Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The next shot fired in Same Sex Marriage Warz. As the title says, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue any marriage licenses because of a religious objection has been order to get back to work.

Makes sense to me. She's a federal employee who has to follow the rules of her job, and that includes Same Sex Marriage Licenses (SSML). Let the Nazi Germany comparisons begin!

Quote:
U. S. District Judge David Bunning has issued a preliminary injunction in the case involving a Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to two same-sex couples and two opposite sex couples. Clerk Kim Davis must now issue marriage licenses to April Miller, Karen Roberts, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier.

"IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2) against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from applying her “no marriage licenses” policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs."

The ACLU called it "a victory for our clients and for all of Rowan County."

At a July court hearing Davis said she is an Apostolic Christian and believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. She says she prayed and fasted before making her decision. In court, she argued that by issuing licenses she is saying she approves of same-sex marriage.

"If I authorize (same-sex marriage licenses), I'm saying I agree with that and I can't," she said.

However, Judge Bunning writes in his decision that Davis' religious freedoms are not being infringed.

"(Davis') religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution."

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Davis on behalf of two same-sex and two opposite sex couples. The ACLU says Davis knew about the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling while she was running for the office. She was sworn in January 5, 2015. Attorney Dan Canon questioned whether Davis objected to issuing marriage licenses to people who had been divorced or interracial couples. She replied, "no."

Davis says she stopped issuing all marriage licenses because she did not want to discriminate against anyone.

At the July 20 hearing Judge Bunning asked several questions. He seemed interested in the part of the state statute outlining who is authorized to perform marriages in Kentucky. He pointed out that County Clerks are not on the list of people who can perform marriages.

Davis replied that while she does not perform the marriages, her name on the form says she approves of it.

The Rowan County Clerk has filed suit against Governor Steve Beshear claiming that when he ordered all clerks to follow the U.S. Supreme Court ruling he violated her rights.

Rowan County, concerned it might be held liable, has said Davis "does not act on behalf or set policy for, the county."


http://wvxu.org/post/ky-clerk-must-issue-same-sex-marriage-l...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
The next shot fired in Same Sex Marriage Warz. As the title says, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue any marriage licenses because of a religious objection has been order to get back to work.

Makes sense to me. She's a federal employee who has to follow the rules of her job, and that includes Same Sex Marriage Licenses (SSML). Let the Nazi Germany comparisons begin!

Quote:
U. S. District Judge David Bunning has issued a preliminary injunction in the case involving a Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to two same-sex couples and two opposite sex couples. Clerk Kim Davis must now issue marriage licenses to April Miller, Karen Roberts, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier.

"IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2) against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from applying her “no marriage licenses” policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs."

The ACLU called it "a victory for our clients and for all of Rowan County."

At a July court hearing Davis said she is an Apostolic Christian and believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. She says she prayed and fasted before making her decision. In court, she argued that by issuing licenses she is saying she approves of same-sex marriage.

"If I authorize (same-sex marriage licenses), I'm saying I agree with that and I can't," she said.

However, Judge Bunning writes in his decision that Davis' religious freedoms are not being infringed.

"(Davis') religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution."

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Davis on behalf of two same-sex and two opposite sex couples. The ACLU says Davis knew about the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling while she was running for the office. She was sworn in January 5, 2015. Attorney Dan Canon questioned whether Davis objected to issuing marriage licenses to people who had been divorced or interracial couples. She replied, "no."

Davis says she stopped issuing all marriage licenses because she did not want to discriminate against anyone.

At the July 20 hearing Judge Bunning asked several questions. He seemed interested in the part of the state statute outlining who is authorized to perform marriages in Kentucky. He pointed out that County Clerks are not on the list of people who can perform marriages.

Davis replied that while she does not perform the marriages, her name on the form says she approves of it.

The Rowan County Clerk has filed suit against Governor Steve Beshear claiming that when he ordered all clerks to follow the U.S. Supreme Court ruling he violated her rights.

