Kim Davis Jailed

[Armistead]

Seems to be a big story, so what say you guys. Does her religious beliefs trump civil rights law.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html?eref=edition

[Onkel Neal]

Hasn't she been married something like 4 times? No story here.

[Armistead]

Yes, she has, but because she got saved {again} her sin doesn't count. However, it's not sin being the issue, it's becoming a debate do a person's religious rights trump another person's civil rights. Should we allow people such as her religious accomodations.

[Torplexed]

I believe Americans do have the right to refuse to perform a service if they feel doing so would violate their religious or political beliefs, their morality etc. They just have to be willing to accept the fact there may be legal consequences for doing so. While I don't agree with this woman's position (I think the law is clear) I don't have a big problem with a county clerk here or there who says, "I'm sorry I can't do this, I resign." But on the other hand, you don't get to collect the wages of sin ($80,000 a year in a rural county) while taking a stand for holiness, which is what she is doing right now.

However, one reason she's not resigning of course is that her position as county clerk has become something of a hereditary office. Her predecessor was her mother and she's got her son waiting in the wings. Louis XVI was similarly situated. It did not work out entirely well for him.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought this up. As I see it while she has the right to practice her religious beliefs at home or in a place of worship, I'm not entirely sure she has the right to do so as a federal employee who has sworn to uphold the law which is this case is that a homosexual marriage is legal in all fifty states and like Torplexed said the law is pretty clear on this. On the other hand if she thought that issuing a marriage license to a gay couple goes against her religion and her beliefs why didn't she resign or at least change her job to something less "offensive" those beliefs?

Also I'm not sure that the issue of gay marriage should of become a political issue unless maybe we put it a national vote like Ireland did, although it would be very unlikely that would of ever happened.

[Buddahaid]

It's simple really. If her religious beliefs are in conflict with her performing her job she should step down, or let someone else in the office do it.

As it is she should be fired for refusing to do as ordered.

[Betonov]

She did broke the law while refusing as lawfull service as a civil worker.

[BossMark]

Who is Kim Davies?

[Eichhörnchen]

^:haha:

[Wolferz]

Who falsely assumes that her religion gives her the right to judge in the place of her deity.:-?

Kind of like that now jobless judge in Tennessee who thought she had the religious right to decide who can bear the name Messiah.:down:

Mrs Davis, like so many others, needs to resign her elected post and just STFU!

[swamprat69er]

I think that she should resign before she gets her ass fired!
She may have 'freedom of religon' but that is only to worship whomever/whatever diety she wishes, this does not give her the right to jam it down some elses' throat. It also doesn't give her the right to disobey the court.
That is my 2 cents on it, now I will shut up and mind my own dam business.

[Betonov]

http://i.imgur.com/x0okD3T.png

http://reverbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/11952020_810780492374637_508306304666962127_n.jpg

[Jimbuna]

She took an oath then broke it...stand down.

[u crank]

If every single person who worked for the government were to perform their duties according to their own personal, or religious beliefs we would have chaos. That is why there are rules in place about how these workers perform. Do your job correctly or lose it. No exceptions.

I've read the Bible. Refresh my memory. Where does it say anything about marriage licenses?

[Betonov]

I've read the Bible. Refresh my memory. Where does it say anything about marriage licenses?

Even Jezus talked about the separation of state and church: give to God what belongs to God and to ceasar what belongs to ceasar.

[Torplexed]

Even Jezus talked about the separation of state and church: give to God what belongs to God and to ceasar what belongs to ceasar.

Well, she has already been ignoring this piece of scripture--

Mark 10:11-12 states:

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Not only by being divorced herself several times, but routinely handing out marriage licenses to divorcees as well.

In addition, she must be attending the Apostolic Church of Cognitive Dissonance. Claiming that marriage certificates issued from her office without her consent are not legal, while simultaneously saying the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling on her issue is to be disregarded. :huh:

[swamprat69er]

Is the penalty for contempt of the Supreme Court more or less than the contempt of say a state court?

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, I think this is someone who is looking for attention, and she's getting it.

[u crank]

Well, she has already been ignoring this piece of scripture--

Mark 10:11-12 states:

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.



And....

Romans 13: 1,2.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

[Torplexed]

Is the penalty for contempt of the Supreme Court more or less than the contempt of say a state court?

