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

[BmorePat87]

(09-03-2015, 05:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why even deal with this woman?  its quite easy to go to another location get their government marriage and report the lady to the state.  

I often go to another county for my drivers license renewal.  Better customer service.

So if your government was infringing on your rights, you would simply go to a new jurisdiction with a different government?

You just praised Davis for standing up for her beliefs but suggested these men shouldn't fight for their rights...

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2015, 05:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You just praised Davis for standing up for her beliefs but suggested these men shouldn't fight for their rights...

Quality post, if you consider both have the right; which I do. I also think some of those affected by this feel similarly. I respect those that fought for their rights here, they were much more civil than the supporters on both sides.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-03-2015, 05:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm betting I didn't even make the immigration law post; dumb or otherwise. Enjoy recess.

Then I amend my statement to "your dumb 'strictly enforce all federal laws' post that was clearly meant to derail the thread with immigration law crap".

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-03-2015, 05:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quality post, if you consider both have the right; which I do. I also think some of those affected by this feel similarly. I respect those that fought for their rights here, they were much more civil than the supporters on both sides.

Then you only respect the same sex couple, because they were the only ones fighting for their lawful rights.

The "right" to deny others their rights is not a "right" at all. A concept which eternally escapes those of your ilk.

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2015, 06:02 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Then you only respect the same sex couple, because they were the only ones fighting for their lawful rights.

The "right" to deny others their rights is not a "right" at all. A concept which eternally escapes those of your ilk.

Yes, it was the same-sex couples. They even said they do not want to see this lady go to jail, even after all the trouble she put them through for not simply doing her job. All the clerk had was her perceived "right". Was she wrong? Absolutely. But I have seen many here on both sides suggest they respect someone for standing up for their beliefs regardless of the consequences.  

[CKwi88]

I wonder what the woman's endgame was here. Did she really think she had a chance? Did her lawyers convince her that it would work out? Does she think shes going to become some sort of martyr? 

It all seems like a waste all around. Loses a cushy job making 80k a year, gonna go to jail and get fined...it's all just kinda stupid. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-03-2015, 06:09 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I wonder what the woman's endgame was here. Did she really think she had a chance? Did her lawyers convince her that it would work out? Does she think shes going to become some sort of martyr? 

It all seems like a waste all around. Loses a cushy job making 80k a year, gonna go to jail and get fined...it's all just kinda stupid. 

She just wants to get interviewed on Hannity.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-03-2015, 05:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So if your government was infringing on your rights, you would simply go to a new jurisdiction with a different government?

You just praised Davis for standing up for her beliefs but suggested these men shouldn't fight for their rights...

If their government marriage mattered to them then they would just avoid her nonsense and went elsewhere. Then filed a complaint.

It's obvious all these dudes cared about was making a specticle of it all.

[Belsnickel]

(09-03-2015, 05:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why even deal with this woman? its quite easy to go to another location get their government marriage and report the lady to the state.

I often go to another county for my drivers license renewal. Better customer service.

Because of this:

(09-03-2015, 05:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This is between her boss and herself. Employees only get away with what the boss allows.

As an elected official, your boss is your constituents, the people you serve. The rules set are those set for your office. If your constituents see a problem with you following the rules then they take the actions available to them. These couples that filed this suit did just that. As constituents they are the employers of the county clerk, so they are in essence her bosses.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-03-2015, 06:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because of this:


As an elected official, your boss is your constituents, the people you serve. The rules set are those set for your office. If your constituents see a problem with you following the rules then they take the actions available to them. These couples that filed this suit did just that. As constituents they are the employers of the county clerk, so they are in essence her bosses.

She has a direct supervisor. And it's not us. That's all the essence anyone needs.

[Belsnickel]

(09-03-2015, 06:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: She has a direct supervisor. And it's not us. That's all the essence anyone needs.

Who is her direct supervisor, then, if not those within her electorate?

[*Nately120*]

(09-03-2015, 06:09 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I wonder what the woman's endgame was here. Did she really think she had a chance? Did her lawyers convince her that it would work out? Does she think shes going to become some sort of martyr? 