Rowan County, concerned it might be held liable, has said Davis "does not act on behalf or set policy for, the county."


http://wvxu.org/post/ky-clerk-must-issue-same-sex-marriage-l...


This part of the ruling makes the best point

"The state is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities," the judge wrote. "She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County clerk.""

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/12/3985740/federal-judge-ord...

Of course she is asking for a stay while she appeals up the line. Here's hoping the judge says no.

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
She can always get another job if this is an issue.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
She started the job in January. She was well aware that a SCOTUS ruling was coming about six months later on same sex marriage.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
She started the job in January. She was well aware that a SCOTUS ruling was coming about six months later on same sex marriage.


Why do you assume she's not an ill informed idiot?
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
She can always get another job if this is an issue.


Exactly. If her personal belief system prevents her from performing her job duties, she should resign and seek another job, one that does not conflict with her beliefs. This seems beyond obvious, so it boggles the mind that somehow this person thinks they are entitled to hold a job where they can choose not to follow the requirements of said job as laid out by the law solely because they don't agree with those requirements.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
She can always get another job if this is an issue.


Exactly. If her personal belief system prevents her from performing her job duties, she should resign and seek another job, one that does not conflict with her beliefs. This seems beyond obvious, so it boggles the mind that somehow this person thinks they are entitled to hold a job where they can choose not to follow the requirements of said job as laid out by the law solely because they don't agree with those requirements.
I will put it differently. The bible says she has to make sacrifices for her beliefs, it says sod all about anyone else doing it for you.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Salch
United States
Bristol
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah I have to admit this is stupid

Quote:
On Davis' argument that she can't in good conscience "authorize" a same-sex marriage, given her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian, Bunning said she was not being asked to authorize marriages. Kentucky's marriage license paperwork requires clerks only to acknowledge that a couple has provided accurate biographical information and is legally permitted to wed, Bunning wrote. And whether or not Davis likes it, same-sex couples now are legally permitted to wed, he wrote

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/12/3985740_federal-judge-ord...


I agree she is not "authorizing" or "approving" anything, she is simply designating that the requirements for marrying have been met.

Until it is resolved what is and is not a legal reason to discriminate we are going to have more cases like this.

This is why I think states need to adopt some form of civil rights act in order to clarify some of these issues ahead of time, and provide guidance to the people. If it mirrored the language of the civil rights act of 1964 it would be helpful, (with the addition of sexual orientation) heck, I think adding sexual orientation as a protected class under federal law could go a long way towards this goal.

If same sex marriage is going to be the law of the land, then I can see no reason not to extend protected status for public accommodations. This case would then clearly fall under title III.

If this were coupled with state RRFA that clarified when a bona fide exception would be allowed then we could go a long way towards moving forward in this struggle.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Salch
United States
Bristol
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It would be different if she were presiding over a marriage. Then it becomes more problematic in that there would be a real conflict in rights. For those of you who say, she should just quit, that is not the way it works for anything in this country. I know some of you argue against religious exceptions, but they are the law of the land, just as same sex marriage is the law of the land. And when she took the job the law of the land was different. Again, I don't see a conflict as she is not presiding over a marriage nor is she "authorizing" a marriage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Salch
United States
Bristol
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
She can always get another job if this is an issue.


Exactly. If her personal belief system prevents her from performing her job duties, she should resign and seek another job, one that does not conflict with her beliefs. This seems beyond obvious, so it boggles the mind that somehow this person thinks they are entitled to hold a job where they can choose not to follow the requirements of said job as laid out by the law solely because they don't agree with those requirements.
I will put it differently. The bible says she has to make sacrifices for her beliefs, it says sod all about anyone else doing it for you.


Steven - The closest parallel in the Bible is probably Daniel, who refused to obey a law that violated his religious beliefs. He accepted the punishment for violating the law, but did violate it. If the woman follows his example, she should continue to not follow the law, and accept the legal ramification of such, or she should quit.

