Is there no one else at that fucking court house that can issue marriage licenses? All it takes is a notary. Does this woman not have any co-workers? No one can say we'll have Dave help you out instead and Kim can go get fucked if she doesn't like it. Then just give Kim less and less hours until she quits on her own?
But yeah, where would be the fun in that.
(09-01-2015, 03:16 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Well that's a nice way of being dismissive. Yes, HotD, everyone who ever lived is "in history". Thanks for cluing me in.
ETA: At this point, Davis is just upholding a fine Democrat legacy of denying civil rights to people. She is standing in the clerk house door, refusing admittance just like George Wallace did in Alabama to keep blacks out of his school. Why hasn't Obama just sent the Kentucky National Guard in to right this most heinous wrong? That's all it would take, and then this ugly chapter would be over.
Or the gay couples to just go to another county and get the license while Davis sends her appeals through the courts. I know, I know, it's not as much fun or as big of a spectacle.
I don't find the spectacle much fun personally, and I certainly wouldn't deny Davis or anyone else (Democrat or Republican) their right to free speech, protest, or legal appeals.
Davis can cry , "no, no, God, no! -- I won't sign!!" all she wants. But, if she really has the conviction and desire to affect change (backwards), it's her responsibility. It's not the responsibility of the law-abiding gay citizens to work around Her. It's up to Davis to make the sacrifices required to get it done, just like it was up to the gay rights activists to take action, which they did for for decades, to affect change in the opposite direction.
(09-01-2015, 03:12 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]If she quits, she's stupid.
Bye-bye benefits!
Unless she thinks she has a chance for a hostile workplace environment suit or some such nonsense.
Personally, I'm loving angry license seekers throwing hate speech at this woman of unfortunate appearance.
I love the free flowing tolerance and understanding from all parties.
It's really an inspiration for understanding divergent views and lifestyles.
Haters hate but tearful, angry gays make the best optic.
Much better than a middle-aged cow.
(09-01-2015, 03:16 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Davis sends her appeals through the courts.
I don't think she's entitled to appeal any damn thing. She needs to do her friggin' job. I get a little irked at people thinking they are the moral authority for everyone else. That bitch should shut the fuck up and simply do the job she was elected to do. She has no right to stand in judgement of anyone. In the confines of her job it's not her place to do so. Let her fat ass spend her days at her kitchen table bleating about things she doesn't approve of.
Hmmph.
Holy shit, Duchess . . . you sound like Trump!
I don't even understand this retarded story. She has no one above her to say step aside and we'll have someone else issue the stupid faggot license? She's not allowed to cause a disturbance there anymore than anyone else. I'd have security kick her ass out of the building if she caused a commotion over it.
In todays world it would have been a great time for a weeks vacation in the islands. But maybe there's a spot on Ellen or Oprah for everyone to get together and "heal"
Something that is admirable about true Jehovah Witnesses is that they follow that goddamn bible to a T unlike your regular old run of the mill Christians. A JW would never do something like this since the bible states that it isn't their job to judge, they would do the respectable thing and either quit or simply ask their supervisor if they can be exempt from marrying gay couples since it's against their religion. They wouldn't make a big stink like this old cow. Did she even bother asking herself what Jesus would do, I don't think so.
C'mon . . .
Give the bitch her fifteen minutes.
She's not denying life-saving medical care or selling a gun to a nutcase.
It's not like there's an epidemic of queer marriage license refusal sweeping the nation.
So a few couples will lose catering deposits.
Book Judge Judy for redress.
That's why America has Judge Judy.
The Supreme Court is busy.
(09-01-2015, 05:42 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]C'mon . . .
Give the bitch her fifteen minutes.
You're right.
![[Image: 11261595_944001169007702_694023578941219...chrme3.jpg]](http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b566/sandy71/11261595_944001169007702_6940235789412194249_n_zpsmschrme3.jpg)
(09-01-2015, 04:12 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]I don't even understand this retarded story. She has no one above her to say step aside and we'll have someone else issue the stupid faggot license? She's not allowed to cause a disturbance there anymore than anyone else. I'd have security kick her ass out of the building if she caused a commotion over it.
