Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[Seawytch]

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.

Besides, she would not be "fired" for her beliefs, but for intentionally violating the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Besides, she would not be "fired" for her beliefs, but for intentionally violating the law.

No difference.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Your fantasies will never be reality...but dream on!

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Besides, she would not be "fired" for her beliefs, but for intentionally violating the law.

No difference.

Huge difference.

 

[Kondor3]

...Your fantasies will never be reality...but dream on!

That's what the Pro-Illegals types have been telling us for years, and, now, that's back on the table again, as a National Discussion. Time will tell.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Besides, she would not be "fired" for her beliefs, but for intentionally violating the law.

No difference.

Huge difference.

Only because one is an argument you can hide behind.
The truth is government employees, even elected officials, do not give up a single right under the BoR. To fire someone for refusing to follow an order that violates their religious beliefs is forbidden. Especially since the clerk was elected when same sex marriage was illegal.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Will of the people was never meant to be supreme over the Constitution.

That is why we have a Constitution.

 

[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.

The Will of the people was never meant to be supreme over the Constitution.

That is why we have a Constitution.

LOL! Poor thing.

 

[Syriusly]

...Your fantasies will never be reality...but dream on!

That's what the Pro-Illegals types have been telling us for years, and, now, that's back on the table again, as a National Discussion. Time will tell.

Considering that the public has been moving steadily in the direction in favor of same gender marriage, I think time will tell.

Soon, the opponents of same gender marriage will be looked at like we look at the opponents of mixed race marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Will of the people was never meant to be supreme over the Constitution.

That is why we have a Constitution.

LOL! Poor thing.

The Constitution is an amazing document- sad you think of it as a 'poor thing' and do not respect it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Besides, she would not be "fired" for her beliefs, but for intentionally violating the law.

No difference.

Huge difference.

Only because one is an argument you can hide behind.
The truth is government employees, even elected officials, do not give up a single right under the BoR. To fire someone for refusing to follow an order that violates their religious beliefs is forbidden.

Hmmm no it isn't.

Employers must make reasonable accommodations.

But since in this case, the employee is telling all clerks not to issue licenses, there is no 'reasonable accomodation'.

If she just refused herself, and others in the same facility could issue the license she would be fine.

Of course this applies to actual employees- and as Debra pointed out- she is an elected official- she will just be forced to comply with the judges order.

 

[Debra K]

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.


>>>>

Please provide a link for the authority you rely upon to support your assertion.

As an elected official, she is deemed acting under the color of law even if she abuses her position. I see nothing in the law that requires the tax payers of her district to pay attorney fees in a case brought because of her unlawful and unconstitutional policy.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1988.pdf

By the way, she is also sued in her personal capacity.

http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Rowan-complaint.pdf

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

How about simply firing her because she refuses to do the job that's she's paid for?

Sure, as Rosa Parks was jailed for violating a messed up law. That is the consequence
of civil disobedience. Even Dr. King ended up in jail and was criticized by fellow ministers
who saw breaking the law as negative and not obeying civil authority. This does happen.

In this case, the rulings and laws are messed up on both sides.
If they support gay marriage they violate beliefs of opponents who don't approve of those beliefs endorsed by the state; if they deny gay marriage they violate the equal protection and free exercise of beliefs of those who do believe in marriage equality. Either way it is a catch-22 because both sides' beliefs are equal under law.
The Judiciary and the legislators before them messed up by FAILING to recognize both the religious beliefs and the political beliefs at stake here, that all are equal in the eyes of the law. Big fat FAIL and everyone's paying.

I seems that you are always trying to see both sides of the issue and to find ways to accommodate everyone. While that is commendable it is often not realistic or appropriate to do so. Sometimes wrong is just wrong. This is not a matter of civil disobedience to protest an unjust law. It’s a matter of hiding behind the claim of religious freedom in order to discriminate. I have to wonder how many marriage licenses she issued to people who were previously married. Isn’t divorce also against here religion. ? It represents the height of hypocrisy.

