Kentucky Clerk Once Again Denies Gay Marriage License, Despite Federal Order

[Vandalshandle]

The woman can not be fired, because she is an elected official. She would have to be impeached, but the legislature is not in session. Therefore, she thinks that she can do anything she wants. However, she and her entire staff have been summoned to court next Friday to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Therefore, On Friday, she will either find her ass in jail, or will be issuing licenses. I personally don't care which. I do predict, however, that one or more of her employees will avoid jail time and start issuing licenses, whether she likes it, or not.

 

[ninja007]

big gubmint should stay out of marraige.

 

[GWV5903]

This woman is hideous and fat, they should sue her ass and ruin her.

What happened to the love? Understanding? Acceptance?

Is this the result of homosexuality?

 

[ChrisL]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

 

[peach174]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

You are wrong.

1. She issuing a civil marriage license, not a religious license.

2. If her choice of employment includes duties and responsibilities that conflict with her personal beliefs, it's up to her to resolve that by either quitting or setting aside her beliefs for the sake of her livelihood.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.

Her beliefs are not in question. He actions as a government agent are.

Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.

County Clerks do not perform Civil Marriages in Kentucky, County Clerks issue the license. The couple must go somewhere else to get married either a minister, Judge, of Justice of the Peace.

She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.

That is not what "ex post facto" law means. An ex post facto law is creating a law today to make a certain action illegal, and then charging someone who in the past violated a law that didn't exist. Not the case here. She is breaking the law for actions that occurred after the law changed, not for actions before the law changed.

If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.

That's irrelevant. She is the government agent charged with issuing licenses. If she cannot fulfill the essential duties of her job then she should resign.

Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

Absolutely agree. All employers (private sector and public sector) are required to make reasonable accommodations. That does not include however someone that will not perform the essential functions of their jobs such that it has a negative impact on the employer (private sector) or hards the citizens a public sector employee serves.

Since Ms. Davis also ordered that her deputy clerks would not issue Civil Marriage licenses she is having a negative impact on the performance of the government entity for which she works.


>>>>

 

[peach174]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

You are wrong.

1. She issuing a civil marriage license, not a religious license.

2. If her choice of employment includes duties and responsibilities that conflict with her personal beliefs, it's up to her to resolve that by either quitting or setting aside her beliefs for the sake of her livelihood.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.
Neither one of us are Judges.
I just put up the other side of the argument is all.

 

[ChrisL]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

If she cannot treat others equally due to her religious beliefs, then she needs to go! Our government is secular. We do not deny people things based upon religious beliefs.

 

[Seawytch]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

You are wrong.

1. She issuing a civil marriage license, not a religious license.

2. If her choice of employment includes duties and responsibilities that conflict with her personal beliefs, it's up to her to resolve that by either quitting or setting aside her beliefs for the sake of her livelihood.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.
Neither one of us are Judges.
I just put up the other side of the argument is all.

So far not a single judge agrees with you and every one agrees with the Chief (WorldWatcher).

 

[peach174]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

If she cannot treat others equally due to her religious beliefs, then she needs to go! Our government is secular. We do not deny people things based upon religious beliefs.

That is the argument of the left in recent years that our government is secular.
It's been an argument on and off since the 1890's by those that want a secular government.
The Feds can't set up a State Religion, not prohibit the Church from influencing the State.
This is what is happing with some courts ruling on Muslims having Sharia law right now.

 

[peach174]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

You are wrong.

1. She issuing a civil marriage license, not a religious license.

2. If her choice of employment includes duties and responsibilities that conflict with her personal beliefs, it's up to her to resolve that by either quitting or setting aside her beliefs for the sake of her livelihood.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.
Neither one of us are Judges.
I just put up the other side of the argument is all.

So far not a single judge agrees with you and every one agrees with the Chief (WorldWatcher).

It has not gone to any court yet.
If she does take it to court, they could throw it out or take it up.

 

[Seawytch]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

You are wrong.

