Kentucky clerk refused have same sex marriages license!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anti-gay marriage court clerk Kim Davis RELEASED from jail after five days just as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz show up to meet her
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Mike-Huckabee-Ted-Cruz-planned-meet-jail.html

Jailed Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Freed by Judge
http://www.people.com/article/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-freed

Kim Davis Released from Jail After Serving Time for Refusing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...er-refusing-same-sex-marriage-licenses-201589

Kim Davis released, but judge bars her from withholding marriage licenses
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html
 
I wonder if her name is no longer being written on same sex marriages
licenses . If it's she most likely will try to stop the licenses from being issues again.
 
Foxrac said:
No, that's not true and the US was founded by colonists who against religious aggression and they don't want to belong to Church of England, also they wrote First Amendment that banned the government from sponsor or endorse the religious organizations. The Christianity isn't mention in US Constitution and First Amendment guaranteed everyone to practice their own religion or spirits.

Religious people stayed out of government until mid 1970s - known as Moral Majority and integrate of government and religion is against the traditional Baptist principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

In old time, most republicans were libertarians and they don't care about your religion.
Click to expand...

They're correct but I think you may mis-concept as church organization. It's people whom are under influence with love. Without these, there is no United States then there is no Big Bang theory born, no Newton's law, there is no children adoption, etc.

Only the wrong people who abuse the religious that cause people chao.
 
Foxrac said:
No, that's not true and the US was founded by colonists who against religious aggression and they don't want to belong to Church of England, also they wrote First Amendment that banned the government from sponsor or endorse the religious organizations. The Christianity isn't mention in US Constitution and First Amendment guaranteed everyone to practice their own religion or spirits.

Religious people stayed out of government until mid 1970s - known as Moral Majority and integrate of government and religion is against the traditional Baptist principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

In old time, most republicans were libertarians and they don't care about your religion.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers of america whre christians. Almost everyone from europe was then, many many were persecuted for their flavoir of christinity, that wasnt of the standard power in england..ie church of england...so they were different denominations....can you cite more then one name on the constitution that was of someone who was not a christian?
Washington the first prez certainly was (he was also a trator too).., they were masons too, and at that time athiests where not permitted to be masons,
Just list the nsmes of the avowed athiests who were founding fathers or who where not christians...most if not all people at that time were christian of some sort, if they were white from europe, allso one of the big issues of the american revolution was the quebec act..the colonist found reprehensible as it gave equal (almost) rights to catholics. There was allot of outrage on this throughout the thieteen colonies.......the founding colonists were rabid protestant christians of various flavoirs..to the ones around today...the colonist of those times who liked to tar and feather those they dissgreed with ie loylists would be considered more extreme then the wackiest westboro babtist
They werent pagan, or buddhist, or muslem, or soviet athiests...obviously they were of the dominant religion of that time..
Not the dominant flavour, flavours were different...
But that doesnt mean they werent
But we cant discuss religion...
History is very clear though
If you cared to look.
Just cite the names should be easy peanuts of those who wrote and signed the founding docs, thatvwere avowed non christians.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
I wonder if her name is no longer being written on same sex marriages
licenses . If it's she most likely will try to stop the licenses from being issues again.
Click to expand...

She stated she would issue them...if her name wasnt on them..
 
sara1981 said:
Anti-gay marriage court clerk Kim Davis RELEASED from jail after five days just as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz show up to meet her
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Mike-Huckabee-Ted-Cruz-planned-meet-jail.html

Jailed Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Freed by Judge
http://www.people.com/article/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-freed

Kim Davis Released from Jail After Serving Time for Refusing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...er-refusing-same-sex-marriage-licenses-201589

Kim Davis released, but judge bars her from withholding marriage licenses
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html
Click to expand...


Interssting thats shes a dem...(traditional party of slavery and jim crow), and the judge who sent her in is a republican that when bush nominated him csused some stir, in the bar associations as he was 35 and somw felt he wasnt fit for the bench..his fwther is a fanous basball pitcher.
 
