Kim Davis

#76
#76
volfanhill said:
They got those licenses becuase she was not there to say no. I hope she does comply once released. We shall see. I have no clue why she is being released. I would assume she either told the judge she would comply or the judge is giving her the opportunity to uphold the courts ruling. The citizen should not have to conform to her beliefs, and go elsewhere, when the court has determined she is required to issue the license.
Click to expand...

As I understand she is being released because in the end there is no one who wanted a license that hasn't been able to get one.

That is at least part of the reason.
 
#78
#78
hog88 said:
I don't think judges should have the power to jail someone indefinitely without going through normal hearing/bail and grand jury proceedings.
Click to expand...

Its an interesting debate hog. I dont know where I stand to be honest. The court needs tools to force compliance, however at what point does the person in contempt deserve a trial determining if they are in fact in contempt?
 
#79
#79
Septic said:
The logic is that some religious support group would pony up the dough instantly, as noted by the judge. The contempt of court order is a tool used to get people to comply with judicial orders.
Click to expand...

Why not house arrest or bar her from her premises?

In the end, the goal is to simply remove her from the process.

The release order says she can't stop her clerks from doing so and if she does then she'll face "sanctions".

Placing her in jail indefinitely with no bail seems over the top as a way to solve the problem.
 
#80
#80
hog88 said:
I don't think judges should have the power to jail someone indefinitely without going through normal hearing/bail and grand jury proceedings.
Click to expand...


They wouldn't, but if she continues to defy court orders, she can be held in contempt and jailed, again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
Religious liberties only apply if you are a muslim flight attendant...or a muslim..or an atheist (because they are a religion now).

I'm going to start my own religion. We HAVE to drink while working and smoke weed after work with a 2 hour nap inserted into our 5 hour work day. I'm working on the specifics at the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#83
#83
volinbham said:
As I understand she is being released because in the end there is no one who wanted a license that hasn't been able to get one.

That is at least part of the reason.
Click to expand...

The moment she stops issuing licenses again she will end up right back where she was. I hope she has decided to allow her staff to issue the licenses and she has chosen not to do any herself. That is the part those who are supporting her leave out. She doesnt havent to do a single one. She can allow her staff, or not prevent them from, isssuing them all day long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#85
#85
volinbham said:
Really?

You've compared her to Westboro. I've seen others compare her to Osama bin Laden and calling her an American Taliban who wants to create a theocracy in the US.

All of those are exaggerations focusing on her religious views that are in turn used to justify trashing her and calling for any number of bad things to happen to her as "karma".
Click to expand...

Really.

If she wants to invoke her belief system as a rational to discriminate or defy judicial orders then that belief system is fair game. I don't believe all religious people are as bigoted as her but it's not a stretch to lump her bullsh\tery in with that of Westboro.

Taliban and Bin Laden references are nonsensical. To the best of my knowledge, she only believes they are going to burn in hell - she doesn't want to behead them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#86
#86
Christie said something on Fox today to the tune of "if this violates her religious views she should be moved to another position where they won't be violated".

F that. If you refuse to do your job you should be fired. Dont want to give gays marriage licenses? Fired. Don't want to serve alcohol? Fired. A job is not a privilege.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#87
#87
FLVOL_79 said:
Religious liberties only apply if you are a muslim flight attendant...or a muslim..or an atheist (because they are a religion now).

I'm going to start my own religion. We HAVE to drink while working and smoke weed after work with a 2 hour nap inserted into our 5 hour work day. I'm working on the specifics at the moment.
Click to expand...

you left out the war on christmas...cant leave that out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#89
#89
volinbham said:
Why not house arrest or bar her from her premises?

In the end, the goal is to simply remove her from the process.

The release order says she can't stop her clerks from doing so and if she does then she'll face "sanctions".

Placing her in jail indefinitely with no bail seems over the top as a way to solve the problem.
Click to expand...



No, the goal is to get her to obey the Supreme Court's clear, on point ruling. It is not debatable, and simply removing her from the process does not solve the underlying issue, which is her refusal to obey a specific decision of the Supreme Court. It cannot be permitted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#90
#90
volfanhill said:
The moment she stops issuing licenses again she will end up right back where she was. I hope she has decided to allow her staff to issue the licenses and she has chosen not to do any herself. That is the part those who are supporting her leave out. She doesnt havent to do a single one. She can allow her staff, or not prevent them from, isssuing them all day long.
Click to expand...

