SCOTUS orders thrice-divorced KY county clerk to issue marriage license

[StLucieBengal]

Not sure what her past sins have to do with any of this ....

She refused to do her job. Unfortunately it's a gov job and she should follow the law. But I respect her right to stand for principle in her own way.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-03-2015, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So was that a No; you didn't consider his post "steering"?

It was mean but not steering.  Are you saying it was?   That it was not on topic simply because he asked in a not so nice tone if a group of people agreed with the ruling?

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2015, 04:45 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: It was mean but not steering.  Are you saying it was?   That it was not on topic simply because he asked in a not so nice tone if a group of people agreed with the ruling?

Of course it was, unless you could show me where Republicans or anyone else in this thread felt she had the right to not do her job.


But that's just my opinion, yours obviously differs and felt that the person responding to it was steering.

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/

Quote:SHLAND, Ky. — Five of six deputies in the office of a Kentucky county clerk found in contempt of court and jailed Thursday for her refusal to issue marriage licenses in wake of the Supreme Court decision to allow gays to wed say they will process the paperwork starting Friday.

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning had placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals ready to take her to Boyd County jail if her office had not complied, saying fines were not enough and allowing her to defy the order would create a "ripple effect."

"Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense," said Bunning, who said he has deeply held religious beliefs as does Davis. "Oaths mean things."

Davis, who was tearful at times, testified that she could not obey Bunning's order because God's law trumps the court. The sixth of her deputies who also said he would not issue licenses is her son.

"My conscience will not allow it," Davis said. "God's moral law convicts me and conflicts with my duties."

Bunning warned other clerks — at least two other counties in Kentucky also shuttered their marriage-license operations for all couples — that his order applied to them, too. Five of Davis' six deputy clerks told Bunning in an afternoon hearing that they would issue licenses, WOWK-TV, Charleston-Huntington, W.Va., reported; the holdout was Davis' son, who works in his mother's office.

As word of Davis' arrest became known in the crowd that numbered more than 100 protesters outside the courthouse, cheers and chants erupted.

"I'm glad the court sent a strong message that you have to follow the law," said Timothy Love of Kentucky, one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage.

Those supporting Davis decried the decision, with one man falling on the courthouse steps to pray.

"It's very unjust," said the Rev. Randy Smith of Morehead, Ky., where Davis' office is located. "Religious liberty has been trampled on today."

Lawyers inside the courtroom with the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, which is representing Davis, argued that she met a legal test for protection under federal law because her convictions created a "factual inability" to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

But lawyers for the couples repeatedly pressed Davis to admit that her policy is the result of a personal choice.

Bunning agreed and said fines for Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure that she would follow his orders. He also raised concerns that supporters, whom she said are raising money for her, would pay any fine he levied against her, hampering its force.

"I don't do this lightly," he said. "It's necessary in this case."

Chris Hartman, head of the Fairness Campaign advocacy group, said he thought the judge would levy fines but hoped that jailing Davis would act as a strong deterrent for others who might refuse to follow the law.

Some thought the move could turn Davis into a martyr among gay-marriage opponents.

Though Davis was tearful as she testified how she came to Christ in 2011 following the death of her mother-in-law, she appeared straight faced as marshals led her out of the courtroom. When previously asked her beliefs, she has said she is an Apostolic Christian.

Outside, each side continued to clash.

Ashley Hogue, a secretary from Ashland, held a sign outside the courthouse that read, "Kim Davis does not speak for my religious beliefs."

"This is so ugly," she said, wiping away tears. "I was unprepared for all the hate."

Demonstrator Charles Ramey, a retired steelworker, downplayed the vitrol.

"We don't hate these people," he said. "We wouldn't tell them how to get saved if we hated them."


Davis has been resisting suggestions that her deputies could issue the licenses because her name appears on the certificates. But the crux of the contempt case against her involves Kentucky law, which, unlike some states' laws, requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses.

When four couples — two gay and two straight — filed suit against Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the June Supreme Court ruling, she argued that they could be served in other Kentucky counties. Bunning, son of GOP Sen. Jim Bunning who retired from the U.S. Senate in 2011, told her she or her deputies must issue the licenses but stayed his order until this past Monday as she filed an appeal with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

When that stay expired, appeals court judges declined to renew it. And when she asked the Supreme Court to weigh in Monday, justices in Washington refused.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-03-2015, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it was, unless you could show me where Republicans or anyone else in this thread felt she had the right to not do her job.


But that's just my opinion, yours obviously differs and felt that the person responding to it was steering.

Maybe not so much steering as a complete failure.

[GMDino]

(09-03-2015, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it was, unless you could show me where Republicans or anyone else in this thread felt she had the right to not do her job.


But that's just my opinion, yours obviously differs and felt that the person responding to it was steering.