PowerON said:
They're correct but I think you may mis-concept as church organization. It's people whom are under influence with love. Without these, there is no United States then there is no Big Bang theory born, no Newton's law, there is no children adoption, etc.

Only the wrong people who abuse the religious that cause people chao.
Click to expand...

:ugh:

hoichi said:
The founding fathers of america whre christians. Almost everyone from europe was then, many many were persecuted for their flavoirof christinity, that wasnt of the standsrd power inengland..ie church of england...so they were differenr denominations....can you cite more then one name on the constitution that was of someone who was not a christian?
Washington certainly was, they were masons too, and at that time athiests where not permitted to be masons,
Just list the nsmes of the avowed athiests who were founding fsthers or who where not christians...most if not all people at that time were christian of some sort, if they were white from europe, allso one of the big issues of the americn revolution was the quebec act..the colonist found reprehensible as it gave equal (almost) rights to catholics. There was allot of outrage on this throughout the thieteen colonies.......the founding colonists were rabid protestant christians of various flavoirs..
They werent pagan, or buddhist, or muslem, or soviet athiests...obviously they were of the dominant religion of that time..
The flavours were different...
But that doesnt mean they werent
But we cant discuss religion...
History is very clear.though
If you cared to look
Click to expand...

US Constitution doesn't mention the Christianity and First Amendment has religious freedom - it means you are free to practice the religion or spirits, even atheist or agnostic.

The Christianity isn't part of official religion in US.
 
Foxrac said:
:ugh:



US Constitution doesn't mention the Christianity and First Amendment has religious freedom - it means you are free to practice the religion or spirits, even atheist or agnostic.

The Christianity isn't part of official religion in US.
Click to expand...

I undertand that foxrac...im not stating it does
Im just stating those who wrote it were christians..as almost every damn white from europe or here at that time was.

I dont know where the confusion is here.
Anyway...all cool
 
'God's people have rallied': Anti-gay marriage court clerk Kim Davis is released from jail to cheering fans - but is warned she must not stand in the way of same-sex unions
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Mike-Huckabee-Ted-Cruz-planned-meet-jail.html

Kentucky clerk who fought gay marriage is released from jail
http://www.katv.com/story/29981867/jailed-clerk-who-fought-gay-marriage-is-ordered-released

Ky. clerk Kim Davis thanks supporters on release from jail
http://www.thv11.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/08/kim-davis-released-jail/71882274/
 
81bec27013bb5be33c10ec9d34ab78b5.jpg
 
Alright..
Seems the issue now is dead. Considering she is out, and licenses are being issued..
The vegan post isnt too far of the mark..
Ive known a.fair many vegans who are rather radical and authoritarian.
Havnt met an amish though.....seen them.and have met menenoties...which are hsrd to tell apart..
Mmmm
 
The above pictures actually, IMO, illustrate a good point. Can everyone in public work now refuse to do something because it goes against their beliefs? A line has to be drawn somewhere. I'm not sure I agree that jail was the best sentence for this clerk (she could have just been sent home and ordered not to report to work until she was ready to comply, I think the effect would've been about the same.)
 
AlleyCat said:
The above pictures actually, IMO, illustrate a good point. Can everyone in public work now refuse to do something because it goes against their beliefs? A line has to be drawn somewhere. I'm not sure I agree that jail was the best sentence for this clerk (she could have just been sent home and ordered not to report to work until she was ready to comply, I think the effect would've been about the same.)
Click to expand...

What is the plm with the freedom of the individual to refuse to do something, as long as that individual doesnt prevent others from doing it.?
 
hoichi said:
What is the plm with the freedom of the individual to refuse to do something, as long as that individual doesnt prevent others from doing it.?
Click to expand...

That's not how public service is supposed to work. (I was referring to public service. Refusal to do something at home with friends is an entirely different thing.)

In this case, this clerk was refusing ANY marriage licenses to be issued because her name was on all of them. So her, as an individual, had an impact on everyone and all employees in her office. Her own son had to bow out of work because he wouldn't comply either.
 
AlleyCat said:
That's not how public service is supposed to work. (I was referring to public service. Refusal to do something at home with friends is an entirely different thing.)

