Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[SassyIrishLass]

That hasn't been decided just yet, the 6th Circuit Court is hearing the appeal

Do you have a link to that case?

U.S. judge stays order for Kentucky clerk on gay marriage licenses - Yahoo News

It is standard procedure to issue a stay in order to preserve the status quo while an appeal is pending.

It still ain't over, I'm married to an attorney, I don't need your legal advice

And I'm sure your hubby has never been wrong and has never been on the losing side of any argument or case.

But, I'm happy to know that you are using your hubby's brain because the evidence is clear that you don't have one of your own.

Actually he''s 32-0 in jury trials. If you can't win it settle out of court.

Now scram, you old bore. Left loons are just hideous, nasty creatures

 

[WorldWatcher]

That hasn't been decided just yet, the 6th Circuit Court is hearing the appeal

Not quite. Technically the Judge issued his ruling and a permenant stay pending appeal was denied. However he did issue a temporary stay while the lawyers for Ms. Davis apply to the 6th Circuit for a longer stay.

The stay issued only lasts as long as the 6th Circuit deciding to stay or not stay the Judges order, it does not mean it will hold through the appeal. The 6th Circuit can reject the Stay and reject an appeal. They can grant the extended stay and accept the repeal. Or, they can reject the stay but still accept an appeal.


>>>>

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said, why bother me with more of it? Sheesh

Because you were wrong. You said the 6th Circuit "is hearing the appeal". That isn't true, yet.

The 6th Circuit is will be reviewing a request for a stay which they can accept or reject. They will also be reviewing a request for an appeal which they can accept or reject.

We don't know if they will hear the case or not.


>>>>

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That hasn't been decided just yet, the 6th Circuit Court is hearing the appeal

Not quite. Technically the Judge issued his ruling and a permenant stay pending appeal was denied. However he did issue a temporary stay while the lawyers for Ms. Davis apply to the 6th Circuit for a longer stay.

The stay issued only lasts as long as the 6th Circuit deciding to stay or not stay the Judges order, it does not mean it will hold through the appeal. The 6th Circuit can reject the Stay and reject an appeal. They can grant the extended stay and accept the repeal. Or, they can reject the stay but still accept an appeal.


>>>>

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said, why bother me with more of it? Sheesh

Because you were wrong. You said the 6th Circuit "is hearing the appeal". That isn't true, yet.

The 6th Circuit is will be reviewing a request for a stay which they can accept or reject. They will also be reviewing a request for an appeal which they can accept or reject.

We don't know if they will hear an appeal or not.


>>>>

Ugh....go away nitpick

 

[Debra K]

In Nazi Germany it was a crime to do business with Jews.
Your pount?

Her point is this ***** for Jesus should have already been fired, for not obeying the laws of this nation and not doing her goddamned job. Since she is breaking the law when they do fire her, she won't get dime one from the county, including unemployment. Just watch, a bit longer...

It is illegal to fire someone over their religious beliefs. First Amendment and all that.

If she was an employee rather than an elected official, then her employer would have an obligation under Title VII to provide reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs so long as her employer was not substantially burdened. An example of a reasonable accommodation might be assigning the duty to another employee who did not object. But an elected official is NOT an employee. An elected official's personal religious beliefs are not superior to the law of the land. An elected official does not have a "First Amendment" right to promulgate an official policy that imposes her religious beliefs on the people she serves.

Nope. To use the government to impose one's religious beliefs upon the public is an express violation of the 1st amendment. As it establishes religion.

Then it sounds like we need a Constitutional Amendment declaring homosexuality a public danger and un-doing some of the LGBT legal victories of recent times and barring future ones.

That way, SCOTUS can't say shit about it.

Why don't you work on that proposed constitutional amendment ... and see how far you get.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Because the laws/rulings weren't written, passed and enforced by consensus,
and the content involved beliefs on both sides (both the actual beliefs about
marriage, the context about homosexuality as beliefs, and the political
beliefs about authority of govt." is a false statement. Consensus in our rule of law is by republicanism and the judiciary.

Emily, begin an amendment drive and work to elect your people to the local, state, and national legislatures.

 

[Debra K]

Because Kim Davis is an elected official, she cannot be "fired". She can, however, be removed from elected office for official misconduct through impeachment procedures. The state legislature may take action to impeach her, but it is not scheduled to convene until January 2016.

Look up "(writ of) mandamus".

When a government official is not performing their duties, a person can take them to court and the Judge can issue the writ requiring them to perform their duties. Failure to comply means contempt of court charges and possible incarceration and that can happen long before January or any impeachment procedures.


