Kentucky governor tells county clerks: Do your jobs or get fired

[Zaac]

Kentucky governor tells county clerks: Do your jobs or get fired

Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has ordered the state’s county clerks to honor the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and allow same-sex couples to marry or to resign from their jobs.

According to WHAS-TV, Beshear issued a statement on Thursday addressing the concerns of County Clerk Casey Davis, but ordering all state employees to honor the court ruling.


“This morning, I advised Mr. Davis that I respect his right to his own personal beliefs regarding same-sex marriages. However, when he was elected, he took a constitutional oath to uphold the United States Constitution,” Beshear said in his statement.

The statement continued by saying that Beshear would not grant a special legislative session to discuss the matter as requested in a letter signed by 60 of the state’s county clerks:

According to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution now requires that governmental officials in Kentucky and elsewhere must recognize same-sex marriages as valid and allow them to take place. One of Mr. Davis’ duties as county court clerk is to issue marriage licenses, and the Supreme Court now says that the United States Constitution requires those marriage licenses to be issued regardless of gender. Mr. Davis’ own county attorney has advised him that his oath requires him to do so.

While there are two or three county court clerks still refusing to perform their duties, the rest of the county court clerks are complying with the law regardless of their personal beliefs. The courts and the voters will deal appropriately with the rest.

I will not be calling any special session on this topic and costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so. Any proposal about the process of issuing marriage licenses that meets the standards of the Supreme Court ruling should be carefully thought out and could be considered in the regular session in 2016.

Raw Story reported earlier this week on a confrontation between a county clerk and a gay couple in Rowan County, KY, who were not only denied a marriage license by County Clerk Kim Davis, but she also insulted and belittled them.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/kentucky-governor-tells-county-clerks-do-your-jobs-or-get-fired/

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Kentucky governor tells county clerks: Do your jobs or get fired

Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has ordered the state’s county clerks to honor the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and allow same-sex couples to marry or to resign from their jobs.

According to WHAS-TV, Beshear issued a statement on Thursday addressing the concerns of County Clerk Casey Davis, but ordering all state employees to honor the court ruling.


“This morning, I advised Mr. Davis that I respect his right to his own personal beliefs regarding same-sex marriages. However, when he was elected, he took a constitutional oath to uphold the United States Constitution,” Beshear said in his statement.

The statement continued by saying that Beshear would not grant a special legislative session to discuss the matter as requested in a letter signed by 60 of the state’s county clerks:

According to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution now requires that governmental officials in Kentucky and elsewhere must recognize same-sex marriages as valid and allow them to take place. One of Mr. Davis’ duties as county court clerk is to issue marriage licenses, and the Supreme Court now says that the United States Constitution requires those marriage licenses to be issued regardless of gender. Mr. Davis’ own county attorney has advised him that his oath requires him to do so.

While there are two or three county court clerks still refusing to perform their duties, the rest of the county court clerks are complying with the law regardless of their personal beliefs. The courts and the voters will deal appropriately with the rest.

I will not be calling any special session on this topic and costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so. Any proposal about the process of issuing marriage licenses that meets the standards of the Supreme Court ruling should be carefully thought out and could be considered in the regular session in 2016.

Raw Story reported earlier this week on a confrontation between a county clerk and a gay couple in Rowan County, KY, who were not only denied a marriage license by County Clerk Kim Davis, but she also insulted and belittled them.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/kentucky-governor-tells-county-clerks-do-your-jobs-or-get-fired/

This Democrat idiot (redundant, I know) doesn't have the authority to fire him. County clerks, by definition, are employees of the county, not the state.

If I were the clerk, I'd tell him to go pound sand.

 

[Zaac]

This Democrat idiot (redundant, I know) doesn't have the authority to fire him. County clerks, by definition, are employees of the county, not the state.

If I were the clerk, I'd tell him to go pound sand.

Then the governor should use the Kentucky Attorney General to sue him and anyone associated with him not doing his job.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Then the governor should use the Kentucky Attorney General to sue him and anyone associated with him not doing his job.

On what grounds?

 

[Don]

And now these clerks have grounds for filing lawsuits under Equal Employment Opportunity infringements. Way to go, gov.

 

[Zaac]

On what grounds?

Under Ex parte Young, private parties can sue state officials in their official capacity to enforce federal laws and regulations, but only for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. Which would be an option against clerks who refuse to do their jobs.

State officials may also be sued for damages in their individual capacity for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights committed in the course of official duties.

 

[Zaac]

And now these clerks have grounds for filing lawsuits under Equal Employment Opportunity infringements. Way to go, gov.

A person can always file an EEOC lawsuit. This one would go nowhere because you can't create a reason to file such a lawsuit.

They took an oath to do a job, and as the governor said, part of that oath is to issue marriage licenses. If he cannot do the job for which he was hired, then he needs to resign, or face the consequences of a federal lawsuit.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Under Ex parte Young, private parties can sue state officials in their official capacity to enforce federal laws and regulations, but only for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. Which would be an option against clerks who refuse to do their jobs.

He's not a state official. He's a county official. Ex parte Young only applies to state officers.

