Here We Go Again - Kentucky Clerk Refuses To Give Gay Couple Marriage License

[What Would Jesus Do?]

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.

Kim Davis has argued that her deeply held Christian beliefs prevent her from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional, Davis stopped issuing licenses to any couple, gay or straight.

Five couples sued her, and U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning on Wednesday ordered her to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.

He wrote that her refusal "likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents."

[more here] http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-refuses-gay-marriage

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is a good example of why we can't have same sex marriages. Both of them are named David. It's just too confusing - especially if one of them adopts the last name of his husband.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

GOP - Self-described believers in the Constitution and the rule of law -- right up until the point where they don't agree with it. BAU

 

[timinatoria]

GOP - Self-described believers in the Constitution and the rule of law -- right up until the point where they don't agree with it. BAU

So in your world.....

1 Kentucky clerk = the entire GOP.

That's fantastic logic.

 

[Jan Itor]

So in your world.....

1 Kentucky clerk = the entire GOP.

That's fantastic logic.

Hell, the GOP POTUS Hopeful from Ohio attended a gay wedding.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So in your world.....

1 Kentucky clerk = the entire GOP.

That's fantastic logic.

Most of the GOP candidates and leaders seem to share that view of so-called religious freedom. At least all those I've seen speak out on it do. And I note that you didn't say she was in the wrong. Do you think she's in the wrong?

I'm sure there must be reasonable Republicans. Somewhere. Not just in old history books. But if there are, they are pretty well hidden.

 

[gusto79]

Can a stripper refuse to strip because it is against her religious beliefs?

 

[timinatoria]

Most of the GOP candidates and leaders seem to share that view of so-called religious freedom. At least all those I've seen speak out on it do. And I note that you didn't say she was in the wrong. Do you think she's in the wrong?

I'm sure there must be reasonable Republicans. Somewhere. Not just in old history books. But if there are, they are pretty well hidden.

She's wrong.

List the GOP contenders who have publicly said people should defy the Supreme Court in not issuing marriage licenses. Not saying none have said that(Huckabee maybe), but we both know that is not the official position of the party.

 

[TexMichFan]

GOP - Self-described believers in the Constitution and the rule of law -- right up until the point where they don't agree with it. BAU

Actually this is going to be an interesting case. She stop issuing licenses to all couples not just gay couples.

Easy answer for governments is to put the whole process on line and cut out the county clerks or just do away with marriage licenses altogether.

 

[TexMichFan]

Can a stripper refuse to strip because it is against her religious beliefs?

Not and get any tips.

 

[Slenderson]

So in your world.....

1 Kentucky clerk = the entire GOP.

That's fantastic logic.

You must be new here. This is how things are done here. 1 person equals the entire political party/race/gender/sexual orientation/nationality/ etc..

 

[Joes Place]

Actually this is going to be an interesting case. She stop issuing licenses to all couples not just gay couples.

Easy answer for governments is to put the whole process on line and cut out the county clerks or just do away with marriage licenses altogether.

If she's refusing to perform her job altogether, the answer is pretty simple. Fire her for misconduct and hire someone who WILL hand over the paperwork to people.

Would you put up with a USDA inspector who is responsible for beef, chicken and pork facility inspections, and who refuses to go into the pork ones because he is Jewish or Muslim? Nope. Part of your job.

 

[UKGrad93]

She should do her job. If she does not want to do her job, then resign or be fired.

 

[BABiscuit]

I wonder when she stopped processing divorce paperwork.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

She's wrong.

List the GOP contenders who have publicly said people should defy the Supreme Court in not issuing marriage licenses. Not saying none have said that(Huckabee maybe), but we both know that is not the official position of the party.

Good for you for saying so.

Huckabee definitely. Also Cruz, I'm pretty sure. But don't be so narrow. A few (Rubio comes to mind) said they disagreed with the SCOTUS ruling but it was time to move on. That's being reasonable. A few (Bush comes to mind) said they disagreed and that avenues and laws should be tried to expand and reinforce "religious freedom." Several (Walker among them, I think) called for a constitutional amendment.