Well, she is being sued by the ACLU on behalf of four couples, two gay and two straight, who were denied marriage licenses by her office. The U.S. District Judge says Davis must issue those marriage licenses. He has been backed up by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court has refused to issue her a stay. So, she is mostly in federal trouble for refusing to obey federal law. However she holds the key to her cell. If she agrees to issue marriage licenses again, she can get out.

But, no. It's about martyrdom now.

[swamprat69er]

Well, she is being sued by the ACLU on behalf of four couples, two gay and two straight, who were denied marriage licenses by her office. The U.S. District Judge says Davis must issue those marriage licenses. He has been backed up by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court has refused to issue her a stay. So, she is mostly in federal trouble for refusing to obey federal law. However she holds the key to her cell. If she agrees to issue marriage licenses again, she can get out.

But, no. It's about martyrdom now.
That being said, would you or I get the same treatment for contempt of the Federal Court? Some how I don't think so.

[Torplexed]

That being said, would you or I get the same treatment for contempt of the Federal Court? Some how I don't think so.

Civil contempt is a murky area that is largely dependent on the discretion of the judge whose will has been defied. The judge in this case had two options to prod compliance. Fines or jail. Since this woman is being backed by all sorts of money from supporters, he felt only jail would suffice.

[August]

She's in prison already so toss her to the Lesbians. They'll change her tune.

[Aktungbby]

She took an oath then broke it...stand down.PRECISELY!Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys: Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of CLERK according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
So help me God" clearly refers to this whole second part, also an entity unto itself, and the comma-- not a period, mind you-- clinches it. In any case, apparently in Kentucky, in 2015, they want to be really, really, really sure that no office holder has taken part in a duel within this State nor out of it. So help me God" clearly refers to this whole second part, also an entity unto itself, and the comma-- not a period, mind you-- clinches it. In any case, grammatically "so help me god' only pertains to the second part of the oath of office: that she has not participated in any duel...and is not useable as a defense to her action with regard to other issues. Too bad Kentucky clerks ain't gotta better handle on English ...her theological participle is a danglin'. She inherited the position from her mom and her son is an assistant clerk...currently 'holdingout' according to news articles; so I 'spect nepotism and multigenerational white-trash abuse (myself included:D) is the main issue here. "Ms. Davis elected with 53% of the vote, grew up in Rowan County and has never lived anywhere else. It is hilly Appalachian country, with a nearly all-white population, home to sawmills, lumber companies and mobile homes. Morehead, the county seat, is full of churches and fast-food restaurants. The poverty rate is just below 29 percent. And a steady government salary is a prized thing." Ms. Davis wrote. “I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God. So hand out the license already and let god forgive 'em; not your gig babe! :/\\!!

[Torplexed]

Ironies of ironies. Even the Westboro Baptist Church has turned on Kim Davis for her previous divorces and failing to stop gay marriage.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/godhatesadultery-westboro-baptist-church-turns-on-kim-davis-for-causing-fg-marriage/

When it comes to religious crazy, you don't dare top Westboro. :D

[Rockstar]

Yes, she has, but because she got saved {again} her sin doesn't count. However, it's not sin being the issue, it's becoming a debate do a person's religious rights trump another person's civil rights. Should we allow people such as her religious accomodations.


Not in this instance. If its against her religion then she needs to find another job or go to jail. I find it odd too for a religion so anti-law (pro grace) they sure make things hard on others for not following the very thing they have forsaken.

[Aktungbby]

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/organization/religion/christianity/angel-1.gif (http://www.myemoticons.com/emoticons/organization/religion/christianity/angel-1-010603/)In any case they have to impeach her now for really dueling in violation of her oath of office http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/horror/dancing-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/dancing.devil-emoticon-3838.html) vs http://jingletree.com/minnmixnew/images/jesus.gif

[Platapus]

Being a professional is not just being paid for something. It is agreeing to abide by a common set of ethics associated with the other professionals in the same field... even if they conflict with a person's personal ethics.

Members of the military have dealt with this for centuries. When I was in the military, I certainly provided support and in some cases actively participated in operations that were in direct conflict with my personal ethics. As a professional, I understood the importance of putting my personal ethics aside in favour of my professional ethics.

If a profession's ethics conflict sufficiently with a person's personal ethics, that person should not voluntarily participate in that profession.

But once you accept "the queens shilling", you are agreeing to abide by that profession's ethics. This is especially true in public service.