No she doesn't; she was elected. The electorate can call to impeach or recall her; that is how a republic works.
The only "thing" above her is the law, and in this case it is on her side.
Quote:When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The solution is simple, and she has put the solution in practice. The government has no business in saying who can get married and who can't. She is issuing no licenses; you want to get married, get married.
The reason for the stupid piece of paper in the fist place was segregation; government wanted to stop inter-racial marriage.
If I was gay and wanting to be married, I'd go to this woman's office and get a license.
Just think . . . a license from "More Head" Kentucky.
There must be a headline somewhere: "Morehead woman blows off gays desiring marriage"
"No!" - Morehead to gays
"Gays denied Morehead requests"
How did I miss this?
The law is not on Davis' side.
After the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, Davis filed a lawsuit in federal court objecting to Governor Beshear's order that the state’s clerks issue same-sex marriage licenses. She lost there and in district court. Strike 1.
So, she appealed that district court decision. She lost again in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Strike 2.
Then, she got a district court to grant her a stay while her Supreme Court appeal was pending. That stay expired yesterday and the Supreme Court rejected Davis' emergency motion to have it extended. Denied, legally, yet again.
I believe the Supreme Court will uphold the lower courts' rulings and she will lose there too. If so, that will be Strike 3 for Davis.
And, as it stands, the government is in fact in the business of issuing marriage licenses. Davis' objection is not about government's involvement in marriage. Instead, she believes that she's above the law when it comes to performing her oath-sworn duties because, according to her, God's law trumps the law of the land (and, in her mind, God doesn't want gays to be married).
So, the gay community has a Supreme Court ruling, in writing and not subject to interpretation, stating that same sex couples have the same rights to marry as hetero couples anywhere in the country. And, government employees -- elected, appointed or hired --are bound to abide by that ruling. Kim Davis, on the other other hand, is armed only with her interpretation of what God would want if he/she/it were here today; her personal beliefs only.
I think Davis is going to lose her SC appeal and she's going to lose her job (unless she complies with the law) - as it should be. But right now, the system is working in favor in regards to timing. Since she's elected by the people, she can't be fired outright like a hired or appointed government employee. Impeachment takes time and the state legislature isn't in session now, so that's not an immediate option. I hope she's held in contempt of court and fined or jailed, and that either her compliance with the law or her removal from office can thereby be secured quickly.
I think Ms. Davis needs to be reminded of a few other of God's Laws:
*Committing adultery between a man and a woman (of which she is guilty)
*Consuming blood (hope she does not like her steaks rare)
*Eating a cheeseburger, or anything that mixes milk and dairy
*Eating aqualife that does not have fins or scales
*Performing work on the Sabbath\
*dressing across gender lines
MORE HERE
(09-01-2015, 08:17 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]The law is not on Davis' side.
After the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, Davis filed a lawsuit in federal court objecting to Governor Beshear's order that the state’s clerks issue same-sex marriage licenses. She lost there and in district court. Strike 1.
So, she appealed that district court decision. She lost again in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Strike 2.
Then, she got a district court to grant her a stay while her Supreme Court appeal was pending. That stay expired yesterday and the Supreme Court rejected Davis' emergency motion to have it extended. Denied, legally, yet again.
I believe the Supreme Court will uphold the lower courts' rulings and she will lose there too. If so, that will be Strike 3 for Davis.
And, as it stands, the government is in fact in the business of issuing marriage licenses. Davis' objection is not about government's involvement in marriage. Instead, she believes that she's above the law when it comes to performing her oath-sworn duties because, according to her, God's law trumps the law of the land (and, in her mind, God doesn't want gays to be married).
So, the gay community has a Supreme Court ruling, in writing and not subject to interpretation, stating that same sex couples have the same rights to marry as hetero couples anywhere in the country. And, government employees, -- elected, appointed or hired --are bound to abide by that ruling. Kim Davis, on the other other hand, is armed only with her interpretation of what God would want if he/she/it were here today; her personal beliefs only.
