Anti-SSM Kentucky clerk denied appeal by SCOTUS on refusal to issue marriage licenses

Not the least bit sadly, the Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of a District Court ruling denying Kim Davis's claim that she should not be required to perform the same duties that her job has required of her over the 30 years she's been employed by the county as the person that issues marriage licenses. Now that same-sex marriage is legal, she wishes a respite from those duties, at least when it comes to same-sex couples.

Obviously she's going to lose this one because essentially, what she's trying to do is have a job where she can get out of doing parts of that job by saying she's religiously unable to complete some of her tasks. Not Physically, not mentally, religiously. Ruling in her favor pretty much opens the door for anyone to object to requirements at a job and pretend they are religious in nature. Don't want to have to run the fryer at McDonalds? Just cry that it's against your religion.

I am thankful that the Supreme Court did not give folks like Davis, who are probably a small minority, the ammunition needed to justify not doing the job you're being paid to do, one whose duties are entirely legal(meaning she wasn't asked to break the law in the course of her job).

Very interested to see if she'll comply this morning or resign. I hope she just resigns and finds another job.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_supreme_court_kim_davis_request_for_emergency_intervention

 

She's still refusing to sign the marriage licenses! While no doubt she will be a hero to a few disillusioned Americans, what she's actually doing is refusing to do her job serving the taxpayers, who pay her salary. Taxpayers that have a legal right to obtain a marriage license without that resting on the moral approval of the official responsible for signing the form. She's basically a secretary. Her signature on any marriage license is not and was not ever meant to be a sign that she has given her personal "approval" of the marriage. That's not her job, that's not what she's paid to do. She's supposed to sign the marriage license to show that the county and the state recognize the legality of the marriage contract being submitted by the couple so it can be entered as an official marriage in the records.

At no point in her approval of the marriage required for her to sign her name. She's not signing that form as Kim Davis, Person. She's signing it as Kim Davis, employee of the government responsible for records. She represents the government, she does not represent herself. Her job is not to be the moral compass. Her job is to make sure that the marriage applications are filled out properly, the required paperwork(if any) is present, and all other requirements under state and federal law are met. That's it. That's the extent of her duties.

Those of you who oppose same-sex marriage or who may consider her religious beliefs to be more important than her duties may cheer what she's done. To those folks, I ask this. What if this woman was refusing to sign a different kind of form. Say, a permit for a gun, or a building permit, or a divorce application, etc etc. If you approve what this woman is doing, you're basically approving the idea that low level government officials get to decide on a case-by-case personal basis with no standards whatsoever whether or not you're allowed to do something that the law says you are. If you do not oppose this woman, you have no standing to argue against similar transgressions no matter what issue they may fall under. You don't have to oppose her beliefs or her feelings on SSM, you have to oppose her thinking that she gets to make choices for other people based on those things in the course of the duties of her job.

 

You know how people talk about folks playing the "race card?" They are normally the same peoplethat turn around and do the exact same thing by playing the religion card.

It's funny to me that they sit and cry about "black" people doing it when they use the exact same narrative.

 

The ironic thing is the complaint that having to do her job would amount to religious discrimination, when she's the one exploiting her position to block people's access to their government, and thereby becoming the one discriminating on the basis of religion - their failure to comply with hers.

She is not above the law, and it probably won't be much longer before she learns that the hard way.

 

Apparently some "Christians" think that they are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed to have their discrimination institutionalized.

Seems ironic to me, but what do I know?

 

According to this report, she's been summoned for a contempt of court hearing on Thursday.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/fed...nd-her-staff-to-contempt-hearing-on-thursday/

 

Well, the plain and self-evident truth for a start.

 

Rather than trying to shove the old woman around with fines and jail, the federal court should just remove her and the matter concluded. Anything else is just trying to beat her down until she abandons her beliefs. This would be a HUGE rallying point for fundamentalist Christians, which serves no one any good.

There also is a fundamental problem with Courts ordering people to DO things, as opposed to ordering them not to do things. Often that is just judicial thuggery, such as a court ordering someone to apologize or go to prison - whether the person wants to apology or not.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right, if she ain't gay herself - den she shouldn't be issuin' a same-sex marriage license...

Carly Fiorina: 'Not Appropriate' for Christian County Clerk Not to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
September 2, 2015 | GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina told the Hugh Hewitt show on Tuesday that it was “inappropriate” for a Kentucky clerk to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. “Given the role that she’s playing, given the fact that the government is paying her salary, I think that is not appropriate. Now that’s my personal opinion,” said Fiorina.

See also:

Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Not Sure Whether Adultery and Murder Are Sins
September 1, 2015 |

 

Another secret prochoicer ranting against legalized contraceptives. That is a truly bizarre position. You favor legalized abortion but oppose legalized contraceptives exactly opposite of Sanger.

Of course, Papist Catholics hate Sanger as she was most responsible for the Catholic Church finally losing the clout to make it a criminal offense to sell or by a condom. Are you Catholic?

