how can this be

[whitsend]

Most everything I have seen on the news and on this post is that the deciding factor on if someone believes she should be in jail, they are for gay marriage. Is someone thinks she should not be in jail, they are opposed to gay marriage. The supreme court has decided gay people have the right to marry. There is no constitutional right to be clerk of court.

If a sheriff denied a carry permit because he is anti-gun, the post here would be 10 pages in an hour. Same thing with the gay marriage thing. Follow the law or quit your job.

I'll compare these two scenarios, but let's compare them on equal merits.

In this scenario, the sheriff is anti gun due to his religious beliefs. I don't know of any religion that believes this so we will call it the Church of Peace and Love.

Also I have the option of getting my carry permit from the neighboring parish or even out of state and it will still be recognized in my home parish and state.

I could still get my carry permit, the sheriffs refusal does not prevent me from exercising my rights.
I could them petition for impeachment, gather signatures for a recall election, run against him, or support a candidate against him during the next election cycle. That would be the proper process.
But this sheriff should not be jailed indefinitely for following his religious beliefs.
Even if his denial was not on religious ground, it still wouldn't prevent me from getting a permit.

Kim Davis' refusal to issue the marriage license in no way prevented anyone from getting married. They could go to another county or even another state and their marriage would be recognized in their home county and state.

 

[MTregre]

I'll compare these two scenarios, but let's compare them on equal merits.

In this scenario, the sheriff is anti gun due to his religious beliefs. I don't know of any religion that believes this so we will call it the Church of Peace and Love.

Also I have the option of getting my carry permit from the neighboring parish or even out of state and it will still be recognized in my home parish and state.

I could still get my carry permit, the sheriffs refusal does not prevent me from exercising my rights.
I could them petition for impeachment, gather signatures for a recall election, run against him, or support a candidate against him during the next election cycle. That would be the proper process.
But this sheriff should not be jailed indefinitely for following his religious beliefs.
Even if his denial was not on religious ground, it still wouldn't prevent me from getting a permit.

Kim Davis' refusal to issue the marriage license in no way prevented anyone from getting married. They could go to another county or even another state and their marriage would be recognized in their home county and state.

You just made up a religion and a religious belief to compete with real religions and beliefs that are thousands of years old???? You took away the substance sir.

That's like saying your religious belief is to hit stupid people with baseball bats and claim the Constitutional right to do so after you are arrested for it.

But I do agree with your series of events... that would make sense. I read yesterday she could still win election in her county, while I don't know if that is true.

 

[Barry J]

There is a class of troopers in the academy now. If they go on to have a 30 year career, they don't have to enforce any laws not on the books now? Laws are changed all the time. Can a Baptist working for the ATC refuse someone a liquor license because it is against her religion to drink?

 

[Barry J]

I'll compare these two scenarios, but let's compare them on equal merits.

In this scenario, the sheriff is anti gun due to his religious beliefs. I don't know of any religion that believes this so we will call it the Church of Peace and Love.

Also I have the option of getting my carry permit from the neighboring parish or even out of state and it will still be recognized in my home parish and state.

I could still get my carry permit, the sheriffs refusal does not prevent me from exercising my rights.
I could them petition for impeachment, gather signatures for a recall election, run against him, or support a candidate against him during the next election cycle. That would be the proper process.
But this sheriff should not be jailed indefinitely for following his religious beliefs.
Even if his denial was not on religious ground, it still wouldn't prevent me from getting a permit.

Kim Davis' refusal to issue the marriage license in no way prevented anyone from getting married. They could go to another county or even another state and their marriage would be recognized in their home county and state.

If you went to court and sued the sheriff, won the case, and a federal judge told him to issue you a license, he would be in jail if he didn't.

 

[Gator 45/70]

I'm a bit confused about all of this.
The Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples can be married.
However The supreme court does not make laws, Only congress can.
So, She has been jailed for breaking a law that does not exist?

 

[Barry J]

They did not make a new law stating gay people could get married, they declared that the law saying they can't get married is unconstitutional. Now there is no law saying they can't, so they can. That is the way our system works, it's called checks and balances.

 

[MTregre]

She's in jail per a Judge... simple as that.
Same as any other Judge who makes a ruling... it either stands or gets overruled by another Judge.

Ask the "law" question to the Judge.

Barry, I see where you went... but that is not checks and balances.