What's more, Ex parte Young only applies to civil rights damages.

Ex parte Young was about a state trying to, pardon the pun, "railroad" the railroad. This case is not that. This case is that of someone telling a couple of perverts, "I'm sorry, you'll have to go to the next window".

 

[Zaac]

He's not a state official. He's a county official. Ex parte Young only applies to state officers.

What's more, Ex parte Young only applies to civil rights damages.

Perhaps you meant CIVIL damages because it is not limited to Civil rights violations.

And if that can't be used, then a Section 1983 suit will suffice.

Ex parte Young was about a state trying to, pardon the pun, "railroad" the railroad. This case is not that. This case is that of someone telling a couple of perverts, "I'm sorry, you'll have to go to the next window".

Ex Parte Young can still be used. And it may also be used to sue him individually apart from his government capacity.

 

[Don]

A person can always file an EEOC lawsuit. This one would go nowhere because you can't create a reason to file such a lawsuit.

They took an oath to do a job, and as the governor said, part of that oath is to issue marriage licenses. If he cannot do the job for which he was hired, then he needs to resign, or face the consequences of a federal lawsuit.

Again, religious accomodation is part of EEOC federal laws. So you can't say the lawsuit won't go anywhere...unless you expect activist judges to refuse to hear such lawsuits.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Perhaps you meant CIVIL damages because it is not limited to Civil rights violations.

Yes, it is.

And if that can't be used, then a Section 1983 suit will suffice.

No, it can't.

Section 1983 states:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

That is not what's happening here.

Ex Parte Young can still be used. And it may also be used to sue him individually apart from his government capacity.

No, I've already explained why it doesn't apply in this case.

Once again, neither law applies.

 

[Zaac]

Again, religious accomodation is part of EEOC federal laws. So you can't say the lawsuit won't go anywhere...unless you expect activist judges to refuse to hear such lawsuits.

It won't. Part of Civil Rights law demands that you not be a party to creating the situation to which you claim is discriminatory towards you.


A person can't decide to not do a job for which they were hired and then claim discrimination because he no longer wants to do his job.

He created the condition under which he'd be claiming discrimination.

He has no case.

 

[JonC]

Kentucky governor tells county clerks: Do your jobs or get fired

I wish the federal government had the same view as this Kentucky governor. If one has convictions that prohibit carrying out what a job requires, then one has convictions enough to quit, (I'm a bit tired of Christians taking a lukewarm stand for what they believe to be right. If you believe it is unchristian to do a certain task required by your position, then it is probably unchristian to accept pay for filling that position as well).

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I wish the federal government had the same view as this Kentucky governor. If one has convictions that prohibit carrying out what a job requires, then one has convictions enough to quit, (I'm a bit tired of Christians taking a lukewarm stand for what they believe to be right. If you believe it is unchristian to do a certain task required by your position, then it is probably unchristian to accept pay for filling that position as well).

I'm not sure "I surrender" qualifies as "conviction".

 

[JonC]

I'm not sure "I surrender" qualifies as "conviction".

I don't mean surrender. I mean stand up for truth without compromising. If you believe it is wrong to sell beer, then not tending bar is a much better option than working as a bar tender while refusing to sell beer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zaac]

I wish the federal government had the same view as this Kentucky governor. If one has convictions that prohibit carrying out what a job requires, then one has convictions enough to quit, (I'm a bit tired of Christians taking a lukewarm stand for what they believe to be right. If you believe it is unchristian to do a certain task required by your position, then it is probably unchristian to accept pay for filling that position as well).

And that is EXACTLY my take on this.

He was hired to do a job that requires him to issue marriage licenses. Not to marry someone, but to just ISSUE the piece of paper. If he doesn't want to do the job, then quit. Don't tell me that you need to pay your mortgage so you can't quit.

 

[JonC]

And that is EXACTLY my take on this.



He was hired to do a job that requires him to issue marriage licenses. Not to marry someone, but to just ISSUE the piece of paper. If he doesn't want to do the job, then quit. Don't tell me that you need to pay your mortgage so you can't quit.

Yep. I would probably quit, but just holding a job without doing it is not much different from theft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I don't mean surrender. I mean stand up for truth without compromising. If you believe it is wrong to sell beer, then not tending bar is a much better option than working as a bar tender while refusing to sell beer.

"I quit" isn't standing up for anything. It's surrendering.

No wonder America died. Too many people willing to just roll over.

 

[JonC]

"I quit" isn't standing up for anything. It's surrendering.



No wonder America died. Too many people willing to just roll over.

Not "I quit" but "I cannot in good conscience hold this position because I believe it would advocate sin. At one time in my life this would not have been a problem, but now it is because ....(gospel message followed by a display of your conviction - that is, a resignation). That's much better than "I won't do the job but pay me anyway."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Not "I quit" but "I cannot in good conscience hold this position because I believe it would advocate sin. At one time in my life this would not have been a problem, but now it is because ....(gospel message followed by a display of your conviction - that is, a resignation). That's much better than "I won't do the job but pay me anyway."

You go and run away if you like. I would prefer to stay and fight.