The public MUST have confidence that the people in the profession of public service carry out their duties according to law/regulations. We can not have people accepting public money and then deciding whether their personal or public service ethics take precedence.

People need to understand that performing a duty does not imply a personal acceptance or non acceptance of that duty or its effects.

[Torplexed]

Being a professional is not just being paid for something. It is agreeing to abide by a common set of ethics associated with the other professionals in the same field... even if they conflict with a person's personal ethics.

Members of the military have dealt with this for centuries. When I was in the military, I certainly provided support and in some cases actively participated in operations that were in direct conflict with my personal ethics. As a professional, I understood the importance of putting my personal ethics aside in favour of my professional ethics.

If a profession's ethics conflict sufficiently with a person's personal ethics, that person should not voluntarily participate in that profession.

But once you accept "the queens shilling", you are agreeing to abide by that profession's ethics. This is especially true in public service.

The public MUST have confidence that the people in the profession of public service carry out their duties according to law/regulations. We can not have people accepting public money and then deciding whether their personal or public service ethics take precedence.

People need to understand that performing a duty does not imply a personal acceptance or non acceptance of that duty or its effects.

While she there she had an out. It might be reasonable for Davis to decline issuing the licenses, if other deputy clerks in the office were available to do so. That's how pharmacists that don't want to dispense Plan B birth control are accommodated.

But, Davis is being unreasonable insisting that because she oversees the entire office no one in the office should be able to issue the license because that makes her the de facto license issuer. So, apparently even a deputy working under her is an extension of her religious beliefs.

That office must have been a fun, theocratic fief to work in.

[Armistead]

The judge did try to help her out, just to let someone else in her office do it and stay out of it, she would not, she willingly interfered.

I'm amazed at the amount of ignorance displayed by many that support her, their claims of our great nation going to hell, having no understanding of our secular constitution.

[Wolferz]

The judge did try to help her out, just to let someone else in her office do it and stay out of it, she would not, she willingly interfered.

I'm amazed at the amount of ignorance displayed by many that support her, their claims of our great nation going to hell, having no understanding of our secular constitution.

Radical religion.:-?:down:
Reminds me of another uber religious group of goat fornicating knuckleheads who think they have the right to judge how folks live their lives.:shifty:

/ignore Kim Davis.

[em2nought]

Y'all are missing the point. Four different men have married this woman! Must be the gubernment job makes her a prime sugar momma catch or something? :o

[razark]

Y'all are missing the point. Four different men have married this woman! Must be the gubernment job makes her a prime sugar momma catch or something? :o
No, only three.

She married #1, got pregnant with twins by #2, divorced #1, married #3, divorced #3, married #2, divorced #2, and is currently married to #3.
But it's the gays that are destroying the sanctity of marriage.

[Buddahaid]

They must all be blind. Or Kentucky beer goggles are really good.

[Wolferz]

They must all be blind. Or Kentucky beer goggles are really good.

It's Appalachia...
Having more than one tooth makes her a prize catch.:88)
The exorbitant salary is just icing on the wedding cake to a poor Appalachian turd miner.

[vienna]

...However, one reason she's not resigning of course is that her position as county clerk has become something of a hereditary office. Her predecessor was her mother and she's got her son waiting in the wings. Louis XVI was similarly situated. It did not work out entirely well for him.

So, are you suggesting the issue may come to a head?...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Free at last, Free at Last!

I find her religious views silly and devoid of facts.However, the big picture issue is the Supreme Court made an illegitimate political populist decision instead of following the constitution.Then a tyrannical federal judge jailed a woman for following her religious convictions., her christian convictions in particular.

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

[vienna]

Free at last, Free at Last!

I find her religious views silly and devoid of facts.However, the big picture issue is the Supreme Court made an illegitimate political populist decision instead of following the constitution.Then a tyrannical federal judge jailed a woman for following her religious convictions., her christian convictions in particular.

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.

Specifically, what parts of the Constitution was violated by SCOTUS? What is the "chapter and verse" you can cite to validate the claim of illegitimacy? Please enlighten us with your knowledge of the root Constitutional issues with specific details...

It still boils down to a case of a grandstanding person seeking and finding their 15 minutes of infamy. This person has violated their oath of office and thereby violated the law of their state and is subject to removal. She has also violated a direct court order and is subject to whatever consequences may befall. She is an employee, the "hereditary" nature of her position notwithstanding, and has willfully failed to perform her ascribed duties as set by law, is insubordinate, and continues to be so; any other employer would have fired her out of hand. If she or any of her cohorts wish to really change matters, they should, as somebody once said, win an election and pass a law, within the legal confines of the Constitution and the rendered SCOTUS decisions. All else, is smoke in the wind...


