SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[nickqt]

Well I'm willing to change my position if what you say is true. I wasn't aware that government employees had to give up their first amendment rights. I'll have to look into that.

The bigot part may or may not be true. I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt that this is her true religious belief. I'm not ready to be a bigot against her just because she has faith.

You have to be a parody troll.

Her job description is giving eligible people a marriage certificate.

The first amendment doesn't give her permission to stop doing her job.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well I'm willing to change my position if what you say is true. I wasn't aware that government employees had to give up their first amendment rights. I'll have to look into that.

Government employees don't "give up their first amendment rights". They simply don't have any when acting for the government as part of their job.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos

 

[RY62]

Her job description is handing out marriage certificates.

If she refuses to do that because she doesn't like to hand out marriage certificates on Tuesdays and Thursdays, she'd be fired, because she isn't doing her job.

Again, a small part of her job is handing out marriage certificates.

As I understand it, she can't be fired. In the elected position, she could be impeached. If she refused to do a job just because she didn't like it, I'd be right with you. In this case, I understand her faith. If she is convinced that this act goes against God's law, she can't do it. You're asking her to do something that she cannot do.

I, personally, don't see the act of issuing the certificate to be in violation of God's law but that's just me. I still respect her right to her faith.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Part of her job, genius, was to hand out marriage certificates.

From rowancountyclerk.com - These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting election duties and tax duties.

Seems, she could still do the majority of her job. Somebody else could perform the new task that she is unable to do. There should be a compromise. Unless we just want to be bigots against Christians.

Then the county needs to either elect or hire someone else to do that job. She did have a backup person to sign when she was out of the office but it appears that person got sick of her not doing it and started to refuse requests because they are only allowed to do it when she is not in the office. The job hasn't changed in any way. She is an elected official that took an oath to uphold and obey the law.
Remember the form isn't asking her to bless the marriage its simply a form to track & file for the state & county.
Honestly if this wasn't some kind of plan to inconvenience gays she should have taken a leave of absence over it and let the county decide if they want to continue paying her.

 

[Paratus]

Is that the best you've got? No thoughts at all just lame attacks?

Unlike other jobs I'm sure she swore an oath to uphold the law when she was elected. She should have known the law could change before she took the job.

She is now violating her oath. She either needs to do her job or the legislature should impeach her and hold new elections.

If she want's to fight this she can do it on her own time. When she's at work she represents the government and needs to do her job. Period.

 

[Vic]

Well I'm willing to change my position if what you say is true. I wasn't aware that government employees had to give up their first amendment rights. I'll have to look into that.

The bigot part may or may not be true. I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt that this is her true religious belief. I'm not ready to be a bigot against her just because she has faith.

She hasn't given up any rights. As the county clerk, she is legally a state actor. Meaning that, when acting in official capacity, like when issuing or refusing marriage licenses, she IS the government. And the government does not have rights.

 

[nickqt]

Again, a small part of her job is handing out marriage certificates.

As I understand it, she can't be fired. In the elected position, she could be impeached. If she refused to do a job just because she didn't like it, I'd be right with you. In this case, I understand her faith. If she is convinced that this act goes against God's law, she can't do it. You're asking her to do something that she cannot do.

I, personally, don't see the act of issuing the certificate to be in violation of God's law but that's just me. I still respect her right to her faith.

You fire a fry cook whose job it is to fry fries, but he doesn't do it.

Whether you want to call it fire or impeach, if your job duties include issuing marriage certificates and you don't do so because its not a leap year, or you hate gay people, it doesn't matter. You aren't doing your job. It is exactly that complicated, but you can try to add nuance if you'd like.

Nothing is stopping her from handing out a marriage certificate, except that she doesn't want to, because it's Thursday in August, or she hates gay people. That's on her.

 

[RY62]

Unlike other jobs I'm sure she swore an oath to uphold the law when she was elected. She should have know the law could change.

She is now violating her oath. She either needs to do her job or the legislature should impeach her and hold new elections.

If she want's to fight this she can do it on her own time. When she's at work she represents the government and needs to do her job. Period.

Now this is a point I hadn't considered. If there was an oath to uphold the law, I can see your point. Again, I'll have to look into this.

Just seems to me that people are quick to call her a bigot but don't see their own bigotry against people who have strong religious convictions. i don't want to be that guy.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Part of her job, genius, was to hand out marriage certificates.

From rowancountyclerk.com - These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting election duties and tax duties.

Seems, she could still do the majority of her job. Somebody else could perform the new task that she is unable to do. There should be a compromise. Unless we just want to be bigots against Christians.

She's not paid to "do the majority of her job." She's paid to *all* of her job. If she's not willing to do all of her duties, she should resign. It really is that simple.

 

[RY62]

Nothing is stopping her from handing out a marriage certificate, except that she doesn't want to, because it's Thursday in August, or she hates gay people. That's on her.

That's not true. If she truly believes this act to be in violation of God's law, she just cannot do it. I'm not bigoted enough against people of faith to ignore that.

 

[RY62]

She's not paid to "do the majority of her job." She's paid to *all* of her job. If she's not willing to do all of her duties, she should resign. It really is that simple.

You say "not willing", she says "not able" there's a big difference. Not willing, I agree. Not able and I've got a problem.

 

[Vic]

Now this is a point I hadn't considered. If there was an oath to uphold the law, I can see your point. Again, I'll have to look into this.