If even one of them said he agreed with the ruling, I missed it. Do you know of any who did?

 

[TexMichFan]

If she's refusing to perform her job altogether, the answer is pretty simple. Fire her for misconduct and hire someone who WILL hand over the paperwork to people.

Would you put up with a USDA inspector who is responsible for beef, chicken and pork facility inspections, and who refuses to go into the pork ones because he is Jewish or Muslim? Nope. Part of your job.

That would be an interesting case.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

So in your world.....

1 Kentucky clerk = the entire GOP.

That's fantastic logic.

You must be new here. This is how things are done here. 1 person equals the entire political party/race/gender/sexual orientation/nationality/ etc..

We refer to this as the IMCC rule.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

Would you put up with a USDA inspector who is responsible for beef, chicken and pork facility inspections, and who refuses to go into the pork ones because he is Jewish or Muslim? Nope. Part of your job.

Honestly it wouldn't see that USDA inspector win their court case. Just take a look at meat butchering in Europe. Muslims have used Halal certification to basically take over the industry.

 

[Joes Place]

That would be an interesting case.

Not really. You wouldn't be asking the inspector to 'eat' the pork; all activities are done with gloved hands and other PPE to avoid contamination, so you aren't asking him/her to 'touch' the pork, either. They'd simply be trying to claim 'pork is against my religious beliefs so I cannot inspect it', which is total crap.

Same thing with the court clerk - NO ONE is asking her to 'perform' a gay marriage religious service; no one is asking her to condone it or to engage in a gay marriage herself.

There IS no violation of her religious freedom, so just fire her and be done with it.

It'd be fun to see them hire a gay court clerk who refused to hand out marriage licenses to 'straight' couples and see how that went over...

 

[timinatoria]

Good for you for saying so.

Huckabee definitely. Also Cruz, I'm pretty sure. But don't be so narrow. A few (Rubio comes to mind) said they disagreed with the SCOTUS ruling but it was time to move on. That's being reasonable. A few (Bush comes to mind) said they disagreed and that avenues and laws should be tried to expand and reinforce "religious freedom." Several (Walker among them, I think) called for a constitutional amendment.

If even one of them said he agreed with the ruling, I missed it. Do you know of any who did?

I would be more than happy to eliminate Cruz and Huckabee from consideration. Otherwise, saying it is the GOP's position to defy the Supreme Court in this instance is a complete lie.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Not really. You wouldn't be asking the inspector to 'eat' the pork; all activities are done with gloved hands and other PPE to avoid contamination, so you aren't asking him/her to 'touch' the pork, either. They'd simply be trying to claim 'pork is against my religious beliefs so I cannot inspect it', which is total crap.

Same thing with the court clerk - NO ONE is asking her to 'perform' a gay marriage religious service; no one is asking her to condone it or to engage in a gay marriage herself.

There IS no violation of her religious freedom, so just fire her and be done with it.

It'd be fun to see them hire a gay court clerk who refused to hand out marriage licenses to 'straight' couples and see how that went over...

While I agree with your position on this, I think the argument I would make in their shoes is that God has told us not to eat pork. If I approve pork products that enables or facilitates the violation of God's will on this and therefore I must not do it.

What if a customer said "but I won't be eating the pork, I just feed it to my dogs."

Or suppose the gay couple to be married said "oh, we never have sex, so we aren't lying together in violation of God's laws."

Would the meat person or clerk still be able to use their religious freedom argument? Would they now say "I can't be sure of that, so I still have to refuse"?

What about guns? God says not to kill. If you can't be sure a gun won't be used to kill, how can you make one or sell one?

 

[naturalmwa]

I would be more than happy to eliminate Cruz and Huckabee from consideration. Otherwise, saying it is the GOP's position to defy the Supreme Court in this instance is a complete lie.

Is there any doubt in your mind that the 2016 GOP platform will oppose SSM the same way it currently does? So long as that is their position, it's hardly a "complete lie".