>>>>

I agree that petitioning a court for a writ of mandamus is a means through which relief may be sought. A court would probably issue an order directing Kim Davis to perform her official duties. She would most likely seek a stay and appeal that order too.

The plaintiffs in the case against Kim Davis chose a different route. They brought an action in federal court district court against her under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. She was sued in her official capacity for promulgating an official policy that deprives persons within the jurisdiction of her government office of their rights secured by the Constitution. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, and the district court granted the injunction and ordered Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples. She appealed.

The benefit of taking the route chosen by the Plaintiffs is that they are entitled to be reimbursed their attorney fees in prosecuting the case under the federal statute. (Otherwise, the rule that parties pay their own attorney fees would apply.)

 

[Syriusly]

...Oh I am sure that there are those of you who enjoy the thought of Conservative blackboots attacking homosexuals and liberals and anyone else who you think is preventing you from policing American bedrooms.

You conflate opposition at-law with opposition in the streets.

Then again, you light-in-the-loafers types always do.

I just recognize the usual thuggery and point it out for what it is- both an attack on a minority because you think they are icky- and the usual Conservative desire to regulate Americans sex lives.

^ Ironic isn't it Syriusly ^
Isn't your statement above ALSO making a blanket generalization that
"Conservatives" are all negative/icky/undesirable. Aren't you also judging people as a group?

Doesn't this sound like the equal and opposite blanket statement
that "all Liberals want to impose their agenda and regulate everything through Govt"

Don't both arguments deadlock and cancel each other out? Where does that go,
the mutual fingerpointing back and forth. How does this solve anything?

Emily- you are absolutely correct.

With exchanges with some Conservatives who seek to impose their morality on all Americans I sometimes unfairly characterize that as the view of all Conservatives.

Kondor represents himself and that particular subset of American Conservatives who believe that Big Government should impose their narrow morality on Americans.

My apologies to all conservatives that I mislabeled because I didn't take the time to distinguish clearly who I was speaking of.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

She was hired to issue marriage licenses to those legally allowed to marry.

Link? You've seen her contract?

It's a Class A misdemeanor in Kentucky — first-degree official misconduct — if "a public servant ... refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office."

In Kentucky, misdemeanors are crimes that are punishable by up to 12 months in county or local jail.

In Nazi Germany it was a crime to do business with Jews.
Your pount?

Her point is this ***** for Jesus should have already been fired, for not obeying the laws of this nation and not doing her goddamned job. Since she is breaking the law when they do fire her, she won't get dime one from the county, including unemployment. Just watch, a bit longer...

It is illegal to fire someone over their religious beliefs. First Amendment and all that.

If you can make an accommodation for their faith you are supposed to try but if their faith means they are unable to perform the job, out they go.

She, needs to wipe bottoms, and the church daycare instead.

 

[Syriusly]

In Nazi Germany it was a crime to do business with Jews.
Your pount?

Her point is this ***** for Jesus should have already been fired, for not obeying the laws of this nation and not doing her goddamned job. Since she is breaking the law when they do fire her, she won't get dime one from the county, including unemployment. Just watch, a bit longer...

It is illegal to fire someone over their religious beliefs. First Amendment and all that.

If she was an employee rather than an elected official, then her employer would have an obligation under Title VII to provide reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs so long as her employer was not substantially burdened. An example of a reasonable accommodation might be assigning the duty to another employee who did not object. But an elected official is NOT an employee. An elected official's personal religious beliefs are not superior to the law of the land. An elected official does not have a "First Amendment" right to promulgate an official policy that imposes her religious beliefs on the people she serves.

Nope. To use the government to impose one's religious beliefs upon the public is an express violation of the 1st amendment. As it establishes religion.

Then it sounds like we need a Constitutional Amendment declaring homosexuality a public danger and un-doing some of the LGBT legal victories of recent times and barring future ones.

That way, SCOTUS can't say shit about it.

Well that would be the only way to legally pursue your dream of state sponsored discrimination.

Of course what is standing in your way the reality is that most of America thinks your point of view is idiotic and support among other things- marriage for all Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse.

 

[Debra K]

That hasn't been decided just yet, the 6th Circuit Court is hearing the appeal

Not quite. Technically the Judge issued his ruling and a permenant stay pending appeal was denied. However he did issue a temporary stay while the lawyers for Ms. Davis apply to the 6th Circuit for a longer stay.

The stay issued only lasts as long as the 6th Circuit deciding to stay or not stay the Judges order, it does not mean it will hold through the appeal. The 6th Circuit can reject the Stay and reject an appeal. They can grant the extended stay and accept the repeal. Or, they can reject the stay but still accept an appeal.