It all seems like a waste all around. Loses a cushy job making 80k a year, gonna go to jail and get fined...it's all just kinda stupid. 

She's going to get a book deal and about a million dollars worth of go-fund-me money.  Sarah Palin will probably prop her up in front of audiences to show that one martyr can go to jail for her religious "right" and she can be the Ceasar Chavez of right-wing Bible thumpers.

[CKwi88]

(09-03-2015, 06:13 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: She just wants to get interviewed on Hannity.

Right? That's the only thing that really makes sense in my mind. Is she thinking that she's gonna get some awesome book deal or highly paid TV appearances for this crap?

[StLucieBengal]

(09-03-2015, 06:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who is her direct supervisor, then, if not those within her electorate?

If she is elected then recall her. Or elect a new person next time. Pretty simple.

[*Nately120*]

(09-03-2015, 06:36 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Right? That's the only thing that really makes sense in my mind. Is she thinking that she's gonna get some awesome book deal or highly paid TV appearances for this crap?

Why wouldn't she?  Is there not an entire market of people who think this woman is acting in some sort of righteous manner?  They see her as being persecuted by a dangerously liberal majority that is abusing its power.  These are the same people who think Sarah Palin is an inspiring figure, so I bet they'll lap this one right up.  She's not as easy on the eyes as Sarah, but they can get something marketable out of her.

Just a quick google search and I see nearly 10,000 people liking a single "Support Kim Davis" page on Facebook.  She's national news and only 2 of the least popular nominees for President on the Republican ticket have made a point to say she should quit. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-03-2015, 06:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If she is elected then recall her. Or elect a new person next time. Pretty simple.

So...direct supervisor is?

There are many options for an employer to take action against an employee not doing their job. Depending upon contractual issues each situation can be different. The route they took as her constituents is a completely valid option.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-03-2015, 04:14 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: LOL...This was steering.

(09-03-2015, 04:33 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: You mean the one asking directly if a certain group agrees with the ruling?  The ruling being discussed?  Do I agree with his implied tone about those people...maybe not, however it is still on topic.  

The topic is not just about the woman in Kentucky.  How many people have commented that she is violating the law?  The violation of law is part of the discussion, and I merely highlighted how many people are condemning this woman to hell for violating the law by not issuing gay marriage licenses, but those same people are remarkably silent when Obama does the very same thing. 

I can't have a conversation on here about social spending without someone bringing up defense spending, which has nothing to do with that topic either.  I'm shocked that you haven't come to my defense and called the numerous posters out for them steering the conversation elsewhere.  

[BmorePat87]

(09-03-2015, 05:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quality post, if you consider both have the right; which I do. I also think some of those affected by this feel similarly. I respect those that fought for their rights here, they were much more civil than the supporters on both sides.

Both have the right to marry and freely practice their religion. It's clear that the men were having their rights denied. The law is pretty clear. What isn't clear is how you can argue that an agent of the government can use religion to justify violating the 14th amendment.

It's like saying that the 1st amendment protects a public school principal who tries to use his religion to justify not letting Asian kids in his school.

Remember, were talking about Kim Davis, elected public official acting in her role as county clerk, not Kim Davis, private citizen.

[BmorePat87]

(09-03-2015, 06:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If she is elected then recall her.   Or elect a new person next time.  Pretty simple.

Rule of law is a thing, right?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-03-2015, 07:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Both have the right to marry and freely practice their religion.  It's clear that the men were having their rights denied. The law is pretty clear. What isn't clear is how you can argue that an agent of the government can use religion to justify violating the 14th amendment.

It's like saying that the 1st amendment protects a public school principal who tries to use his religion to justify not letting Asian kids in his school.

Remember, were talking about Kim Davis, elected public official acting in her role as county clerk, not Kim Davis, private citizen.

I have to agree with you on this, especially the bolded. 

Kim Davis is welcome to her opinion on the matter, but she's not allowed to discriminate in her position based on her personal feelings.