can believe whatever she wants, but in her government job, she must follow the law.

Keep repeating the same nonsense. Goes great with your credibility

Too bad you are contitutionally illiterate, but there it is.

 

[Debra K]

She already commenced that action through a third party complaint against the governor. She claims the governor's mandate (that clerks obey the Obergefell opinion or resign) substantially burdens her religious freedom and that there were less restrictive means through which gays could get marriage licenses rather than seeking them from her office. For instance, she claims the governor could have called a special session of the legislature to consider amending the law to give her a religious accommodation. But doing that would be very expensive for the state and the governor refused to call a special session. The regular legislative session isn't schedule to convene until January. During the last session, Kim Davis and other county clerks and deputy clerks lobbied their representatives in the legislature to enact legislation giving county clerks the right to "opt out" of issuing marriage licenses, and the legislature ignored their requests.

I find it that the only "accommodation" is to allow the clerks to "opt out" meaning citizens of her county would be denied equal access to government services in the county in which they live.

Why couldn't the county clerks have asked for an option whereby a member of their staff could be authorized to sign the certificate in stead of the elected clerk. Under her "accommodation" she wins by denying service to the citizens she was elected to serve. Under the deleted signature option both party wins, she doesn't have to sign it and the citizens get equal access to government service.


>>>>

The county clerks already have the right to delegate duties to their deputy clerks. Kim Davis employs 6 deputy clerks in her office and one of them expressed willingness to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Kim Davis's complaint is that her name as the county clerk is still printed on the state form even if one of her deputy clerks signs it instead of her. She says this makes her give her "blessing" to marriages that she doesn't approve based on her religious beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She already commenced that action through a third party complaint against the governor. She claims the governor's mandate (that clerks obey the Obergefell opinion or resign) substantially burdens her religious freedom and that there were less restrictive means through which gays could get marriage licenses rather than seeking them from her office. For instance, she claims the governor could have called a special session of the legislature to consider amending the law to give her a religious accommodation. But doing that would be very expensive for the state and the governor refused to call a special session. The regular legislative session isn't schedule to convene until January. During the last session, Kim Davis and other county clerks and deputy clerks lobbied their representatives in the legislature to enact legislation giving county clerks the right to "opt out" of issuing marriage licenses, and the legislature ignored their requests.

I find it that the only "accommodation" is to allow the clerks to "opt out" meaning citizens of her county would be denied equal access to government services in the county in which they live.

Why couldn't the county clerks have asked for an option whereby a member of their staff could be authorized to sign the certificate in stead of the elected clerk. Under her "accommodation" she wins by denying service to the citizens she was elected to serve. Under the deleted signature option both party wins, she doesn't have to sign it and the citizens get equal access to government service.


>>>>

The county clerks already have the right to delegate duties to their deputy clerks. Kim Davis employs 6 deputy clerks in her office and one of them expressed willingness to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Kim Davis's complaint is that her name as the county clerk is still printed on the state form even if one of her deputy clerks signs it instead of her. She says this makes her give her "blessing" to marriages that she doesn't approve based on her religious beliefs.

Her "blessing" is of no consequence at all. The fulfilling of her duties is of consquence in the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

She already commenced that action through a third party complaint against the governor. She claims the governor's mandate (that clerks obey the Obergefell opinion or resign) substantially burdens her religious freedom and that there were less restrictive means through which gays could get marriage licenses rather than seeking them from her office. For instance, she claims the governor could have called a special session of the legislature to consider amending the law to give her a religious accommodation. But doing that would be very expensive for the state and the governor refused to call a special session. The regular legislative session isn't schedule to convene until January. During the last session, Kim Davis and other county clerks and deputy clerks lobbied their representatives in the legislature to enact legislation giving county clerks the right to "opt out" of issuing marriage licenses, and the legislature ignored their requests.

I find it that the only "accommodation" is to allow the clerks to "opt out" meaning citizens of her county would be denied equal access to government services in the county in which they live.