1. She issuing a civil marriage license, not a religious license.

2. If her choice of employment includes duties and responsibilities that conflict with her personal beliefs, it's up to her to resolve that by either quitting or setting aside her beliefs for the sake of her livelihood.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.
Neither one of us are Judges.
I just put up the other side of the argument is all.

So far not a single judge agrees with you and every one agrees with the Chief (WorldWatcher).

It has not gone to any court yet.
If she does take it to court, they could throw it out or take it up.

Uh, yeah it has. She lost...then lost on appeal, then the SCOTUS wouldn't grant her a stay.

Federal District Judge David L. Bunning disagreed, ruling against the clerk. Last week, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Bunning.

 

[Seawytch]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

If she cannot treat others equally due to her religious beliefs, then she needs to go! Our government is secular. We do not deny people things based upon religious beliefs.

That is the argument of the left in recent years that our government is secular.
It's been an argument on and off since the 1890's by those that want a secular government.
The Feds can't set up a State Religion, not prohibit the Church from influencing the State.
This is what is happing with some courts ruling on Muslims having Sharia law right now.

So Peach...if a Muslim DMV supervisor told his office to stop issuing drivers licenses to women, that would be within his religious right to do so in your opinion, yes?

 

[bodecea]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

If she cannot treat others equally due to her religious beliefs, then she needs to go! Our government is secular. We do not deny people things based upon religious beliefs.

That is the argument of the left in recent years that our government is secular.
It's been an argument on and off since the 1890's by those that want a secular government.
The Feds can't set up a State Religion, not prohibit the Church from influencing the State.
This is what is happing with some courts ruling on Muslims having Sharia law right now.

What courts are ruling on Muslims having Sharia law? Name the courts and the rulings for us to see.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She took an oath of office and swore to God to do the duties of that office.

 

[SwimExpert]

She has a free will, a voice, an independence, and a right to be herself and to cherish and practice her personal beliefs.

I don't think anyone has denied that she has a right to practice her beliefs. The point is that her right to practice her beliefs does not exempt her from carrying out her official duties as an elected official.

 

[bodecea]

I really don't know what there is to argue about. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. Nobody "owes" her anything. Her trying to deny people marriage certificates based on her religious beliefs is just nothing but crap. That is her trying to use her religion in her "governmental" job. We are a secular nation that does not hold one religion over another or none. We are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting someone else. This woman has NO right to try to force her religious beliefs on anyone, and if her religious beliefs are interfering with her job performance, then she needs to GO!

Well see that is the other side of the coin.
Not hurting someone else.
To her religious view it is harming her religious believe that God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Forcing her to marry same sex couples puts her in harms way with Gods Judgment on her for performing them.
She was elected in 2014 before the court ruling and that is another thing altogether that maybe the courts need to look at with the ex post facto law.
If the courts had ruled before she became the clerk then she may have not run for the position.
It's a dilemma for both of their rights and is in conflict with each ones rights.
Religious people do not check out and put religion aside when they go to work. Gov. job or no Gov. job.

You are wrong.

1. She issuing a civil marriage license, not a religious license.

2. If her choice of employment includes duties and responsibilities that conflict with her personal beliefs, it's up to her to resolve that by either quitting or setting aside her beliefs for the sake of her livelihood.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.
Neither one of us are Judges.
I just put up the other side of the argument is all.

So far not a single judge agrees with you and every one agrees with the Chief (WorldWatcher).

It has not gone to any court yet.
If she does take it to court, they could throw it out or take it up.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's been to court, appeals court, all the way up to the Supreme Court....she's lost every time.

 

[WorldWatcher]

​

It has not gone to any court yet.
If she does take it to court, they could throw it out or take it up.

Here case has gone to court and she presented her case.

She lost.

Here is the ruling -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf


She has requested a stay from the Judge and was denied. She requested a stay from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and was denied. She requested a stay from the United States Supreme Court and was denied.

She is now required to issue licenses while she files a full appeal to the 6th Circuit.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

If you can't follow the federal laws, you should resign from the job.

The Federal government is your God