I think Davis is going to lose her SC appeal and she's going to lose her job (unless she complies with the law) - as it should be. But right now, the system is working in favor in regards to timing. Since she's elected by the people, she can't be fired outright like a hired or appointed government employee. Impeachment takes time and the state legislature isn't in session now, so that's not an immediate option. I hope she's held in contempt of court and fined or jailed, and that either her compliance with the law or her removal from office can thereby be secured quickly.
Not so fast there, you are running on a double edge sword down a slippery slope. The majority decision on gay marriage considered religious conviction in its majority decision:
Quote:“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
If the SC fails to act in her behalf they are admitting she has no 1
st amendment freedoms. That is going to open a very serious can of worms.
I never understood why the government has anything to do with marriage. Any marriage.
I respectfully disagree, pappy.
The Supreme Court decision has been handed down. And, Davis has been instructed to follow the new law of the land. She (and all other clerks) have been ordered to issue marriage licenses to all legally-qualified couples. It's in her job description, the one she swore under oath to uphold.
If her God won't allow her to perform her job duties according to the new law, she has a few options: change jobs, or change Gods, or try to change the law.
She's going for door #3 first, and exercising her right to free speech throughout the process. If the Supreme Court denies her appeal, it won't be a denial of free speech, just the opposite. The right to free speech doesn't come with a "win' guarantee. If she loses her appeal, it'll simply be another confirmation that Kim Davis is obligated to follow her employer's lawful policies, just like every other employee (elected, appointed, or hired) in the country.
Anyway, there are plenty of evangelical and private sector jobs where she would be permitted, perhaps even encouraged, to discriminate against people, without breaking the law. The exposure she's getting now might even make her a hot commodity in one of those such industries/organizations.
That is the rub; they have created a very treacherous landscape with this decision. That is why the Declaration of Independence becomes key in this issue. The history of marriage licenses is fraught with issues; they originated in the mid-1800's because of the civil war. Some local governments did not want inter-racial marriage so they enacted them. Then in1923, the “Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act” was passed by the federal government; an act considered by many, then and now, unconstitutional.
Thus my warning; the Declaration of Independence is very clear on remedies to oppressive government.
History teaches this country has had two “Great Awakenings”. The first was the revolution itself; the second brought on the Civil War to end slavery. This could be the beginnings of the third. Secular progressives need to tread carefully, and heed many lessons of history. MLK’s bus boycott in Montgomery had very severe consequences for the racists in the south. His first proposal was very benign and used common sense, but was rejected out of hand. All he wanted was the blacks to load from the back, the whites load from the front; if not enough whites filled their portion of the bus the blacks be allowed to use the seats. Made sense, the white only seats went unfilled while blacks stood the vast majority of the trips. From their perspective, look how much the racists lost.
I think, in this case, the system is working like it should.
The only person I see trying to oppress anyone is Kim Davis, not the government.
The government is saying that Kim Davis can keep her government pay and benefits, keep disagreeing with gay marriage, keep speaking out against it on her own time... She just needs to sign a piece of clerical paperwork. Her signature isn't a personal religious stamp of approval, it's a legal one on behalf of her employer.
Just like the postman who is morally and religiously opposed to abortion, but does his job and delivers the mail throughout the 3-story Family Planning center every day, in a timely manner. He's not advocating abortion in so doing.
Just like the city cop who firmly believes that God wants the races to be segregated, but handles domestic disturbances between inter-racial couples and same-race couples with an equal level of professionalism. He's not endorsing mixed marriage in so doing.
People whose religious, political or moral beliefs lead them to insist that their individual needs/preferences should dictate government/employer work policy or exempt them from fulfilling the job requirements are self-serving insubordinate employees who need to shape up or ship out, in my experience and opinion -- ain't nobody got time for that.
![[Image: 11261595_944001169007702_694023578941219...chrme3.jpg]](http://s1292.photobucket.com/user/sandy71/media/11261595_944001169007702_6940235789412194249_n_zpsmschrme3.jpg.html)