Post by downtoearth on Sept 1, 2015 14:15:00 GMT -5
Wait a GEE GOLY second here... she's a DEMOCRAT?!?!?!?
I mean, she will cast a vote for other people who will uphold and expand the rights for homosexuals, but she won't give them a legal document to document their nuptuials for city/county purposes?! So God really does only work through her and all those other Democrats she's voted for over the years aren't doing anything to upset her Godliness?
Wait a GEE GOLY second here... she's a DEMOCRAT?!?!?!?
I mean, she will cast a vote for other people who will uphold and expand the rights for homosexuals, but she won't give them a legal document to document their nuptuials for city/county purposes?! So God really does only work through her and all those other Democrats she's voted for over the years aren't doing anything to upset her Godliness?
'Round these parts, it's ok to be a Democrat as long as you're not an Obama Democrat. HTH.
Wait a GEE GOLY second here... she's a DEMOCRAT?!?!?!?
I mean, she will cast a vote for other people who will uphold and expand the rights for homosexuals, but she won't give them a legal document to document their nuptuials for city/county purposes?! So God really does only work through her and all those other Democrats she's voted for over the years aren't doing anything to upset her Godliness?
Do you know that Democrats in her part of the country do that? Maybe she's a Democrat because they are strong on unions and her family is part of a union and that's her big issue. Or whatever. Dems aren't all the same, just like all Republicans aren't.
Yeah, so she likely runs Democrat for political office and then votes Republican at the national level? Or doesn't vote at the national level? You still can't get around that it's ironic that she's okay voting and being in a party with people who uphold and expand rights for homosexuals, but won't provide marriage licenses for homosexuals after her own party helped defend those rights through SCOTUS.
Post by penguingrrl on Sept 1, 2015 14:30:20 GMT -5
She needs to be impeached since she clearly can't and won't perform necessarily job requirements. And she needs to be held in contempt since she's refusing to comply with a direct court order from fucking SCOTUS.
Also, can gay couples go elsewhere to get a license? Not that that makes it okay either way, but is that allowed? When H and I applied for our license in NJ we had to go to the county clerk's office for our county of residence to apply (bride's county if the couple doesn't live in the same county) even though the wedding itself was in a different county. We couldn't just go to another clerk to get a marriage license, it had to be county of residence. If that's also the case in KY not only is she refusing, but she's actively then preventing them from being allowed to marry at all.
She needs to be impeached since she clearly can't and won't perform necessarily job requirements. And she needs to be held in contempt since she's refusing to comply with a direct court order from fucking SCOTUS.
Also, can gay couples go elsewhere to get a license? Not that that makes it okay either way, but is that allowed? When H and I applied for our license in NJ we had to go to the county clerk's office for our county of residence to apply (bride's county if the couple doesn't live in the same county) even though the wedding itself was in a different county. We couldn't just go to another clerk to get a marriage license, it had to be county of residence. If that's also the case in KY not only is she refusing, but she's actively then preventing them from being allowed to marry at all.
Yes, they can, but there's absolutely no reason why they should have to.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
She needs to be impeached since she clearly can't and won't perform necessarily job requirements. And she needs to be held in contempt since she's refusing to comply with a direct court order from fucking SCOTUS.
Also, can gay couples go elsewhere to get a license? Not that that makes it okay either way, but is that allowed? When H and I applied for our license in NJ we had to go to the county clerk's office for our county of residence to apply (bride's county if the couple doesn't live in the same county) even though the wedding itself was in a different county. We couldn't just go to another clerk to get a marriage license, it had to be county of residence. If that's also the case in KY not only is she refusing, but she's actively then preventing them from being allowed to marry at all.
Yes, they can, but there's absolutely no reason why they should have to.
Oh, they absolutely shouldn't have to at all. I was just curious about seeing upthread that it was even a legal option since when I got a marriage license "just going to another county" wasn't an option at all. But, that doesn't matter because they are being denied civil rights regardless and this woman clearly can't perform her job.
She needs to be impeached since she clearly can't and won't perform necessarily job requirements. And she needs to be held in contempt since she's refusing to comply with a direct court order from fucking SCOTUS.