<O>

[u crank]

I am sure they would not have done this to a muslim, especially with a sympathetic ear at 1600.


Wrong thread.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=184647

[Platapus]

Specifically, what parts of the Constitution was violated by SCOTUS? What is the "chapter and verse" you can cite to validate the claim of illegitimacy? Please enlighten us with your knowledge of the root Constitutional issues with specific details...


Arrg. Why did you respond to him? You are just encouraging him.

[razark]

Anyways, she is a brave woman to go to jail for her religious beliefs which are actually protected under the US Constitution, have to admire that.
So, if a person breaks the law for religious reasons, then it's ok?

The good news is that everything that Obama has done has been in the name of his Islamic faith, so you'll stop complaining about it, right?

[Eichhörnchen]

They just said on the news that she's out again (well... not "out" out... they let her out... you know... she's been released)

[Skybird]

Both sides did wrong here.

The proper thing would have been to suspend and dismiss her for not fulfilling her mandatory duties as ordered be her employer, the state. The state has a duty to not foster or hinder religious views or practices, the secular status and nature of the state has to be maintained. Defending the freedom for religion does not mean to defend the religion and its claims and demands itself.

The judge however abused his position by trying to force her to change her religious beliefs according to his own views (may they be secular or else), which also is not acceptable, no matter what he thinks how silly they are. So, sending her to jail to make her change her stand on her religious views, is not acceptable either.

The woman should quit her job in state service if state service and religious coinviction collide in her cinscience. If relgious views make her think she can take it upon herserlf to challen ge the duty of the state to stay and protect secularism, she has to be fired. An official and civil servant can be fired if neglecting his duties or refusing to work.

The big news is small news only. Fire the woman from civil service over her rejection to do her work - and done you are.

[antikristuseke]

She was jailed for failure to do here job, not to force her religious conversion. She was given options, she chose her fate.

[Skybird]

You do not jail an employee that refuses to do his job. You fire him.

She was sent to jail so that she may rethink - due to her captivity - her religious position that she claimed prevented her from fulfilling her duties and orders as civil servant. But as a civil servant in a secular state, your top boss is not your religious belief, but the state. Don't like that? Get another job then.

[razark]

You do not jail an employee that refuses to do his job. You fire him.
It's an elected position. She cannot simply be fired. She would need to be impeached to be removed from the position.

However, if she refuses to follow the law or refuses to comply with a judge's order, she goes to jail. No one is asking her to change her beliefs. She doesn't have to agree with the law to follow it.

[Aktungbby]

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/organization/religion/christianity/angel-1.gif (http://www.myemoticons.com/emoticons/organization/religion/christianity/angel-1-010603/)In any case they have to impeach her now for really dueling in violation of her oath of office http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/horror/dancing-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/dancing.devil-emoticon-3838.html) vs http://jingletree.com/minnmixnew/images/jesus.gif

It's an elected position. She cannot simply be fired. She would need to be impeached to be removed from the position.

precisely

[vienna]

You do not jail an employee that refuses to do his job. You fire him.

She was sent to jail so that she may rethink - due to her captivity - her religious position that she claimed prevented her from fulfilling her duties and orders as civil servant. But as a civil servant in a secular state, your top boss is not your religious belief, but the state. Don't like that? Get another job then.

You are probably unaware of the system(s) here in the US. Not all government positions are set up in the same way, particularly on the state and local (county, city, etc.) level. Davis is an elected official and is not subject to summary dismissal (unfortunately). I don't know what the set up is in her area, so removal would either have to be done by a recall election (get up a petition, set an election date, and try to vote her out of office -- takes a lot of time and expense), impeach her by some legislative process (also takes time, not as expensive). The only other alternative I can think of is some sort of lawsuit charging her with criminally violating her office, but those sort of charges usually involve embezzlement, influence peddling, etc. The effort is particularly onerous in rural areas and small county and city jurisdictions such as hers; cronyism, nepotism, and crass politics are standard in such areas, and particularly so in the Southern portion of the US...

