Kim Davis Go Fund me page

Yeah, I bet you think that MLK deserved all that jail time for breaking the laws.

 

Here's a little known fact, at least among some ignorant conservatives, the judge DIDN'T create a law, it was already there.



You're welcome.!

 

I don't think about him much.

But what I think he deserved doesn't matter. That's the point.

 

Really? What year was the law put there? Let me tell you - July 9, 1868. 147 years ago. So for nearly 150 years, gay marriage was legal in the United States and nobody knew it until Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with 4 radical leftists judges on the SCOTUS?

You do know how ridiculous that claim is, right? You do know how ridiculous your argument is, right?

 

Anarchocapitalist. I would not praise any "system" that has the power that the US government and it's various jurisdiction has. Kim Davis works for that system, understands that it is a political system with absolutely no adherence to principles, and so she deserves whatever happens to her within that system.

 

She believes differently that you so she is "evil"? How very tolerant of you.

Odd that the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards gays from suffering the “pain and humiliation” of being denied marriage and yet both the First and the Fourteen Amendment allow others to be jailed for not violating their conscience.

This Judge does not have the tempermant to exercise the power we grant to judges. He needs to be evaluated for impeachment.

 

I think she's EVIL, because she feels that she's so Righteous that she can dictate who because of her Religious beliefs can get married and who can't and she's exercised this legal right 4 times and given birth to a couple of children out of Wedlock by having extra marital affairs YES! she's an EVIL SINNING HYPOCRITE.

 

I'd hardly call 4 cases and one person in jail a "flood"

 

The only predictable thing about it is that you're still wrong. She went to jail for contempt of the law.

 

It's just difficult to believe that a woman that is so desperately trying to guarantee her soul's entry into heaven actually has no soul.. I find that ironic as all hell.

 

Well we'll have room for plenty more as Obama lets out another 100,000 criminal illegal aliens into the population.

 

How am I wrong? She went to jail. For what? Her religious beliefs. That motive doesn't matter to you is irrelevant.

 

The bigots here are those who refuse to deal. She has said that if you take her name of the license you get your license but the people who kept asking what the gay agenda was will not compromise and insist that she participate in that which she considers to be an abomination. How much longer 'til the gay mafia insist that you're a bigot if you won't have sex with them?

 

And no elected official has the right to do it either, let alone do it for an entire county full of citizens.

It's called the rule of law and it's something we've had since before we were even an American country. Yes, the British had laws before we became independent too. We're no strangers to laws or what happens when they are not followed. You think this is about liberalism, but it isn't. I would be saying the exact same thing I am now if this was an elected official declining to give out gun permits, or driver's licenses, or any other form of government document that folks are lawfully allowed to acquire.

Beliefs have nothing to do with this at all. Not even slightly. That's the point. Religious beliefs don't determine who gets access to their government. That's why people are calling for her either to resign or start issuing marriage certificates. We don't expect Kim Davis to change her opinion on same-sex marriage, or anyone else for that matter. It's irrelevant what a person chooses to believe or not believe, what's relevant in this case is that Kim Davis follow the law and carry out their oath of office.

 

Why are you arguing with yourself?

 

I have trouble trying to understand the disconnect that some have with the concept of individual freedom of religion, and the reality of individual freedom of religion. It is a basic human right. It is an inalienable right. You can't write a law, or find an unwritten one in a 147 year old amendment that takes someones liberty away.

- - - Updated - - -

I knew you didn't have an answer.

 

They don't care as long as their license is legit and processed and filed in the county where they pay their taxes, so that is a lie. No gay couple insisted that it had to be her signature, but if the law is set up that way, it is not their fault nor should it be their problem.

 

She went to jail for Contempt of Court. Nothing else. You don't simply get to ignore a Court's Order without consequence.

 

I have trouble understanding how someone confuses the freedom to choose their own religion and not have the state prevent them from doing so with a person trying to get out of doing something they don't like at their job, one they were elected to do. I have trouble understanding how anybody, religious or not, could think there was anything okay about this.

Nobody took her freedom away. She was free to issue the certificates, have her staff do it for her, resign, or just refuse to do her job. She chose the latter option. She got called on it by folks who don't think it's okay to deny other people's rights. She then exercised her rights to make her case in court. She lost. Because she lost, she was ordered to comply with the law by a judge. She ignored that order and completely unsurprisingly got tossed in jail.

She might believe that her God's law is above the law of the United States, but she found out that's not the case at all, didn't she.

If we allow this woman to spit on the law like she has, that opens the door to anybody anywhere just deciding they don't feel like doing the things in their job they don't like and therefore claim it violates their religious beliefs. Those folks would now be able to expect their employer to conform to their demands. Can you not see how absolutely terrible that reality would be?

 

No one has been denied religious liberty.......