Of course in Daniel's case, the end result was a change in the Law, so this is one possible outcome. Quitting is certainly the easier path.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Beaton
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
I have a cunning plan
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
costguy wrote:
It would be different if she were presiding over a marriage. Then it becomes more problematic in that there would be a real conflict in rights. For those of you who say, she should just quit, that is not the way it works for anything in this country. I know some of you argue against religious exceptions, but they are the law of the land, just as same sex marriage is the law of the land. And when she took the job the law of the land was different. Again, I don't see a conflict as she is not presiding over a marriage nor is she "authorizing" a marriage.


I don't see presiding over a marriage as any different if she is performing her role in a secular capacity on government property.
Let her keep her bigotry in a church where it belongs.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
costguy wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
She can always get another job if this is an issue.


Exactly. If her personal belief system prevents her from performing her job duties, she should resign and seek another job, one that does not conflict with her beliefs. This seems beyond obvious, so it boggles the mind that somehow this person thinks they are entitled to hold a job where they can choose not to follow the requirements of said job as laid out by the law solely because they don't agree with those requirements.
I will put it differently. The bible says she has to make sacrifices for her beliefs, it says sod all about anyone else doing it for you.


Steven - The closest parallel in the Bible is probably Daniel, who refused to obey a law that violated his religious beliefs. He accepted the punishment for violating the law, but did violate it. If the woman follows his example, she should continue to not follow the law, and accept the legal ramification of such, or she should quit.

Of course in Daniel's case, the end result was a change in the Law, so this is one possible outcome. Quitting is certainly the easier path.
That is my point, she should accept the punishment and be a martyr. The problem here (and in other cases) is that do not accept the punishment by try to fight it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Salch
United States
Bristol
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
costguy wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
She can always get another job if this is an issue.


Exactly. If her personal belief system prevents her from performing her job duties, she should resign and seek another job, one that does not conflict with her beliefs. This seems beyond obvious, so it boggles the mind that somehow this person thinks they are entitled to hold a job where they can choose not to follow the requirements of said job as laid out by the law solely because they don't agree with those requirements.
I will put it differently. The bible says she has to make sacrifices for her beliefs, it says sod all about anyone else doing it for you.


Steven - The closest parallel in the Bible is probably Daniel, who refused to obey a law that violated his religious beliefs. He accepted the punishment for violating the law, but did violate it. If the woman follows his example, she should continue to not follow the law, and accept the legal ramification of such, or she should quit.

Of course in Daniel's case, the end result was a change in the Law, so this is one possible outcome. Quitting is certainly the easier path.
That is my point, she should accept the punishment and be a martyr. The problem here (and in other cases) is that do not accept the punishment by try to fight it.


But in this case she did not try to fight it. She refused to perform her job and was sued. It is yet to be determined if there will be any punishment.

Or are you saying she should not defend herself?

Ok looking at the article, she did file a suit against the Governor.
I agree this is wrong. But she should be able to defend herself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
costguy wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
costguy wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
She can always get another job if this is an issue.


Exactly. If her personal belief system prevents her from performing her job duties, she should resign and seek another job, one that does not conflict with her beliefs. This seems beyond obvious, so it boggles the mind that somehow this person thinks they are entitled to hold a job where they can choose not to follow the requirements of said job as laid out by the law solely because they don't agree with those requirements.
I will put it differently. The bible says she has to make sacrifices for her beliefs, it says sod all about anyone else doing it for you.


Steven - The closest parallel in the Bible is probably Daniel, who refused to obey a law that violated his religious beliefs. He accepted the punishment for violating the law, but did violate it. If the woman follows his example, she should continue to not follow the law, and accept the legal ramification of such, or she should quit.

Of course in Daniel's case, the end result was a change in the Law, so this is one possible outcome. Quitting is certainly the easier path.
That is my point, she should accept the punishment and be a martyr. The problem here (and in other cases) is that do not accept the punishment by try to fight it.


But in this case she did not try to fight it. She refused to perform her job and was sued. It is yet to be determined if there will be any punishment.

Or are you saying she should not defend herself?