 

[theIowaHawk]

So not only was their the SCOTUS decision, but a Federal Judge specifically ordered them to and they refused? Good golly.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Is there any doubt in your mind that the 2016 GOP platform will oppose SSM the same way it currently does? So long as that is their position, it's hardly a "complete lie".

I think that's correct.

Let's be clear . . . there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you think a SCOTUS decision is bad or wrong and should be overturned. We lefties do that all the time about money=speech and corporations=people.

It's just that when you take such a position, you own it and should be prepared for the flack.

In this case, the GOP isn't wrong because they want to change the law. They are wrong because they think it's a good idea to change the law.

 

[Joes Place]

While I agree with your position on this, I think the argument I would make in their shoes is that God has told us not to eat pork. If I approve pork products that enables or facilitates the violation of God's will on this and therefore I must not do it.

What if a customer said "but I won't be eating the pork, I just feed it to my dogs."

Or suppose the gay couple to be married said "oh, we never have sex, so we aren't lying together in violation of God's laws."

Would the meat person or clerk still be able to use their religious freedom argument? Would they now say "I can't be sure of that, so I still have to refuse"?

What about guns? God says not to kill. If you can't be sure a gun won't be used to kill, how can you make one or sell one?

The simple answer is that while YOU have religious freedom to practice YOUR religion, imposing YOUR beliefs onto others who do not share your religious beliefs is a violation of THEIR religious beliefs and freedoms.

Christian Conservatives go bananas when someone brings up that 'Sharia Law is coming to the US'; well, imposing YOUR version of Christianity onto others is the same thing, and BOTH are completely unconstitutional. Period.

 

[TexMichFan]

Not really. You wouldn't be asking the inspector to 'eat' the pork; all activities are done with gloved hands and other PPE to avoid contamination, so you aren't asking him/her to 'touch' the pork, either. They'd simply be trying to claim 'pork is against my religious beliefs so I cannot inspect it', which is total crap.

Same thing with the court clerk - NO ONE is asking her to 'perform' a gay marriage religious service; no one is asking her to condone it or to engage in a gay marriage herself.

There IS no violation of her religious freedom, so just fire her and be done with it.

It'd be fun to see them hire a gay court clerk who refused to hand out marriage licenses to 'straight' couples and see how that went over...

Just because you don't like something does not make it less interesting.

Abercrombie and Finch just lost a case where they refused to hire a muslin women because she would violate their dress code with her head scarf. In this case an exception had to be made based on her religious beliefs.

 

[timinatoria]

Is there any doubt in your mind that the 2016 GOP platform will oppose SSM the same way it currently does? So long as that is their position, it's hardly a "complete lie".

I think most GOP candidates are happy the Supremes took this off the table for them. Most of the party either supports SSM or isn't that upset by it. The far religious right will be upset, but most of the party is (thankfully) ready to move on from the issue altogether.

And no, the GOP platform will not endorse defying the Supreme Court. So yes, the post I originally referred to is a lie.

 

[naturalmwa]

In this case, the GOP isn't wrong because they want to change the law. They are wrong because they think it's a good idea to change the law.

I really want to understand this point, but I'm having a hard time. Can you break it down?

 

[naturalmwa]

I think most GOP candidates are happy the Supremes took this off the table for them. Most of the party either supports SSM or isn't that upset by it. The far religious right will be upset, but most of the party is (thankfully) ready to move on from the issue altogether.

And no, the GOP platform will not endorse defying the Supreme Court. So yes, the post I originally referred to is a lie.

We will see, I'm betting you are proven wrong and hoping you are proven right. Call me skeptical of the GOP's SSM credibility.

 

[TexMichFan]

I really want to understand this point, but I'm having a hard time. Can you break it down?

Funny usually you understand the point WWJD is trying to make and I don't but in this case I do and you don't.

Looks to me is saying that there is nothing wrong in trying to change a law along the lines of how the gay community did but that in this case they are wrong on moral grounds for trying to.

 

[Joes Place]

Just because you don't like something does not make it less interesting.