 

[general mills]

Most everything I have seen on the news and on this post is that the deciding factor on if someone believes she should be in jail, they are for gay marriage. Is someone thinks she should not be in jail, they are opposed to gay marriage. The supreme court has decided gay people have the right to marry. There is no constitutional right to be clerk of court.

If a sheriff denied a carry permit because he is anti-gun, the post here would be 10 pages in an hour. Same thing with the gay marriage thing. Follow the law or quit your job.

Well, I didn't think this law should pass but I also think she should be in jail. It certainly is not the deciding factor for me. Whether I support the law or not is inconsequential to her being arrested for disobeying a court order. I do not see a state employee failing to comply with the law as religious persecution, but I would see a private institution being forced to acknowledge the union as such.

I don't agree with the law, I also don't agree that pot should be illegal, but we all don't get what we want and we carry on. I don't slight homosexuals in any way, I just feel that marriage should be a special thing between a man and a woman that is conducive to the proliferation of the species. I have the right to feel that way and she had the right to religiously disagree with gay marriage, but she does not have the right to fail to uphold public law when she is a public official. If she was a judge denying the death penalty in the case of a child serial killer based on the judges religious beliefs, many here would want her head.

 

[Cochise]

Raindrops, there is one key thing you keep not hearing. She was not arrested because of her religious beliefs, she was arrested for saying on tv that she would not comply with the judge's order. If she had not done that she would not be in jail.

 

[whitsend]

The difference between conservatives and liberals is when a CLEO won't sign off for a NFA item the conservative goes through another chanel to accomplish his goal, liberals insist that that clerk of court issue his marriage license.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[sliguns]

I kind of like that she refused to issue ALL marriage licenses...I wish everyone in gov't would do that

 

[sliguns]

Interesting perspective from an atheist

http://libpar.com/threads/chris-cantwell-the-religious-persecution-of-kim-davis.97179/#post-97229

snippets:

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and the constitution grants no powers to the federal government that are not mentioned in the constitution. So while everyone is certainly entitled to any opinions on marriage one likes, it being a *constitutional right* isn’t an idea based in reality or US law.

As Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent in Obergefell: If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

But the case of Kim Davis does involve a constitution. The constitution of Kentucky, which 75% of Kentucky voters opted to amend in a referendum from 2004. In that amendment, same-sex marriage, or any *legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage* was specifically outlawed. You might think that terrible, you might think it unjust, you might think it tyrannical, but that is the law in Kentucky. To throw someone into a Kentucky jail for upholding it, is nothing short of an act of war by the federal government against the state of Kentucky.

 

[JadeRaven]

I agree she didn't follow a court order. But the order is unconstitutional

It is unconstitutional for congress to interfere with religion, or the the right of religious expression.
She refused to issue the documents, because of her religious beliefs.
So they issued a court order, so that anyone who disagrees, will be arrested, and an example would be made out of that person, to others who may feel the same

This country is founded on the blood and sacrifces of people who stood up. it Now we arrests citizens who make a non violent stand??

Paragraph from the Kentucky resolution 1798.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press*: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled *An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,* which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

The Supreme Court of the United States, which is the legal authority as to what is or isn't constitutional, has determined that it is constitutional, in so many words.

A crude, but applicable analogy would be requiring a police officer or fireman to work on a Sunday, or a Saturday if he's jewish, or on some other religious holiday. Sure many departments probably make accommodations, but I don't think a christian cop can rely on getting off every Sunday, Christmas, Easter, other holy day of obligation, etc. It might be against his or her beliefs, but it's part of the job.

A more crude, more extreme example would be President of the United States. If the USSR launched their nukes on a Sunday, is LBJ or Reagan or Kennedy entitled to not lift a finger until Monday morning? Even if working on the Sabbath goes against their religious beliefs? I don't think so. They have a public duty to the people. They can do their job, or resign.

She took the job. She holds a governmental position. Neither the law nor the government require her to be the clerk of court. She can resign her position.

On the same token as your beliefs, Kim Davis, clerk of court, is the government asserting her religious views on the people. By definition, she is establishing and enforcing a religion upon the people of her county, through her governmental authority as clerk of court. Her actions are clearly unconstitutional and immoral.

Protecting religious marriage is certainly a good thing to stand up for, but protecting Kim Davis is wasted breath. You're choosing the wrong battle.

 

[Harrisracing]

The Supreme Court of the United States, which is the legal authority as to what is or isn't constitutional, has determined that it is constitutional, in so many words.