Also, can gay couples go elsewhere to get a license? Not that that makes it okay either way, but is that allowed? When H and I applied for our license in NJ we had to go to the county clerk's office for our county of residence to apply (bride's county if the couple doesn't live in the same county) even though the wedding itself was in a different county. We couldn't just go to another clerk to get a marriage license, it had to be county of residence. If that's also the case in KY not only is she refusing, but she's actively then preventing them from being allowed to marry at all.
It varies by state. In PA, you can get your license in any county.
She needs to be impeached since she clearly can't and won't perform necessarily job requirements. And she needs to be held in contempt since she's refusing to comply with a direct court order from fucking SCOTUS.
Also, can gay couples go elsewhere to get a license? Not that that makes it okay either way, but is that allowed? When H and I applied for our license in NJ we had to go to the county clerk's office for our county of residence to apply (bride's county if the couple doesn't live in the same county) even though the wedding itself was in a different county. We couldn't just go to another clerk to get a marriage license, it had to be county of residence. If that's also the case in KY not only is she refusing, but she's actively then preventing them from being allowed to marry at all.
DH and I had to get a license in the county the wedding was going to be held in (same as our residence, though). Another friend, who lived here in AZ married a girl from CA, and wedding was in New Orleans. They had to get a license in NO.
All I'm gonna say is, when gay marriage was made legal my sister posted a rant on FB about how people like her and my father (who is a minister) are going to be thrown in jail for refusing to perform gay marriages in their church. And I had to refrain from calling her every single name in the damn book, and this stupid heifer is going to make her feel all vindicated and "SEE THEY ARE PUNISHING US FOR OUR BELIEFS I TOLD YOU SO".
Damnit.
I don't know what your sister does, but in your father's case surely she must understand the distinction between a minister, who is presumably employed by a church, and an elected official paid by the taxpayers? Right?
You know, I don't care if people "martyr" her if she goes to jail. It's going to happen no matter what. If she's fined out the ass, they'll be a GoFundMe up so fast it will make your head spin. Let her cool her jets in jail. Real talk jail. Your husband can't do much for you in there.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
All I'm gonna say is, when gay marriage was made legal my sister posted a rant on FB about how people like her and my father (who is a minister) are going to be thrown in jail for refusing to perform gay marriages in their church. And I had to refrain from calling her every single name in the damn book, and this stupid heifer is going to make her feel all vindicated and "SEE THEY ARE PUNISHING US FOR OUR BELIEFS I TOLD YOU SO".
Damnit.
I don't know what your sister does, but in your father's case surely she must understand the distinction between a minister, who is presumably employed by a church, and an elected official paid by the taxpayers? Right?
I believe koko's sister is a professional martyr and chipotle enthusiast.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
So basically her issue is that HER NAME is on the licenses, forever and ever amen. So as I understand it, she is willing to issue licenses so long as the signature is not hers - maybe a generic "county clerk" or some deputy would be okay.
WDYT? I think I'm okay with this....if she was not in an elected position, I might feel differently....
No. There's no way in hell I'd be okay with giving her bigoted ass special accommodations. This is what I was talking about earlier -- she's soooooo special and like Jesus' BFF, that she doesn't have to follow mortal law like the rest of us sinners. I don't give a shit about her beliefs because her beliefs are not law. She can be a bigot at home, with that yahoo cracker [4th husband] with four first names (TM Golden Girls).
Allowing her to choose which job duties she will or won't perform in an elected position is bullshit, imo. Her job is to serve the people of her county and she needs to do her job or get the fuck out.
Yeah, I totally get that on a gut level. But I'm a lawyer (shhhhh....no one knows), so I'm looking at the end goal. The plaintiffs have said they only want the license; they aren't looking for for retribution. She doesn't want her name associated for religious reasons. Reasonable religious accommodations are allowed under the law. It sounds like the actual law will have to be changed to accommodate this woman, but since the options are 1) impeach her and elect a new clerk [unlikely, as I understand it]; 2) change the law regarding signatures; or 3) fine the fuck out of her and throw her in jail until she resigns or is impeached, possibly dragging this out for months, I'm looking hard at option number two, you know? Again, my position would be different if she weren't an elected official.
I guess I'm not sure why her name being or not being on the license matters. I mean it's not like God would be fooled here into thinking she didn't issue it just because it wasn't there.
I guess I'm not sure why her name being or not being on the license matters. I mean it's not like God would be fooled here into thinking she didn't issue it just because it wasn't there.
That's a big clue this isn't truly about God.