The constitution protects the free exercise of religion. All freedoms have their limitations and end where ones behavior in the name of the exercise of that freedom infringes on the rights of others. In addition, religious freedom has no greater value than other freedoms.

The lawmakers and the judiciary did not “mess up” in any way. The clerk still has her religious beliefs in tack and none can take that away from here. She is free to liver HER life according to those beliefs but so is everyone else, including those who believe-on religious or any grounds – should be allowed to marry.


You might want to consider this:

1. Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice. 2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

.

Hi ProgressivePatriot
I agree that it is violating the law,
what I am saying is this could have been prevented in the first place.

Similar to not passing ACA mandates penalizing citizens with fines
so that if they don't comply then it CREATES a violation.

If the laws were written properly to begin with this wouldn't happen.

You act like it is impossible.
Well, I listed a number of ways the conflicts could be kept out of govt.
A. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers
B. Agreeing to word the laws so neutrally, they don't involve any reference
to the beliefs in conflict, yet still allow all people to exercise their own equally.
C. Agreeing to accept gay marriage even if it is against people's beliefs,
if references to God, crosses, Bibles, creation etc. is also allowed without
suing either even if it is against other people's beliefs.

It's not impossible. Treating it like it is
is part of the problem. That's like saying
"it is impossible to prevent abortion without banning it"
"it is impossible to avoid the death penalty without banning it"
"it is impossible to ensure gun safety without penalizing law abiding gun owners"
and then justifying one person or group's belief to write laws a certain way
just because THEY believe it is the only way. While others are screaming no it isn't.

That is what is wrong with the ACA mandates also,
which penalize citizens for not buying insurance
when there are other ways to provide for public health care
while keeping insurance an optional choice.

I agree that the violations are wrong,
what I am saying is to AVOID them in the first place
by working out the conflicts in advance.

TheProgressivePatriot you think it is unrealistic,
well, I'm saying it is LEGALLY NECESSSARY.

I have plenty of friends who have worked out these issues
without pushing it to this point. It is not only possible to work out difference
but Constitutionally NECESSARY to prevent violations on both sides.

This is unacceptable.

I find it unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs
because govt requires them or penalizes them, that just makes it worse!

Lastly TheProgressivePatriot
Do you or do you not make a distinction between
people who are TRULY being discriminatory and unfair against gay people
versus people who just don't believe in gay marriage and by their convictions
are not supposed to associate or do business with people who don't recognize this conflict.

Do you understand that not everyone is doing this for
unlawful discrimination reasons. There is a difference.

So as much as it is wrong to deprive others of their equal rights and access,
it is wrongful to condemn, punish or deprive liberties of people who don't have
any abusive, unlawful or ill intent BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS WHO DO.

The same way people who believe in gun rights want a SAY in how laws are written
so they don't overcorrect and impose too much, people who have beliefs against
gay marriage want to have equal say and representation in how laws are
written and implemented so they don't cross the line and impose too much the other way EITHER.

That is not unreasonable, that is just plain ETHICAL to respect
the beliefs and sides equally, or else REMOVE marriage from govt.

Marriage does not need to be through govt.
If need be, just the civil contracts can be handled through govt
and keep all the other language and terms managed locally, statewide or nationally through other means.

If people want their beliefs seriously enough, those people will pay the costs to separate them.

If they don't want to pay the costs, then they might be willing to compromise
and pool all the beliefs together under govt; and it may provide incentive to
offer to allow equal references to God, prolife, crosses, Bibles, creation, etc.
so people don't feel discriminated against for their beliefs while mandating other beliefs.

If we are going to remove OTHER references to beliefs not everyone shares,
it is only fair to remove references to gay marriage as another belief not everyone shares.

Either allow all references, or remove them all, or negotiate how to deal with the differences.
But imposing one way through govt, while others are SCREAMING isn't going to work.
Coercion does not work when it comes to people's inherent BELIEFS at stake on BOTH SIDES.