In this case, this clerk was refusing ANY marriage licenses to be issued because her name was on all of them. So her, as an individual, had an impact on everyone and all employees in her office. Her own son had to bow out of work because he wouldn't comply either.
Click to expand...

I understand that.
But if this clerk didnt refuse the office to issue them, but instead. As i posted just refused but allowed others, there shouldnt be a plm with that.
Freedom on both ends is respected.
The freedom to marry who you want
The freedom for the individual for what ever their faith is, to not participate in it, if thats their wish.
Compelling people to go against their faith on fear of lossing ines job or jaik is just as contrary to freedom as preventing individuals in marrying who they wish
I see no plms at alk respecting freedom both ways...
Its being innclusive to all.
 
hoichi said:
I understand that.
But if this clerk didnt refuse the office to issue them, but instead. As i posted just refused but allowed others, there shouldnt be a plm with that.
Freedom on both ends is respected.
The freedom to marry who you want
The freedom for the individual for what ever their faith is, to not participate in it, if thats their wish.
Compelling people to go against their faith on fear of lossing ines job or jaik is just as contrary to freedom as preventing individuals in marrying who they wish
I see no plms at alk respecting freedom both ways...
Its being innclusive to all.
Click to expand...

Evidently you didn't read the whole story from the beginning. Because she refused to have her name on any marriage license (which is automatic because she's the county clerk,) (and whether GLBT or not), NO marriage licenses were issued. Her county employees could not issue any AT ALL. So yes, she did prevent her office from issuing any. Her refusal affected all county employees in her office.
 
AlleyCat said:
Evidently you didn't read the whole story from the beginning. Because she refused to have her name on any marriage license (which is automatic because she's the county clerk,) (and whether GLBT or not), NO marriage licenses were issued. Her county employees could not issue any AT ALL. So yes, she did prevent her office from issuing any. Her refusal affected all county employees in her office.
Click to expand...

Evedently i wasnt clear, and i apologieze for that.
I have read the entire thread, and am fimilair with the case.of this clerk.
I was asking a hypothetical.
As in
"IF" this ckerk simply refused herself from signing, and instead just had others sign it. Then what is the issue? (I know there are other legal delemas, but suppose the above was possible)
The service sought is granted. (Marriege lisences)
Individual freedom not to participate is also repsected.(her refusal)
She didnt do that.
And my first statment wasnt so much just soley totally focused on her. The issue is bigger then her In my eyes. My statement was more wide
Im asking
What is the issue if an individual refuses theirself, of participating in a service they hold to be contrary to their faith (what ever that is), yet does not interfere with the actuall issue at hand (the issue of the licenses)
Freesom both ways is respected
Im asking why the above is an issue then if the service sought is granted.
Your first post was more.general asking if any one now can refuse a public service, so my reply was just as general.
 
Ok, I get your point from a general point-of view.

But that brings me to another dilemma, that if anyone can refuse a service, and especially in public service, because of their own personal dilemma or opinion, should they be in public service then? That sounds discriminatory on my part, but I would hate to be refused service because someone had an issue with me and I have to go elsewhere, even its just to another counter and have to start all over again, whereas the person behind me in line doesn't.
 
I understand the point of view too but here's the thing...

If PART of the job duties is to issue marriage licenses (or any kind of licenses)... yet the person will refuse to do so because of some belief- isn't that abandonment of job duties? If I were working as a QA Tester and refused to test applications that were say connected to military or something because I don't believe that the military deserves such things (hypothetical people.. hypothetical- I support the military) I'd get my ass fired on the spot- even if there are other testers in the department that can test it all. With this woman, she isn't fired and nothing is being done partly because she is a public servant and was elected to her position.

As for 'her name not being on the licenses'- I find it interesting that if the county does bend to this and changes everything just for her that seems a bit extreme too. I don't know what every other county clerk office and their marriage license looks like across the US but seriously it seems like Ms Davis wants to have things HER way rather than for the people of the county she was sworn to serve. Her beliefs are HERS and shouldn't affect how she serves the county.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top