Even if she were not an elected official, but, rather an appointee or straight hire, removal still faces hurdles. A lot of government positions are covered by a civil service system which protects the employees from arbitrary discipline or removal. The civil service system was set up ostensibly to mitigate or eliminate undue political influence in the real everyday operations of government. On the whole, the civil service accomplishes most of this objective; however, over time, many of the positions have become mini-fiefdoms (such as Davis and her family's situation), or sinecures for government leeches. Short of committing a severely serious crime or malfeasance, civil service positions are pretty much secured lifetime jobs...

Then there is the situation of government positions falling under labor union purview. Firing or disciplining an employee is only slightly less onerous than the civil service strictures. There are an awful lot of employees who, if they were employed in the private sector, would have been shown the door long ago; but the unions will fiercely fight to keep an embattled employee in their position, even in the face of contrary evidence and logic. I worked on a long series of projects over a little more than a four year period for the County of Los Angeles here in California for a department that dealt with county personnel issues and witnessed first hand the astonishing levels of incompetence and indifference found in "represented" (union) positions and how the administrative levels were pretty much shackled in what they could do to address the problems. The prevalent attitude seemed to be the effort was too great to achieve the ends. Incidentally, I was not a direct employee of the County, being a contractor, and as such was not subject to the same protections of civil service or the unions and, likewise, not bound to the same management strictures as the County workers. I had quite a few run-ins with both the administration and the workers over my tactics and methods, but I was producing, for the County department, rather sizeable results, so neither side took the matter of my being there very far. In fact, since I was neither "fish nor fowl" in terms of the County hierarchy, much of what I did often benefitted both sides, sometimes simultaneously. The biggest bother was the pressure from both administration and labor for me to become an actual County employee: the Administration saw the prospect as a means of exerting power over my work, while the workers hoped to bury me under their common cloak -- "One of us, one of us!"...


<O>

[CCIP]

http://i.imgur.com/oL40Pto.jpg

:D

[darius359au]

http://i.imgur.com/oL40Pto.jpg

:D

:har::har::har:

[Subnuts]

Looks like our new Quaker clerk won't be handing out firearm licenses any time soon. Oops, guess we shouldn't have brought in a fruitarian to hand out hunting permits. The recruiting station down the road isn't exactly meeting quotas after they brought in pacifist to run the place. Not sure why they elected a prohibitionist to deal with liquor licenses in this county. :hmmm:

[Buddahaid]

http://i.imgur.com/EeR8C56.jpg

[vienna]

Often it is said: There is truth in jest...


<O>

[Jimbuna]

http://i.imgur.com/oL40Pto.jpg

:D

LOL :)

[Wolferz]

Now you guys are just running for the office of clowny clerk.:O:

[Onkel Neal]

You do not jail an employee that refuses to do his job. You fire him.

She was sent to jail so that she may rethink - due to her captivity - her religious position that she claimed prevented her from fulfilling her duties and orders as civil servant. But as a civil servant in a secular state, your top boss is not your religious belief, but the state. Don't like that? Get another job then.

She went to jail for refusing to follow a federal judge's order.

Hopefully this is the last we will hear from her, but I am guessing there is a reality TV show in the works. :dead:

[Skybird]

okayokay, that in the US county clerks get elected, was new to me and was not reported in the few media reports (those I have read) on this in Germany, as far as the story was covered. I could not even have imagined that, considering these translations: LINK (http://dict.leo.org/ende/index_de.html#/search=county%20clerk&searchLoc=0&resultOrder=basic&multiwordShowSingle=on)

But my point in principle remains valid. She does not do her job - she simply has to go.

If she were just an employee, you see why the judge's action then would need to be seen as what I described it as.

[Aktungbby]

But my point in principle remains valid. She does not do her job - she simply has to go.
PRAISE DA' LORD! IT"S SKYBIRD!:sunny:http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/top-of-content-main/ap_213549261141.jpg

[vienna]

She went to jail for refusing to follow a federal judge's order.

Hopefully this is the last we will hear from her, but I am guessing there is a reality TV show in the works. :dead:

Maybe, but, most likely, she will make the rounds of TV evangelists who will use her to further enhance their coffers, then she will make good paydays as a speaker at fringe events, until, ultimately, she will fade into much deserved obscurity...


<O>

[Armistead]

I think it's simple, she is paid by the taxpayers, including all those evil gay taxpayers. She doesn't mind taking their money, she shouldn't mind providing them services. Don't like a govt job , do something else.