>>>>

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said, why bother me with more of it? Sheesh

Because you were wrong. You said the 6th Circuit "is hearing the appeal". That isn't true, yet.

The 6th Circuit is will be reviewing a request for a stay which they can accept or reject. They will also be reviewing a request for an appeal which they can accept or reject.

We don't know if they will hear the case or not.


>>>>

Kim Davis did, in fact, APPEAL the preliminary injunction issued by the district court, (which was based on the likelihood of the Plaintiffs succeeding on their underlying claim). She is seeking APPELLATE REVIEW of a lower court's decision. This is one of those rare cases when an interlocutory appeal is authorized. I believe the standard of review is "abuse of discretion". Through this interlocutory appeal, Kim Davis is increasing attorney fees that may ultimately be assessed against her. Perhaps, in the end, Kim Davis can establish a "gofundme" account and get her supporters to pay the indebtedness she might be responsible for at the conclusion of the case. Reminds me of the adage applicable to lawyers: "When your client wants to appeal as a matter of principle, tell the client how much principal it will take."

 

[Kondor3]

...Oh I am sure that there are those of you who enjoy the thought of Conservative blackboots attacking homosexuals and liberals and anyone else who you think is preventing you from policing American bedrooms.

You conflate opposition at-law with opposition in the streets.

Then again, you light-in-the-loafers types always do.

I just recognize the usual thuggery and point it out for what it is- both an attack on a minority because you think they are icky- and the usual Conservative desire to regulate Americans sex lives.

Identifying and calling-out and shunning sexual deviancy and perversity (homosexuality) is not thuggery.. although you would like folks to believe that it is.

 

[Kondor3]

...You fail to understand that our country has a diverse population and not everyone shares your viewpoint.

No, I don't think our colleague fails to recognize any of that... merely that we should not be catering-to and accommodating the wicked (homosexuals).

 

[Kondor3]

Her point is this ***** for Jesus should have already been fired, for not obeying the laws of this nation and not doing her goddamned job. Since she is breaking the law when they do fire her, she won't get dime one from the county, including unemployment. Just watch, a bit longer...

It is illegal to fire someone over their religious beliefs. First Amendment and all that.

If she was an employee rather than an elected official, then her employer would have an obligation under Title VII to provide reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs so long as her employer was not substantially burdened. An example of a reasonable accommodation might be assigning the duty to another employee who did not object. But an elected official is NOT an employee. An elected official's personal religious beliefs are not superior to the law of the land. An elected official does not have a "First Amendment" right to promulgate an official policy that imposes her religious beliefs on the people she serves.

Nope. To use the government to impose one's religious beliefs upon the public is an express violation of the 1st amendment. As it establishes religion.

Then it sounds like we need a Constitutional Amendment declaring homosexuality a public danger and un-doing some of the LGBT legal victories of recent times and barring future ones.

That way, SCOTUS can't say shit about it.

Well that would be the only way to legally pursue your dream of state sponsored discrimination.

Of course what is standing in your way the reality is that most of America thinks your point of view is idiotic and support among other things- marriage for all Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse.

You fail to take into account the large numbers of states whose populations voted for Defense of Marriage referenda, only to have them overthrown by Activist Judges.

You also fail to take into account the large gains in the polls after that, because people had felt that they had been overridden, and then tired of the fight.

However, given a fresh and large-scale nationwide initiative along those lines, you will find a lot of those Johnny-come-latelies and fence-sitters switching sides again.

Guaranteed.

It certainly would be great fun, to put it to the test.

 

[Kondor3]

...Why don't you work on that proposed constitutional amendment ... and see how far you get.

After January 20, 2017, mine good colleague.. after January 20, 2017...

 

[Debra K]

...Conservatives sure do want Big Brother policing our bedrooms again so that they can mandate exactly what kind of sex they will approve of

Nahhhhh... Conservatives just don't want the United States legitimizing and mainstreaming sexual deviancy and perversity (homosexuality).

In other words, conservatives want the government to abuse its power to oppress and to discriminate against people whom conservatives hate and brand as deviant.

Incorrect.

Conservatives want government to change the law so that it is possible to un-do the wicked and wrongful LGBT legal gains of recent years.

Pushing them back into the closet where they belong and re-establishing a sane environment whereby people are not driven by law to violate their religious beliefs.

The present Dictatorship of the Three Percent cannot keep the other Ninety-Seven Percent at-bay indefinitely.

To mimic the title of an old 70s WWII movie, you have gone "A Bridge Too Far" - and this will become clear to you in the coming years.

I believe TheProgressivePatriot already responded to your nefarious argument: "Too late pal. What is being de legitimized is bigotry and discrimination in public life."