Ok looking at the article, she did file a suit against the Governor.
I agree this is wrong. But she should be able to defend herself.
No, if she cannot do her job she cannot do it, and should be fired. That is what Danial is talking about, taking your punishment for your refusal to obey rules that conflict with your belief.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, time for her to be fired and possibly jailed for defying a Federal Court order

"A Kentucky clerk's office turned away a gay couple seeking a marriage license on Thursday, defying a federal judge's order that dismissed her argument involving religious freedom.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office turned away David Moore and David Ermold just hours after a U.S. district judge ordered her to do the opposite.

Deputy clerk Nathan Davis says the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples as it appeals the ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals."

And who exactly authorized the "office" to engage attorneys in defiance of state and national laws. They can do it as individuals, but not as agents of the government (although the last name of the deputy clerk may indicate a reason)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-clerk-gay-marri...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Salch
United States
Bristol
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aiabx wrote:
costguy wrote:
It would be different if she were presiding over a marriage. Then it becomes more problematic in that there would be a real conflict in rights. For those of you who say, she should just quit, that is not the way it works for anything in this country. I know some of you argue against religious exceptions, but they are the law of the land, just as same sex marriage is the law of the land. And when she took the job the law of the land was different. Again, I don't see a conflict as she is not presiding over a marriage nor is she "authorizing" a marriage.


I don't see presiding over a marriage as any different if she is performing her role in a secular capacity on government property.
Let her keep her bigotry in a church where it belongs.


Well this is yet to be determined by the courts. So it is clear that you are against religious exemptions for state employees. You also seem to be against religious exemptions except "within churches"

Perhaps you should keep your bigotry where it belongs.
Yes I know the old argument, being against bigotry is not bigotry, blah blah blah.

I don't think the state should be in the position of Marrying people. The state can license a private party to do so. Or better yet, simply recognize some form of marriage certificate that does not require anyone to officiate at a ceremony.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
Ok, time for her to be fired and possibly jailed for defying a Federal Court order

"A Kentucky clerk's office turned away a gay couple seeking a marriage license on Thursday, defying a federal judge's order that dismissed her argument involving religious freedom.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office turned away David Moore and David Ermold just hours after a U.S. district judge ordered her to do the opposite.

Deputy clerk Nathan Davis says the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples as it appeals the ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals."

And who exactly authorized the "office" to engage attorneys in defiance of state and national laws. They can do it as individuals, but not as agents of the government (although the last name of the deputy clerk may indicate a reason)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-clerk-gay-marri...
So maybe she cannot get another job, Jesus it's almost incestual.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mindy G
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Mold the chaos into something beautiful
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
costguy wrote:
For those of you who say, she should just quit, that is not the way it works for anything in this country. I know some of you argue against religious exceptions, but they are the law of the land, just as same sex marriage is the law of the land.


No, that is not how it works. Just not doing your job is not a reasonable accommodation.
7 
 Thumb up
0.42
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
costguy wrote:
aiabx wrote:
costguy wrote:
It would be different if she were presiding over a marriage. Then it becomes more problematic in that there would be a real conflict in rights. For those of you who say, she should just quit, that is not the way it works for anything in this country. I know some of you argue against religious exceptions, but they are the law of the land, just as same sex marriage is the law of the land. And when she took the job the law of the land was different. Again, I don't see a conflict as she is not presiding over a marriage nor is she "authorizing" a marriage.


I don't see presiding over a marriage as any different if she is performing her role in a secular capacity on government property.
Let her keep her bigotry in a church where it belongs.


Well this is yet to be determined by the courts. So it is clear that you are against religious exemptions for state employees. You also seem to be against religious exemptions except "within churches"

Perhaps you should keep your bigotry where it belongs.
Yes I know the old argument, being against bigotry is not bigotry, blah blah blah.

I don't think the state should be in the position of Marrying people. The state can license a private party to do so. Or better yet, simply recognize some form of marriage certificate that does not require anyone to officiate at a ceremony.
In that case marriage should carry no legal rights.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Salch
United States
Bristol
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
No, if she cannot do her job she cannot do it, and should be fired. That is what Danial is talking about, taking your punishment for your refusal to obey rules that conflict with your belief.