Why couldn't the county clerks have asked for an option whereby a member of their staff could be authorized to sign the certificate in stead of the elected clerk. Under her "accommodation" she wins by denying service to the citizens she was elected to serve. Under the deleted signature option both party wins, she doesn't have to sign it and the citizens get equal access to government service.


>>>>

The county clerks already have the right to delegate duties to their deputy clerks. Kim Davis employs 6 deputy clerks in her office and one of them expressed willingness to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Kim Davis's complaint is that her name as the county clerk is still printed on the state form even if one of her deputy clerks signs it instead of her. She says this makes her give her "blessing" to marriages that she doesn't approve based on her religious beliefs.

I'm assuming that there is a technical aspect to the issuance of the marriage license. Now I can't be sure how it works in Rowan County, but I work for the government and issue contracts that contain the signature of our School Board Clerk and the School Board Chairperson.

The clerk does not come downstairs and sign any contracts, the School Board Chairperson does not leave her regular job and come by the School Administration Center whenever we have to issue a license. We are allowed to use their electronic signature for such documents that are issued by HR for routine purposes.

So her issue, as I see it, is that even though she may not be physically signing the marriage license it is issued with her signature on the standard form. In such cases it's not her staff that is signing the form, it is her.

My proposed accommodation was to allow one (or more) of the deputy clerks (as you refer to them) to actually sign the document without Davis's name being placed on the document.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

Good..don't take their assault without fighting back!

The operative being "targeted"....Which is how these libs operate. They carefully pick their battles. Most likely due to the eagerness of a complicit main stream media to report with an extreme left wing bias.

Spoon, your lack of cognitive aility is either congenital or you were dropped on your head. All criminals are targeted, bub. She can believe whatever she wants, but in her government job, she must follow the law.

The issue at hand is the governor's unequal enforcement of the law....
THAT is the subject on which we focus. Not your whiny ass liberal talking points.

It really doesn't matter on what issue you 'focus'. What matters is the issues the courts actually rule on. And they've ruled that she must do her job.

 

[bodecea]

And heard on the news Kim is STILL not issuing licenses. The faggots are having a meltdown

I doubt that very much, since she's about to be fired or quit. Either one works and the next clerk will have no choice at all, the court wrote that into the decision. It's no longer just about her, the nasty little **** for Christ...

She won't quit. You butt fuck tyrants may get her fired but she won't quit. This is EXACTLY like using military to enforce white genocide and dumbing down the white population by FORCING school integration.I bet the feds use force in MAKING her even to the point of a gun to her head to issue these licenses

And heard on the news Kim is STILL not issuing licenses. The faggots are having a meltdown

It is her job....let her be in contempt of court and then see who is laughing

Its her job to give marriage license to people who can be married based on thousands of years of normal thinking not based on 5 tyrants in robes opinions. So yeah she is doing just fine. She has been in contempt several times before and ain't jack happened. You little butt fuck tyrants are throwing your tantrums as usual. She may be fired but she will win overall. She refuses to bend to YOUR WILL.

Odium: Her job is to comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to all qualified applicants. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the law concerning who is qualified and who is not qualified. Perhaps you can find solace in the fact that she is an ELECTED county official and cannot be fired. She can, however, be impeached by the state legislative body ... but it doesn't convene until January. If she exhausts her appeals, fails to resign, and still refuses to issue marriage licenses, then the court can hold her in contempt of a court order (which might include monetary penalties and/or jail time). Perhaps people will send her donations to ease her troubled soul.

Funny how you demons didn't say a word about duty to do ones job when Eric Holder refused to uphold US law by prosecuting black panther terrorists violating civil rights laws by intimidating white voters at the poll.

You people are hypocrites.

How did they intimidate the voters? Threaten to kill their cats?

Remember...you are talking to someone who didn't threaten, they cowardly killed a cat that never did anything to them...and then cowardly hinted around to the owner.