If you think you have enough support for the adoption of an anti-gay amendment to the constitution, go for it.

 

[Kondor3]

I.E.- Conservatives want to go back to the old days when they could criminalize sexual relations- and send the police into everyone's bedrooms making sure that we only have 'approved' sexual relations.

No cops went into the bedroom in the old days, and there is no reason to do that now, either.

Merely to de-legitimize and de-mainstream sexual deviance and perversity (homosexuality) in public life.

But cops did invade bedrooms. The U.S. Supreme Court would have had no occasion to rule upon the constitutionality of state laws that penalized homosexual conduct but for the fact that the cops indeed invaded someone's bedroom. See Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 2003 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your bare desire to impose your views of "deviance and perversity" on everyone else in society does not justify laws that discriminate against other people.

Most of the US had anti-sodomy laws until very, very recently.

The US military had a Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy until very, very recently.

The Defense of Marriage Act was still in-force until very, very recently.

And there were no cops-in-bedrooms, or any of that other Gay Propaganda Happy Horseshit.

This ain't over.

This is only beginning.

 

[Debra K]

Maybe this guy has the answer

Scott Lively: 'Religious Freedom' Only Applies To Christians, And That's Why God’s Punishing Us With Gay Rights

Submitted by Miranda Blue on Tuesday, 8/4/2015 1:01 pm In an interview with The Dove TV on Friday, anti-gay activist Scott Lively insisted that Christians are being denied their First Amendment rights because of gay rights, while simultaneously asserting that the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom applies only to Christians. In fact, Lively explained, it is because the United States has grown to accept “religious pluralism” that God is now punishing us with abortion rights and LGBT equality. - See more at: Scott Lively Religious Freedom Only Applies To Christians And That s Why God s Punishing Us With Gay Rights Right Wing Watch

Scott Lively is stupid. He apparently never drank from the enlightening waters of education.

I wonder how much longer we have to fight this "war on stupidity".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Kim Davis did, in fact, APPEAL the preliminary injunction issued by the district court, (which was based on the likelihood of the Plaintiffs succeeding on their underlying claim). She is seeking APPELLATE REVIEW of a lower court's decision. This is one of those rare cases when an interlocutory appeal is authorized. I believe the standard of review is "abuse of discretion". Through this interlocutory appeal, Kim Davis is increasing attorney fees that may ultimately be assessed against her. Perhaps, in the end, Kim Davis can establish a "gofundme" account and get her supporters to pay the indebtedness she might be responsible for at the conclusion of the case. Reminds me of the adage applicable to lawyers: "When your client wants to appeal as a matter of principle, tell the client how much principal it will take."

Since Ms. Davis is being sued in her official capacity, (IIRC) then it will be the tax payers of her district which will have to pay attorney fees for the plaintiff if she loses the case.


>>>>

 

[Debra K]

It is illegal to fire someone over their religious beliefs. First Amendment and all that.

If she was an employee rather than an elected official, then her employer would have an obligation under Title VII to provide reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs so long as her employer was not substantially burdened. An example of a reasonable accommodation might be assigning the duty to another employee who did not object. But an elected official is NOT an employee. An elected official's personal religious beliefs are not superior to the law of the land. An elected official does not have a "First Amendment" right to promulgate an official policy that imposes her religious beliefs on the people she serves.

Nope. To use the government to impose one's religious beliefs upon the public is an express violation of the 1st amendment. As it establishes religion.

Then it sounds like we need a Constitutional Amendment declaring homosexuality a public danger and un-doing some of the LGBT legal victories of recent times and barring future ones.

That way, SCOTUS can't say shit about it.

Well that would be the only way to legally pursue your dream of state sponsored discrimination.

Of course what is standing in your way the reality is that most of America thinks your point of view is idiotic and support among other things- marriage for all Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse.

You fail to take into account the large numbers of states whose populations voted for Defense of Marriage referenda, only to have them overthrown by Activist Judges.

You also fail to take into account the large gains in the polls after that, because people had felt that they had been overridden, and then tired of the fight.

However, given a fresh and large-scale nationwide initiative along those lines, you will find a lot of those Johnny-come-latelies and fence-sitters switching sides again.

Guaranteed.

It certainly would be great fun, to put it to the test.

Where have you been? Have you had your head stuck in some dark hole for many years?

The attitude of the general public has shifted over the last 10 to 15 years. Most people now realize that "laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress".

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a big mess but this is what happens when unelected, unaccountable judges decide that they know better than The People what kinds of laws we should have.
The Judiciary was never meant to be supreme over the will of the People.