(09-03-2015, 04:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not sure what her past sins have to do with any of this ....  

She refused to do her job.   Unfortunately it's a gov job and she should follow the law.  But I respect her right to stand for principle in her own way.

[BmorePat87]

(09-03-2015, 03:33 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm not a Republican, but I'm in favor of this.

Now that we're all feigning outrage over government officials not enforcing law, when can we expect Obama to be charged for not enforcing immigration laws?  When will sanctuary cities face repercussions for ignoring federal law?

I keep seeing people bring this up. It's not a question of her not enforcing the law. She's refusing to comply with the law and denying rights to citizens. She refused to comply with a court order telling her to.

In the case of a President enforcing the law, they have a lot of room in how they want to enforce it. If a court decided that the way they were enforcing it was unconstitutional then the President would be required to revise how they are enforcing it

[*bfine32*]

GMDino Wrote:I got nothing

Two things:

1. He stated she must do her job.

2. This post came long after the "non-steering" post.

But enough. I just thought it was hypocritical to call someone out for "steering" especially given the context of the post they were responding to.

BTW, you never did answer: Don't you believe all Federal Laws should be strictly enforced?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-03-2015, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it was, unless you could show me where Republicans or anyone else in this thread felt she had the right to not do her job.


But that's just my opinion, yours obviously differs and felt that the person responding to it was steering.

You're right. In the future I will avoid asking on topic questions to fellow board members, because it's hurtful in "just your opinion".

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-03-2015, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it was, unless you could show me where Republicans or anyone else in this thread felt she had the right to not do her job.


But that's just my opinion, yours obviously differs and felt that the person responding to it was steering.

Wait what?  This was a question asking if they agreed with the ruling that we are talking about.  IF it was steering it was steering to the topic at hand.  If I ask you a direct question about the ruling that would be steering?  No.  Then asking a group of people the same would not be either.  It's fully within the topic of discussion.  You just don't like the tone.  I agree with you there.

[GMDino]

(09-03-2015, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Two things:

1. I learned hot to "fix" quotes

2. No one cares

He said she should...but he respects "her right to stand for principle in her own way."


What do you think "her own way" was?

Not doing her job!  Correct!

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-03-2015, 04:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Maybe not so much steering as a complete failure.

This too

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2015, 04:59 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: You're right. In the future I will avoid asking on topic questions to fellow board members, because it's hurtful in "just your opinion".

Your post had zero effect on me; hurtful or otherwise; I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing someone of "steering" by responding to a post that designed to do just that; as no one here has disagreed with this ruling.  

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-03-2015, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But enough. I just thought it was hypocritical to call someone out for "steering" especially given the context of the post they were responding to.

I'm sure you make these type of mistakes all the time.  No problem here.  Glad to clear it up for you.

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2015, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: He said she should...but he respects "her right to stand for principle in her own way."


What do you think "her own way" was?

Not doing her job!  Correct!

I guess you just have a hard time reading where he said she should do her job. He just felt she has a right to stand for her principles; as do I.  However, she must pay the consequences if she failed to perform the duties required of her.

BTW, you never answered......

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-03-2015, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your post had zero effect on me; hurtful or otherwise; I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing someone of "steering" by responding to a post that designed to do just that; as no one here has disagreed with this ruling.  

Sorry for steering to the topic of the thread, which you equate with steering to a topic foreign to the thread. Next time I'll make sure to include the words Obama and/or Planned Parenthood to make it more palatable for your tastes.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-03-2015, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: He said she should...but he respects "her right to stand for principle in her own way."


What do you think "her own way" was?

Not doing her job!  Correct!

We all have the right to complete our jobs in the way we see fit.

Respecting someone's personal choice is not saying they are correct or incorrect. This is between her boss and herself. Employees only get away with what the boss allows.

My assistant would wear trainers everyday if I didn't endorce the dress code.

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2015, 05:08 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Sorry for steering to the topic of the thread, which you equate with steering to a topic foreign to the thread.    Next time I'll make sure to include the words Obama and/or Planned Parenthood to make it more palatable for your tastes.

...or you could just use Republican to keep it on topic

[GMDino]

(09-03-2015, 05:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We all have the right to complete our jobs in the way we see fit.    

Respecting someone's personal choice is not saying they are correct or incorrect.    This is between her boss and herself.   Employees only get away with what the boss allows.  

My assistant would wear trainers everyday if I didn't endorce the dress code.

A lot of words to say nothing.

Do you support her "her right to stand for principle in her own way" or not? 

Because "her way" was to not do a part of her job that was required by law.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-03-2015, 05:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...or you could just use Republican to keep it on topic

I think it's already been fairly well explained to you by another user what the difference is between my post and the other guy's. Your failure to comprehend is wholly your fault, and unless you're going to pay me, I'm not interested in replacing him as your tutor.