She just is a hypocritical bigot who doesn't want her name on anything that shows support for two men or women who love each other.
No. There's no way in hell I'd be okay with giving her bigoted ass special accommodations. This is what I was talking about earlier -- she's soooooo special and like Jesus' BFF, that she doesn't have to follow mortal law like the rest of us sinners. I don't give a shit about her beliefs because her beliefs are not law. She can be a bigot at home, with that yahoo cracker [4th husband] with four first names (TM Golden Girls).
Allowing her to choose which job duties she will or won't perform in an elected position is bullshit, imo. Her job is to serve the people of her county and she needs to do her job or get the fuck out.
I'm a lawyer (shhhhh....no one knows)
How did I not know this about you?! We spent an afternoon together!
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
No. There's no way in hell I'd be okay with giving her bigoted ass special accommodations. This is what I was talking about earlier -- she's soooooo special and like Jesus' BFF, that she doesn't have to follow mortal law like the rest of us sinners. I don't give a shit about her beliefs because her beliefs are not law. She can be a bigot at home, with that yahoo cracker [4th husband] with four first names (TM Golden Girls).
Allowing her to choose which job duties she will or won't perform in an elected position is bullshit, imo. Her job is to serve the people of her county and she needs to do her job or get the fuck out.
Yeah, I totally get that on a gut level. But I'm a lawyer (shhhhh....no one knows), so I'm looking at the end goal. The plaintiffs have said they only want the license; they aren't looking for for retribution. She doesn't want her name associated for religious reasons. Reasonable religious accommodations are allowed under the law. It sounds like the actual law will have to be changed to accommodate this woman, but since the options are 1) impeach her and elect a new clerk [unlikely, as I understand it]; 2) change the law regarding signatures; or 3) fine the fuck out of her and throw her in jail until she resigns or is impeached, possibly dragging this out for months, I'm looking hard at option number two, you know? Again, my position would be different if she weren't an elected official.
So, would reasonable accommodations be met if she's the only person able to issue the license? Because if I, religious nutcase, am the only person in some podunk town in KY that can issue your license, don't I have to do it? At some point, her religious beliefs infringe upon my freedoms to get hitched to the love of my life who just so happens to be the same gender as I am.
I'm Team BITCH GET YOU ANOTHER GOT.DAYUM.JOB. Gone over there and work for the pastor at Hateful Baptist Church of Spiteful Ass People where Rev. Salty presides as head pastor.
Yeah, I totally get that on a gut level. But I'm a lawyer (shhhhh....no one knows), so I'm looking at the end goal. The plaintiffs have said they only want the license; they aren't looking for for retribution. She doesn't want her name associated for religious reasons. Reasonable religious accommodations are allowed under the law. It sounds like the actual law will have to be changed to accommodate this woman, but since the options are 1) impeach her and elect a new clerk [unlikely, as I understand it]; 2) change the law regarding signatures; or 3) fine the fuck out of her and throw her in jail until she resigns or is impeached, possibly dragging this out for months, I'm looking hard at option number two, you know? Again, my position would be different if she weren't an elected official.
I don't disagree; but in this particular case, there is no current accommodation to be made. Allowing her to exempt herself would constitute an undue hardship, would it not, since it effectively prevents anyone from obtaining a marriage license in the county? Nobody else is allowed to issue licenses at this time according to policy, unless she is absent from work. Changing the policy would solve a lot of these problems, but in the meantime, there really is no accommodation that would satisfy her request and not interfere with regular business.
If i kept reading, I would see same thing was posted. LOL
This lady makes me angry. I've been yelling at the tv every morning this week.
I don't disagree; but in this particular case, there is no current accommodation to be made. Allowing her to exempt herself would constitute an undue hardship, would it not, since it effectively prevents anyone from obtaining a marriage license in the county? Nobody else is allowed to issue licenses at this time according to policy, unless she is absent from work. Changing the policy would solve a lot of these problems, but in the meantime, there really is no accommodation that would satisfy her request and not interfere with regular business.
If i kept reading, I would see same thing was posted. LOL
This lady makes me angry. I've been yelling at the tv every morning this week.
You're both right! Changing the law to accommodate your religious beliefs is definitely not reasonable. But if the legislature prefers to do that rather than impeach her, that's on them.
Sitnexto Kim Davis @nexttokimdavis 12 hours ago I just realized. If #KimDavis goes to jail on Thursday, we probably don't get our Labor Day half day on Friday. FUCK. YOU. KIM.