The only thing I have ever seen work is inclusion and mediation that respects
consent of all parties in an equally mutually agreed upon consensus.

Anything else is going to be contested and cause conflicts, where beliefs are involved.

Thinking this can be overridden by govt is against human nature.
Both sides will keep fighting to defend their interests until ALL
grievances and objections are addressed and resolved. That is human nature.

Nobody I know consents to govt overriding their beliefs!!!

You need to try to get focused and present ideas in a coherent way. You are all over the map with a lot of flowery and lofty language that leaves me wondering how it translates into pragmatic and workable solutions. Just one example of something that you said:

. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers

Will you please translate that into English? Can you explain how it would actually be implemented.? People will pay taxes according to their beliefs? Everyone will cover their own health care without government assistance from taxes. ?? Really?

 

[JakeStarkey]

She wants to create political enclaves based on party alignment that protects what she believes. In other words, think India and Pakistan and the Hindus and Muslim having to move back and forth. Nonsense.

Thus Travis County, Texas, could have same sex marriage and Burnet and Llano and Gillespie counties would not. Nonsense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please provide a link for the authority you rely upon to support your assertion.

Attorney General Must Pay 135 000 in Gay Marriage Case

Judge awards nearly 300 000 in attorney fees in same-sex marriage case - Tulsa World Courts

Gay marriage ban challengers seek legal fees from state

Pam Bondi balks at paying full cost of Florida s fight against gay marriage Tampa Bay Times


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

She wants to create political enclaves based on party alignment that protects what she believes. In other words, think India and Pakistan and the Hindus and Muslim having to move back and forth. Nonsense.

Thus Travis County, Texas, could have same sex marriage and Burnet and Llano and Gillespie counties would not. Nonsense.

I do believe that you nailed it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Tell it to this crack pot. It seems that you would have a lot in common:

Pat Robertson: Christians Forced To 'Bow Down' Before Gays Who Are Bent On Destroying Us
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 8/18/2015 11:40 am

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson claimed that “left-wing so-called progressives” have “hijacked the Constitution and control the court system of America,” which has ushered in judicial “tyranny” with rulings such the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. As a result, America’s Christian majority “are being made to bow down before the two percent who are homosexual.” “We have surrendered the great freedom we have in this nation to an oligarchy of non-elected judges,” he said. “This is a free country.” The televangelist especially took issue with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Obergefell decision: “These five, and Justice Kennedy is off on this kick about the personhood and sanctity of personhood and being gay is your self-identity and all that baloney, it’s not in the Constitution but he’s come up with all of these rules.” - See more at: Pat Robertson Christians Forced To Bow Down Before Gays Who Are Bent On Destroying Us Right Wing Watch

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This issue was resolved over two centuries ago during the founding of the Republic: Federal laws, the Federal Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions (US. Cont., Article VI)

In this case we have a ruling by a Federal court – the Supreme Court – the final appellate court in the Federal Judiciary, holding that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

It is now incumbent upon state and local officers, and others charged to act in an official state capacity, to obey the Constitution, the ruling of the Supreme Court, and the law of the land.

As a unanimous Supreme Court held in Cooper v. Aaron:

'The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.'

Consequently this clerk is at war with the Constitution, and is violating her solemn oath to support it.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

The Will of the people was never meant to be supreme over the Constitution.

That is why we have a Constitution.

The Constitution exists BY the Will of the People.

The People are the ultimate sovereignty.

Constitutions and governments and elected officials exist at the pleasure of The People.

And, when The People deem it time for a change, they make one.

That includes shoving aside those who persist overly long or overly forcefully in opposing that Will.

 

[Kondor3]

...Tell it to this crack pot. It seems that you would have a lot in common:..

Is that really the best you've got, boy?

Looks more like the Lazy Man's School of Ineffective Counterpointing.