 

You can explain it one million ways, but her supporters will never admit that she is wrong in her actions for the very simple reason that they hate the idea of SSM as much as she does and do not believe that civil rights pertains to all citizens of the USA.

 

Listen, I look at her and "Rocket Scientist" is not the first thought that comes to mind. I do not agree with her views nor the way she has tried to express them but I recognise her right to work her will within her beliefs. This crazed idiot of a judge could have, with a little thought, gotten the marriage licenses provided and this woman placed on leave while accommodations were figured out that resulted in a process of orderly production of marriage licenses on request. My goodness, the Supreme Court only handed down this decision less than 90 days ago. It was not produced by a lawful legislative process so how to handle these things is not spelled out, because there is no legislation, it was abruptly handed down by the Court. To Jail this woman, and she remains jailed is simply beyond the pale.

This judge, David Bunning, has shown himself to be unfit for the authority he has been charged with exercising. He needs to be examined and considered for removal from the bench.

 

Was administrative leave what her attorney was opting for or was the hate group he works with shooting for more publicity out of this nonsense? I have not seen a transcript of what transpired at the hearing...have you? I do know that she never allowed her deputies to do what she herself defiantly refused to do, despite the fact that they were willing.

 

I think we need more like him, and I say that knowing he's a conservative. If that commitment to what is legal, not what is popular, is something that is a part of all his decisions, he is an asset to this country. This guy wasn't going to let this woman make a mockery of the court and the justice system and every law abiding person in this country. I applaud him.

 

I appreciate your point of view but he strikes me as entirely too heavy-handed given the circumstances.

Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act 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, maybe switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or slightly changing the job duties — the employer is expected to accommodate and we do that all the time. We engage them in the interactive process and if possible accommodate them, if not we offer the best we can reasonably offer and if we cannot come to an agreement, we document our efforts and part ways.

The EEOC brought action against a trucking company on the basis that they must accommodate a Muslim’s religious objections to transporting alcohol. The court found that the employer had a duty to attempt to accommodate the objections. They are engaging in the interactive process to determine if they can make accommodation without great difficulty or expense. There is always some difficulty and expense to these rearrangements and case law is clear, the employer is expected to bear modest difficulty and expense.

http://ia601705.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.58267/gov.uscourts.ilcd.58267.1.0.pdf

Where this judge gets the idea that it's just "screw you do it, or you go to jail" well, I simply don't get why he thinks this is a reasonable legal or even a sensible course of action. These regulations and case law bind employers all the time. Title VII completely rejects the “you don’t like the job requirements, so quit the job” argument that I have seen repeatedly posted by the Left when discussing this case.

Title VII does exclude elected officials but Kentucky has a state RFRA statute that requires government agencies to work with religious objections unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. In addition the federal government also has a RFRA which could apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials. For this judge to simply jail her rather than release her with a suspension from her duties while appeals are worked out strikes me as wholly unreasonable and needlessly heavy handed. This is new unsettled law and since it was decreed by a recent SCOTUS decision there isn't legislation to review in order to determine how to equitably apply this SCOTUS decision that is not even ninety days old.

When Sikh IRS agent Kawaljeet Tagore sought a religious exemption from IRS’s no-weapons-in-the-workplace policy for a small dagger, Kawaljeet lost but wasn't incarcerated while the request was litigated.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18258632836338775341

Kentucky appellate courts have not worked through Kentucky's RFRA because its only 2 years old, but its likely to apply to religious exemption claims brought by elected officials, and to at least provide the protections offered to non-government employees under the Title VII religious accommodation rules.

Davis’s objection (pp. 40 and 133 of her stay application) is that she doesn't want her name on them because she views this as her endorsing what she believes violates her faith. You and I may not agree with this, and simply judging by the photos I have seen she may not be the brightest bulb on the porch, but she believes this and appears to believe this sincerely, so let's look for some approach other than "do this or you go to jail". Employers successfully work through these things every day with employees especially now that we have a workforce that includes every nationality and sect you can possibly think of, I have no idea if this judge has spent the last couple decades under a rock, but these things are dealt with, gently and successfully all the time. She has stated she would be agreeable modifying the Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to her personal name removing the very personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form. In today's world of word processing, why is that so hard? That is a very simple and reasonable fix. Why not simply refer to "The Secretary" rather than personally to "Kim Davis"? They have to change these forms every time the office turns over, why not simply move to a generic reference to the office and be done with it?

A court that grants Davis’ RFRA exemption request could easily issue an order that makes it clear that this modification is legally authorized and we are done with it. But this Judge apparently thinks thinking, reasoning and coming to sound decisions that accommodate religious objections is much more challenging than simply issuing commands and throwing folks in jail. He may be more temperamentally suited to skinning catfish for a living than representing our society as a Federal judge.