A crude, but applicable analogy would be requiring a police officer or fireman to work on a Sunday, or a Saturday if he's jewish, or on some other religious holiday. Sure many departments probably make accommodations, but I don't think a christian cop can rely on getting off every Sunday, Christmas, Easter, other holy day of obligation, etc. It might be against his or her beliefs, but it's part of the job.

A more crude, more extreme example would be President of the United States. If the USSR launched their nukes on a Sunday, is LBJ or Reagan or Kennedy entitled to not lift a finger until Monday morning? Even if working on the Sabbath goes against their religious beliefs? I don't think so. They have a public duty to the people. They can do their job, or resign.

She took the job. She holds a governmental position. Neither the law nor the government require her to be the clerk of court. She can resign her position.

On the same token as your beliefs, Kim Davis, clerk of court, is the government asserting her religious views on the people. By definition, she is establishing and enforcing a religion upon the people of her county, through her governmental authority as clerk of court. Her actions are clearly unconstitutional and immoral.

Protecting religious marriage is certainly a good thing to stand up for, but protecting Kim Davis is wasted breath. You're choosing the wrong battle.

Your first example (employer and religious employee) is partially incorrect. If the employer changes the dates of the work week during employment then accommodations must be made for religious practices. I do not think this applies if the employee takes a job with those days already required and the work week hasn't changed.

So basically if the work week has changed, then the employer must make accommodations...or risk a heavy lawsuit (not necessarily jail time!)

 

[sliguns]

Was the oath she took to the Kentucky Constitution? If so, then wasn't she acting accordingly?

 

[whitsend]

The Supreme Court of the United States, which is the legal authority as to what is or isn't constitutional, has determined that it is constitutional, in so many words.

A crude, but applicable analogy would be requiring a police officer or fireman to work on a Sunday, or a Saturday if he's jewish, or on some other religious holiday. Sure many departments probably make accommodations, but I don't think a christian cop can rely on getting off every Sunday, Christmas, Easter, other holy day of obligation, etc. It might be against his or her beliefs, but it's part of the job.

A more crude, more extreme example would be President of the United States. If the USSR launched their nukes on a Sunday, is LBJ or Reagan or Kennedy entitled to not lift a finger until Monday morning? Even if working on the Sabbath goes against their religious beliefs? I don't think so. They have a public duty to the people. They can do their job, or resign.

She took the job. She holds a governmental position. Neither the law nor the government require her to be the clerk of court. She can resign her position.

On the same token as your beliefs, Kim Davis, clerk of court, is the government asserting her religious views on the people. By definition, she is establishing and enforcing a religion upon the people of her county, through her governmental authority as clerk of court. Her actions are clearly unconstitutional and immoral.

Protecting religious marriage is certainly a good thing to stand up for, but protecting Kim Davis is wasted breath. You're choosing the wrong battle.

How is she enforcing her religion on anyone?
Nothing she did prevented anyone from getting married.

- - - Updated - - -

Was the oath she took to the Kentucky Constitution? If so, then wasn't she acting accordingly?

This is very profound.

 

[US Infidel]

Looks like she's getting out of jail.

 

[whitsend]

http://www.lex18.com/story/29981430/kim-davis-ordered-to-be-released-from-jail

1 p.m.

A Republican congressman from Kentucky says a federal judge's decision to jail a Kentucky clerk was premature because the state legislature hasn't had time to update its marriage laws since the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage.

Republican U.S. Rep Thomas Massie said Tuesday outside the jail where Rowan County clerk Kim Davis is being held that state law is in flux.

He pointed out that Kentucky's law still requires the woman in a relationship to apply for a marriage license. It makes no mention of same-sex relationships. He says the legislature needs to update that and several other laws, including ones that require marriage licenses to be issued under the county clerk's authority.

Massie says: "I'm here because five Supreme Court justices stole my job. They legislated. They wrote law."

EDIT:

Based on the bolded part above the marriage licensed issued while she was in jail are not valid.

 

[JadeRaven]

How is she enforcing her religion on anyone?
Nothing she did prevented anyone from getting married.

Refusing to issue a marriage license = prevents from getting married.

Some people can be married through their religious congregation, but some only have the state. Many religious officiants will not marry without a state license.

 

[whitsend]

Refusing to issue a marriage license = prevents from getting married.

Some people can be married through their religious congregation, but some only have the state. Many religious officiants will not marry without a state license.

They could get a marriage license from any clerk of court.
As far as I know only one of the couples even lived in Rowan County.


They came to her because they knew she was not issuing license to anyone.
Even though most of them didn't even live in Rowan County or even in Kentucky.