Abercrombie and Finch just lost a case where they refused to hire a muslin women because she would violate their dress code with her head scarf. In this case an exception had to be made based on her religious beliefs.

This is a case of her observing her own religious custom, which has no effect on the customers she is expected to serve.

If she had claimed 'religious freedom' in not providing sales support/service to Jews or Christians, because she is Muslim, she would not have won the case. That is the difference here.

 

[bagdropper]

I would be willing to bet that 75% of GOP's in Congress don't give a flying fart personally about gay marriage.

It's their voters that do.

And as I've said before and will continue to say, if dems were in the exact same quandary (their voters wanting something they don't really care about either way, in the face of all common decency and sense), they would feel the exact same way - meaning they would bow to their voters and support whatever they tell him to support.

Because if they don't they're out of a job and out of the gravy train.

It really isn't that hard to figure out, folks.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I really want to understand this point, but I'm having a hard time. Can you break it down?

It's OK to want to change a law.

It's not the desire to "fix" a law that's problematic; in this case it's the fix itself that's problematic.

The change they want would give special rights to religious folks (Christians mainly) to discriminate against people in public, regulatory, commercial, and employment interactions any time they can come up with some religious reason to do so.

We defend people from discrimination in this nation; we don't carve out special rights to discriminate.

We keep religion separate from law and government in this nation. We don't designate religious exceptions to our laws or let religious people in government act according to different rules than others are required to follow.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think most GOP candidates are happy the Supremes took this off the table for them. Most of the party either supports SSM or isn't that upset by it. The far religious right will be upset, but most of the party is (thankfully) ready to move on from the issue altogether.

And no, the GOP platform will not endorse defying the Supreme Court. So yes, the post I originally referred to is a lie.

They SHOULD be happy. And some seem to be. If most of them had reacted like Rubio did, they'd be in better shape.

Which should not be taken as an endorsement of Rubio. But he got that one right. He also did pretty well in the debate, imo.

 

[TexMichFan]

This is a case of her observing her own religious custom, which has no effect on the customers she is expected to serve.

If she had claimed 'religious freedom' in not providing sales support/service to Jews or Christians, because she is Muslim, she would not have won the case. That is the difference here.

I understand the difference in your argument. My point is just that a religious exemption was made where someone was able to practice part of their faith in a job related situation.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

I'm sure there must be reasonable Republicans. Somewhere. Not just in old history books. But if there are, they are pretty well hidden.

 

[TJ8869]

Most of the GOP candidates and leaders seem to share that view of so-called religious freedom. At least all those I've seen speak out on it do. And I note that you didn't say she was in the wrong. Do you think she's in the wrong?

I'm sure there must be reasonable Republicans. Somewhere. Not just in old history books. But if there are, they are pretty well hidden.

She's a public servant, duly sworn to serve the entire public. She should hold her nose and cross her fingers and stamp the license.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

She's a public servant, duly sworn to serve the entire public. She should hold her nose and cross her fingers and stamp the license.

Or quit and find a job she isn't conflicted to carry out properly.

I've been trying to imagine some scenario where I wouldn't agree with this point. I think there are some. We'd probably call them some sort of civil disobedience, and argue about whether it's appropriate to engage in civil disobedience from the "inside" rather than quitting and doing it from the outside.

The problem with that argument is that if you quit, then you aren't in a position to stop the "bad thing."

Let me throw out an awful hypothetical. Suppose you were a clerk in Nazi Germany involved in approving rail transport of people. Suppose you came to realize that some of the "shipments" you were authorizing were transporting Jews to concentration camps.

I suspect you could find less fraught examples in US history dealing with, say, Native Americans or blacks. Or possibly even our own internment camps. Perhaps not in the same league as the Holocaust (although some examples come to mind), but still probably plenty of justification for on-the-job civil disobedience.

 

[ChrisVarick]

I wonder when she stopped processing divorce paperwork.

I wonder if she eats lobster?

 

[thewop]

Not and get any tips.

That's discrimination! Not to pay a stripper for not stripping because it's against her religious beliefs. Despicable!