I will be honest, I don't get why positions such as these are elected.
Reconstruction/post civil war issues. Yes Kentucky wasn't under reconstruction but it acted like most of the Southern states that were in many ways and had a majority Democratic state congress (solid south Dem. not JFK dem)
Reconstruction/post civil war issues. Yes Kentucky wasn't under reconstruction but it acted like most of the Southern states that were in many ways and had a majority Democratic state congress (solid south Dem. not JFK dem)
That doesn't explain why Joe Arpaio in Arizona has been elected 6 times.
I said it once and I'll say it again: we need fewer elected officials in this country. There are certain positions that should be immune to public opinion, and county clerk is one of them.
I was referencing this particular situation But I totally agree that certain positions (including county clerk) should not be elected. Just referencing why elected officials occur in Kentucky/the South. ETA: arizona was also claimed as a CSA territory during the War so I wouldn't be surprised if certain elements are similar in historical background to some extent. BUT I know nothing about Arizona history/politics so can't really comment.
Reconstruction/post civil war issues. Yes Kentucky wasn't under reconstruction but it acted like most of the Southern states that were in many ways and had a majority Democratic state congress (solid south Dem. not JFK dem)
That doesn't explain why Joe Arpaio in Arizona has been elected 6 times.
I said it once and I'll say it again: we need fewer elected officials in this country. There are certain positions that should be immune to public opinion, and county clerk is one of them.
I am always surprised by how many roles are elected. I have a better understanding now of the historical reasoning behind it, but for the reasons you point out, it just seems so...wrong.
That doesn't explain why Joe Arpaio in Arizona has been elected 6 times.
I said it once and I'll say it again: we need fewer elected officials in this country. There are certain positions that should be immune to public opinion, and county clerk is one of them.
I am always surprised by how many roles are elected. I have a better understanding now of the historical reasoning behind it, but for the reasons you point out, it just seems so...wrong.
It is wrong, it was used to impose things like poll taxes and interfere with voter registration. If you prevent POC from voting and those with the power to control these things are elected then there you go. It's a really bad reality IMO.
No. There's no way in hell I'd be okay with giving her bigoted ass special accommodations. This is what I was talking about earlier -- she's soooooo special and like Jesus' BFF, that she doesn't have to follow mortal law like the rest of us sinners. I don't give a shit about her beliefs because her beliefs are not law. She can be a bigot at home, with that yahoo cracker [4th husband] with four first names (TM Golden Girls).
Allowing her to choose which job duties she will or won't perform in an elected position is bullshit, imo. Her job is to serve the people of her county and she needs to do her job or get the fuck out.
Yeah, I totally get that on a gut level. But I'm a lawyer (shhhhh....no one knows), so I'm looking at the end goal. The plaintiffs have said they only want the license; they aren't looking for for retribution. She doesn't want her name associated for religious reasons. Reasonable religious accommodations are allowed under the law. It sounds like the actual law will have to be changed to accommodate this woman, but since the options are 1) impeach her and elect a new clerk [unlikely, as I understand it]; 2) change the law regarding signatures; or 3) fine the fuck out of her and throw her in jail until she resigns or is impeached, possibly dragging this out for months, I'm looking hard at option number two, you know? Again, my position would be different if she weren't an elected official.
I'm usually a little more pro-accommodate than people on this board, like when we've discussed pharmacists. In this case though, no. Because she's not asking that she be accommodated while the office continue with business as usual, she is asking that the entire office be changed because it conflicts with her world view. That's not an accommodation. That's more akin to a Catholic organization buying a hospital and changing everything around. It's a fundamental redirection of the mission of the organization.
The issue here isn't that she's elected. If she were hired, it would be the same issue. Her powers to shape the organization's duties and responsibilities are limited by statute and by the constitution. She does not get to dictate that those things be changed. She can request that within the confines of the statutes and the constitution, she be permitted some kind of accommodation, but she can't unilaterally block the organization from carrying out what it has to carry out by law.
The solution is that she either accept reality or resign.
Even if a county clerk or judge isn't elected, aren't they appointed by someone elected? Do isn't that even worse? I really don't know the answer to this.
Her job is to follow the LAW, not her faith. If her faith takes higher precedence in her point of view, she can find a new job. I don't see how this can be debated.