As I've said repeatedly she is wrong and should not be in the job if she won't comply.

Sounds like there may be an accommodation coming where her name is removed and no name is used in it's place - just the county.

Rand Paul suggesting that Religious Freedom Act would have allowed above as well as state law. (allow the accommodation).
 
#91
#91
FLVOL_79 said:
Christie said something on Fox today to the tune of "if this violates her religious views she should be moved to another position where they won't be violated".

F that. If you refuse to do your job you should be fired. Dont want to give gays marriage licenses? Fired. Don't want to serve alcohol? Fired. A job is not a privilege.
Click to expand...

Companies are allowed to make accomidations. The crux of the issue with flight attendant is that she was told when hired that the company was willing to do this for her. Whether thats true or not, I dont know, but thats why they are in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
No, the goal is to get her to obey the Supreme Court's clear, on point ruling. It is not debatable, and simply removing her from the process does not solve the underlying issue, which is her refusal to obey a specific decision of the Supreme Court. It cannot be permitted.
Click to expand...

It does address the issue since she is the only one doing this.

Jailing her doesn't accomplish what you suggest any more than finding other ways to keep her out of the process. Jailing is simply one method to remove her and the other methods I suggest would do the same.
 
#93
#93
FLVOL_79 said:
Religious liberties only apply if you are a muslim flight attendant...or a muslim..or an atheist (because they are a religion now).

I'm going to start my own religion. We HAVE to drink while working and smoke weed after work with a 2 hour nap inserted into our 5 hour work day. I'm working on the specifics at the moment.
Click to expand...

The Muslim flight attendant wasn't forcing the airline or even her plane not to sell alcohol due to her belief. That's the only way those examples could be remotely similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#94
#94
Septic said:
The Muslim flight attendant wasn't forcing the airline or even her plane not to sell alcohol due to her belief. That's the only way those examples could be remotely similar.
Click to expand...

There were some cases of Muslim cab drivers not allowing people to bring alcohol in the cab and I believe people were supporting that right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#95
#95
lawgator1 said:
No, the goal is to get her to obey the Supreme Court's clear, on point ruling. It is not debatable, and simply removing her from the process does not solve the underlying issue, which is her refusal to obey a specific decision of the Supreme Court. It cannot be permitted.
Click to expand...

Since she was refusing to issue ANY marriage licenses, how does this violate the SCOTUS ruling?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#96
#96
hog88 said:
No but carry permits are denied daily and not for religious beliefs.

She didn't violate anyone's rights since she refused to issue any licenses. I wonder how many couples took the 20 min drive to the next county?
Click to expand...

Why should they have to? And what is stopping the clerk in the next county from refusing if she can get away with it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#97
#97
Dr Dread said:
The problem here is that once released, does she start over with violating the court order? The only reason the license was issued is because she was in jail. If she had been out, she would have once again prevented anyone in the office from issuing it.

Are the Taliban comments over the top? Most definitely.

Is comparing her to Westboro over the top? Most definitely

Should she have went to jail? Most definitely.

Should she be released? Most definitely.

Will she go back? Most definitely.

Some other gay couple will show up in her office to get a marriage license just to see if she will now comply with the court order.
Click to expand...

fify
 
#98
#98
volinbham said:
It does address the issue since she is the only one doing this.

Jailing her doesn't accomplish what you suggest any more than finding other ways to keep her out of the process. Jailing is simply one method to remove her and the other methods I suggest would do the same.
Click to expand...


Jailing her is necessary if she continues to be in contempt because, otherwise, she is an elected official defying a direct Supreme Court order, and that cannot go unaddressed. Its also a question of dissauding others from doing the same thing she is doing, on this or some other issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#99
#99
VolsSportsFan said:
Why should they have to? And what is stopping the clerk in the next county from refusing if she can get away with it?
Click to expand...

I've googled without luck and have asked here. Is there a KY law that says County Clerks MUST issue marriage licenses?
 
#100
#100
VolsSportsFan said:
Why should they have to? And what is stopping the clerk in the next county from refusing if she can get away with it?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have to but there were still opportunities to get the licenses. In the end, this appears to have influenced the release.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top