Kentucky clerk sued for not issuing same-sex marriage licenses

[kyredneck]

"Four Kentucky couples are suing a clerk who is refusing to issue gay-marriage licenses – or any marriage licenses for that matter – following a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court giving same-sex marriage couples the legal right to marry.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Thursday on behalf of two homosexual and two heterosexual couples, all of whom were turned down when they tried to get marriage licenses from Davis’ office this week.

Davis has said that her religious beliefs prevented her from complying with the Supreme Court decision, so she decided not to issue marriage licenses to any type of couple – straight or gay.

Davis is among a handful of judges and clerks across the South who have defied the Court’s order, maintaining that the right to “religious freedom” protects them from having to comply.

The Decatur County, Tennessee clerk and two office employees resigned Thursday due to their opposition to same-sex marriage, County Commissioner David Boroughs told The Jackson Sun.

However, in Alabama, all counties appeared to be complying with the Supreme Court ruling as of Thursday, lawyers representing gay couples told The Associated Press.

In Louisiana, where most parish clerks had been issuing same-sex marriage licenses since Monday, the state Office of Vital Records, which issues the licenses in New Orleans, didn't begin doing so until Thursday.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear ordered all clerks to fall in line. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway followed up with a warning that failing to do so might open them up to civil liability.

Officials have also warned defiant clerks could be risking criminal charges. Warren County Attorney Ann Milliken, president of the Kentucky County Attorneys Association, president of the Kentucky County Attorney’s Association, said clerks could be charged with official misconduct, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.

Some Kentucky clerks who at first resisted issuing same-sex marriage licenses changed course this week aand agreed to sign them. However, Davis and a few others stood firm, despite the protests outside her Morehead office earlier this week.

She pledged to never issue a marriage license to a gay couple.

"It's a deep-rooted conviction; my conscience won't allow me to do that," Davis said Tuesday. "It goes against everything I hold dear, everything sacred in my life."...."

This is three counties over from me. Sounds like a prelude to a court battle over religious freedom rights.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

What is the difference between this and a conscientious objector? I'm thinking a conscientious objector would never join the military in the first place whereas the clerk took a job as a county clerk and put herself in the line of fire. In other words, I don't think that a soldier, during a firefight, can claim conscientious objector status. Am I wrong here?

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

[Zaac]

What is the difference between this and a conscientious objector? I'm thinking a conscientious objector would never join the military in the first place whereas the clerk took a job as a county clerk and put herself in the line of fire. In other words, I don't think that a soldier, during a firefight, can claim conscientious objector status. Am I wrong here?

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

The clerk is wrong and will lose. She was elected to do a job. Nobody is asking for her approval of a marriage. She's to hand out paperwork and file it. If she can't do that, it's time to quit.

 

[Don]

JKD - conscientious objector is primarily for draftees. Much harder to implement with a volunteer.

Zaac - you don't know twaddle about labor law. Your ininformed rantings only make you look stupid. Legal rulings have time and time again proven that you do NOT leave your religion at the door.

That said, where this woman screwed up was exercising her religious beliefs upon the entire government office. That is what is not legal, and will not stand.

 

[carpro]

The clerk is wrong and will lose. She was elected to do a job. Nobody is asking for her approval of a marriage. She's to hand out paperwork and file it. If she can't do that, it's time to quit.

And here we have a supposed Christian that will take a stand against God and for man.

When faced with a similar choice, there is no doubt at all that you will run and hide. :tear:

 

[kyredneck]

.... where this woman screwed up was exercising her religious beliefs upon the entire government office. That is what is not legal, and will not stand.

I know of a case where a federal government executive was demoted/transferred for refusing to approve federally funded abortions, which was one of his duties, on religious grounds. He brought suit and won.

I sure hate to see her and others like her make martyrs of themselves to no avail.

 

[revmwc]

The clerk is wrong and will lose. She was elected to do a job. Nobody is asking for her approval of a marriage. She's to hand out paperwork and file it. If she can't do that, it's time to quit.

I have a question what would you if your boss comes in and says rules have changed you are now required to work Sunday's all day and night as well as Wednesday's it is mandatory. Also you cannot speak or teach anything about God if you do refuse to work or if you discuss God you must quit or resign! What would you do?

Right now the law says you must be able to attend services but must then go to work, if they change that law and you were required to work Sunday morning would you quit or should you be fired?