I see no evidence that anyone has moved to fire her or jail her. Is she supposed to fire herself?

Also, does she have the right to defend herself if sued?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
costguy wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No, if she cannot do her job she cannot do it, and should be fired. That is what Danial is talking about, taking your punishment for your refusal to obey rules that conflict with your belief.


I see no evidence that anyone has moved to fire her or jail her. Is she supposed to fire herself? [/y] it's called resignation, I cannot do my job so I will leave. Let how show the strength of her beliefs.

Also, does she have the right to defend herself if sued?
Yes, but she also has to accept that she cannot do her job, the job she is paid to do.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Salch
United States
Bristol
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
costguy wrote:
aiabx wrote:
costguy wrote:
It would be different if she were presiding over a marriage. Then it becomes more problematic in that there would be a real conflict in rights. For those of you who say, she should just quit, that is not the way it works for anything in this country. I know some of you argue against religious exceptions, but they are the law of the land, just as same sex marriage is the law of the land. And when she took the job the law of the land was different. Again, I don't see a conflict as she is not presiding over a marriage nor is she "authorizing" a marriage.


I don't see presiding over a marriage as any different if she is performing her role in a secular capacity on government property.
Let her keep her bigotry in a church where it belongs.


Well this is yet to be determined by the courts. So it is clear that you are against religious exemptions for state employees. You also seem to be against religious exemptions except "within churches"

Perhaps you should keep your bigotry where it belongs.
Yes I know the old argument, being against bigotry is not bigotry, blah blah blah.

I don't think the state should be in the position of Marrying people. The state can license a private party to do so. Or better yet, simply recognize some form of marriage certificate that does not require anyone to officiate at a ceremony.
In that case marriage should carry no legal rights.


Why does this follow? All kinds of contracts and other legal arrangements are carried out without ceremony all the time. If the state is involved in marriage at all, it is only because there are legal rights involved. I am just proposing a full separation of ceremony from legal status. Anyone can then have whatever ceremony they want. This was discussed in another thread already.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McGeehan
United States
Manchester
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
costguy wrote:

Well this is yet to be determined by the courts. So it is clear that you are against religious exemptions for state employees. You also seem to be against religious exemptions except "within churches"


You post as if these issues haven't already been litigated. From the point of view of the courts, this isn't that much different than people with religious objections to marrying, say, interracial couples, even prior to the Civil Rights Act. The answer is generally that if you can't do your job, and there isn't a simple and inexpensive accommodation that can be made, then you leave that job.

Now, if there are other clerks in that office that can issue licenses, then there might be an accommodation that can be made. But in many small counties there simply aren't - and if that's the case, then yes, if the job of the county clerk is to issue licenses, if the state says that it's part of her job to do so, she has to do so. She doesn't have to marry them, but she does have to give them a piece of paper.

4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Salch
United States
Bristol
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
costguy wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No, if she cannot do her job she cannot do it, and should be fired. That is what Danial is talking about, taking your punishment for your refusal to obey rules that conflict with your belief.


I see no evidence that anyone has moved to fire her or jail her. Is she supposed to fire herself? [/y] it's called resignation, I cannot do my job so I will leave. Let how show the strength of her beliefs.

Also, does she have the right to defend herself if sued?
Yes, but she also has to accept that she cannot do her job, the job she is paid to do.


Yes she is.
Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union sued Davis on behalf of two same-sex and two opposite sex couples

from the original article.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McGeehan
United States
Manchester
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
costguy wrote:

Why does this follow? All kinds of contracts and other legal arrangements are carried out without ceremony all the time. If the state is involved in marriage at all, it is only because there are legal rights involved. I am just proposing a full separation of ceremony from legal status. Anyone can then have whatever ceremony they want. This was discussed in another thread already.


This case, however, has nothing to do with ceremony, only legal status. They seek the legal status, which requires a piece of paper from the government. She is refusing to give that piece of paper. She is not being asked to actually perform a ceremony.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [8] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.