 

Davis should ignore the courts and continue to refuse to give gays a marriage license. obama picks and chooses what laws he wants to enforce and ignore and obey and disregard. Follow the "progressives" model and disregard the court.

Davis is a government employee, she is immune from lawsuit. Let the gays sue her in court, if they win then she should still ignore the court. Let them sue her again. LOL

Didn't obama say elections have consequences? Davis has the office, so the gays can just suck it up and cry somewhere else.

 

I congratulate her on her tenacity and keeping true to her convictions. That said, her job is to issue marriage licenses. If she's unable or unwilling to do her job, she should move on to something that is more compatible with her beliefs. Perhaps she should become a sex education instructor in a government school. Release her to early retirement with full pension, throw a going away party, give her full honors, have the anti-gay wedding cake people cater it, and the Westboro Baptist Church officiate. But she absolutely can't stay where she is unless she does her job.

 

And the Jewish county inspector can refuse service to the Catholic day care service.
And the Muslim county worker can refuse sewer hook-ups to Buddhists
And the Baptist county worker can refuse ambulance service to a heart attack victims at a gay wedding.
And the Jewish doctor at a county health service can refuse service to an uncircumcised man.
And ...
And ...
And ...



But you know what - since these "special rights of religion" only apply to religious Americans, I guess atheist American Citizens don't get to have
personal opinions that free them from serving out their county functions.

Special Rights for the religious.

Ironic.

 

That's the system the "progressives" and their gay minions have put in place. They destroyed the rule of law. You reap what you sow. Stop complaining when your own agenda bites you in the a@@. You asked for it.

 

She's not immune from contempt of court charges.

Also, since you're in favor of Davis doing it, I expect I shan't see any posts from you in the future where you're critical of Obama for doing those things. You can't be for and against them at the same time.

 

I'm not sure marriage is one of her convictions. The woman is on her fourth husband.

 

The law is a reflection of the people's sense of justice and propriety, not the other way around. When the legal system is no longer just and proper then its the people's responsibility to correct the situation. In Davis' case, that means ignoring the court and refusing to grant gay marriage licenses.

 

And the clerk gets to decide what is "just and proper ..." Convenient for her. Not so great for other American Citizens.

So - going with your definition of law, all the anti-gun people have to do is elect enough officials to say, "guns be gone," and by their rights as arbiters of all
that is "just and proper," the guns will cease to be sold - even if the Supreme Court rules against them.

 

And that's exactly what the gun banners will do if they get into that position of power. They will also have to be willing to enforce their gun ban with violence however, because people won't obey a gun ban. The latest results of the New York SAFE Act shows that about 20% of gun owners in NY obeyed the NY law regarding "assault weapons" and about 2 Million New Yorkers did not comply. Connecticut is similar.

That's because even though the "progressives" control the mechanisms of creating law and passed a gun law, it was a false law and was rejected by the people.

Just like Davis is rejecting the false law that gives gays a "right" to marry.

 

So you and the clerk get to decide which laws are, "false". Only you are important. You are the center of the world. Your way or the highway. Nobody else in the world but you.
It's your country - everybody else, off your lawn.

YOU are God of this place.

 

If gay marriage was not legal when she got the job, I would think that she should not be fired and shouldn't be expected to issue marriage licenses to gays because she had no legal expectation of having to participate in a gay marriage (when she took the job) in the issuing of a legal document which is against her religious beliefs which are also protected by her Constitutional rights.

Employees hired AFTER the date of the legalization of gay marriage would have no such legal relief because they KNEW what to expect when they took the job...IMO

 

Just and proper according to whom? Those are subjective terms. And since the idea of liberty and equality for all is a common theme in American lore, it sure seems like just and proper would be not standing in the way of people lawfully utilizing their freedoms. But Mrs. Davis, and apparently you as well to some degree, do not care about freedoms and equality and liberty unless it's your own view of who gets what freedoms, equality, and liberty. Mrs. Davis sure seems to think she should be the arbiter of who in her jurisdiction gets to exercise their right to legal marriage.

So if you agree that one person's freedoms should come only at the behest of another, I have to question whether or not you even know what a just and proper society would look like.

 

Laws change. A government employee would know that more than most. Especially one with decades of experience. And it isn't like same-sex marriage just popped up this year. She's had over a decade to prepare herself for the possibility that she may have to issue same-sex marriage certificates if it was legalized in her state or nationally. Taking into account the steady pace with which same-sex marriage laws were struck down in the lead up to the SCOTUS decision this summer, it was not just a remote possibility, like an asteroid hitting the Earth, it was a fairly likely scenario.

She had time to prepare herself either to accept the "challenge" of signing her name on the paper to signify the state's(and therefore, not her own) approval of the marriage application like she has done thousands of times in the past or to at least not run for reelection. At no point in the equation does "not do my job and prevent others from doing what they are lawfully allowed to do" become a reasonable response, and especially not after she's exhausted her recourse through the legal system.

 

If gay marriage were not the law when she started then there is no LEGAL expectation for her to participate in a gay marriage by issuing a marriage license. It doesn't matter what anybody THOUGHT might happen or not.