Same thing is happening here the rules changed after the fact and now those with deep religious convictions are being asked to comply after the fact to an arbitrary rules change that was decided by 5 people.

So how would you react, what would you do?

 

[carpro]

I have a question what would you if your boss comes in and says rules have changed you are now required to work Sunday's all day and night as well as Wednesday's it is mandatory. Also you cannot speak or teach anything about God if you do refuse to work or if you discuss God you must quit or resign! What would you do?

No doubt at all. He gives in. No stand for God from this guy.

 

[kyredneck]

.... where this woman screwed up was exercising her religious beliefs upon the entire government office. That is what is not legal, and will not stand.

Did you catch this part of it?:

"...refusing to issue gay-marriage licenses – or any marriage licenses for that matter..."

Can't help but wonder if this is strategy for an upcoming legal fight.

 

[Alcott]

The clerk is wrong and will lose. She was elected to do a job. Nobody is asking for her approval of a marriage. She's to hand out paperwork and file it. If she can't do that, it's time to quit.

Was it time for that Indian to quit when he refused to cut his hair according to regulations of the Texas state troopers? Instead he sued and won.

 

[Salty]

Was it time for that Indian to quit when he refused to cut his hair according to regulations of the Texas state troopers? Instead he sued and won.

Or the woman who went to court over a dress code

 

[Zaac]

I have a question what would you if your boss comes in and says rules have changed you are now required to work Sunday's all day and night as well as Wednesday's it is mandatory. Also you cannot speak or teach anything about God if you do refuse to work or if you discuss God you must quit or resign! What would you do?

Irrelevant to this situation. The rules didn't change. She changed her mind about doing the job she was elected to do.

Same thing is happening here the rules changed after the fact and now those with deep religious convictions are being asked to comply after the fact to an arbitrary rules change that was decided by 5 people.

Nope. The rules are the same. She was elected to do a job description. The job description didn't change. Her desire to fulfill the requirements of the position changed.

 

[Zaac]

And here we have a supposed Christian that will take a stand against God and for man.

Nothing but lies from the dishonorable, wicked man called carpro.

When faced with a similar choice, there is no doubt at all that you will run and hide. :tear:

Grown man indwelled by the Holy Spirit of the Living God. I've got nothing or anyone from which to run and hide.

 

[revmwc]

Irrelevant to this situation. The rules didn't change. She changed her mind about doing the job she was elected to do.




Nope. The rules are the same. She was elected to do a job description. The job description didn't change. Her desire to fulfill the requirements of the position changed.

The rules did change, they weren't required to issue marriage license to same gender couples before the court ruling.
An arbitrary decision by 5 people changed the rules.

You can say they didn't all you want but it went from issuing marriage license to hetro couples and changed to issuing them to same gender. Next will be issuing to men marrying another man while having a wife already, or a man or woman being married to multiple spouses, the rules have changed!

 

[carpro]

Grown man indwelled by the Holy Spirit of the Living God. I've got nothing or anyone from which to run and hide.

You've been running from God's law ever since you started taking sides against Christians standing up for God' laws concerning same sex marriage.

You are what you are. Embrace it. You've been a phony from day one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Zaac
"Irrelevant to this situation. The rules didn't change. "

That's right Gods rules DID NOT change!

 

[matt wade]

I have a question what would you if your boss comes in and says rules have changed you are now required to work Sunday's all day and night as well as Wednesday's it is mandatory. Also you cannot speak or teach anything about God if you do refuse to work or if you discuss God you must quit or resign! What would you do?

Right now the law says you must be able to attend services but must then go to work, if they change that law and you were required to work Sunday morning would you quit or should you be fired?

Where is there a law that says an employer must allow you to have time off to attend your religious ceremony of choice? Sure isn't one around in my parts. Maybe you have some local or state level law?

 

[revmwc]

Those who ruled in favor of these marriages are like these:

Luke 16:
14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

 

[Don]

From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity website:

The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

 

[revmwc]

Where is there a law that says an employer must allow you to have time off to attend your religious ceremony of choice? Sure isn't one around in my parts. Maybe you have some local or state level law?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with at least 15 employees, as well as employment agencies and unions, from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits:

Title VII requires an employer, once on notice that a religious accommodation is needed, to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. Under Title VII, the undue hardship defense to providing religious accommodation requires a showing that the proposed accommodation in a particular case poses a “more than de minimis” cost or burden. Note that this is a lower standard for an employer to meet than undue hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which is defined in that statute as “significant difficulty or expense.”