Just seems to me that people are quick to call her a bigot but don't see their own bigotry against people who have strong religious convictions. i don't want to be that guy.

The problem here IMO is that the media has spun this out of control. Ms Davis is not a private citizen exercising her 1st amendment right to freedom of religion like what you may have been told.
She is a rogue government official acting in violation of a Supreme Court ruling and abusing her government position in order to deny citizens within her county of equal protection of the law.

 

[werepossum]

So, what I'm hearing is that the job has changed so that she can no longer do it and we say "if you don't like it, quit". You see, I have a problem with that. Elected or otherwise, I wouldn't like it if my boss came in tomorrow and said from now on, you'll need to do some task that he knows I can't do. If you don't like it, quit.

I see this more as a handicap. Let her keep doing the job she was elected to do. Hire somebody else to do the new task.

But isn't that a risk with any job? If a devout Muslim cashier works at a grocery that doesn't sell pork and it later begins to sell pork, that cashier can no longer do her job. Is that the employer's problem? I don't see there is or should be any guarantee that one's job will remain palatable to one's sensibilities. I don't own my job, it's a contract between myself and my bosses. Either of us can change it, but even as one of the owners I have to abide by the legal requirements of my job even if it changes. Both employer and employee have to agree on any changes, else the employee needs to leave.

I respect (though don't particularly understand) her faith, but she had every opportunity to make her own arrangements to carry out her duties. If she can deputize people to do her job when she is elsewhere, then she can deputize people to do the parts of her job she finds in violation of her faith. In this she has much more flexibility than most workers who lack that power and are at the mercy of their bosses. She chose not to do that, but instead to pitch a hissy and refuse to do her job. Real people were discriminated against and inconvenienced due to her decision; real people had their rights denied. She chose to put herself above the people she nominally serves and thus at this point she needs to be gone, whatever that takes.

 

[RY62]

Here is the oath of office taken by county clerks in Kentucky:

———

Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys:

Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

———

Hmm...I'll have to ponder this one for a while. The part about the duels has me off track.

 

[glenn1]

Well I'm willing to change my position if what you say is true. I wasn't aware that government employees had to give up their first amendment rights. I'll have to look into that.

The bigot part may or may not be true. I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt that this is her true religious belief. I'm not ready to be a bigot against her just because she has faith.

The act of issuing a license to someone qualified isn't speech. She would still be able to exercise her 1st Amendment rights to say something hugely offensive and bigoted to those qualified people she gave the licenses to. Gratuitously being an asshole to people isn't speech, whereas saying asshole-like things to people is free speech. Although as a government official the later is probably prohibited by the employer's Code of Conduct and could lead to loss of job.

 

[nickqt]

That's not true. If she truly believes this act to be in violation of God's law, she just cannot do it. I'm not bigoted enough against people of faith to ignore that.

I'm not bigoted against religious people.

If she is unable or unwilling to do her job, whether because of her religion, or because she doesn't want to, it's the same result: she isn't doing her job.

She is more than able to be whatever religion she wants, as long as she doesn't stop doing the job she is being paid to do by taxpayers.

 

[DrDoug]

Again, a small part of her job is handing out marriage certificates.

As I understand it, she can't be fired. In the elected position, she could be impeached. If she refused to do a job just because she didn't like it, I'd be right with you. In this case, I understand her faith. If she is convinced that this act goes against God's law, she can't do it. You're asking her to do something that she cannot do.

I, personally, don't see the act of issuing the certificate to be in violation of God's law but that's just me. I still respect her right to her faith.

Then she has the responsibility to resign since she is incapable of carrying out her oath of office. She not only refused marriage licenses to gay people but she has refused to issue any marriage licenses to anyone, denying a license to even those people she believes have a legal right to a marriage license in Kentucky. If she is allowed to violate her oath of office to keep her job then that oath means nothing. When she took her job she took an oath to follow the laws of her state and our nation, not the Bible. She doesn't have a right to her job but I do agree that she does have a right to not have her name on the certificates she objects to. She can exercise that right at any time by simply resigning but instead she has chosen to nail herself up on a cross. The judge was kind enough to pound in that pesky last nail in for her. :biggrin:

She holds her the key to her cell and can unlock the door and walk out any time she wishes. All she has to do is obey the law or resign. It's that simple.

 

[bshole]

Now this is a point I hadn't considered. If there was an oath to uphold the law, I can see your point. Again, I'll have to look into this.

Just seems to me that people are quick to call her a bigot but don't see their own bigotry against people who have strong religious convictions. i don't want to be that guy.

She took an oath on the Bible and before God to uphold the constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

So she is sinning against God by no upholding her oath by executing her job. The only way she could have handled this without sin (using her fucked up reasoning) was to resign.

 

[Paratus]

That's not true. If she truly believes this act to be in violation of God's law, she just cannot do it. I'm not bigoted enough against people of faith to ignore that.

Devout Muslim clerk - no drivers license for women
Devout Quaker clerk - no concealed carry permits.
Devout Baptist clerk - no liquor licenses for any bars or restaurants

I'm sure your willing to support these hypotheticals as well.

As you've basically said, your freedoms and rights should be restricted based on the religion of the representative of the state you interact with. Their rights supersede yours.

I really can't agree with your points but your welcome to have them.

 

[etrigan420]

But isn't that a risk with any job? If a devout Muslim cashier works at a grocery that doesn't sell pork and it later begins to sell pork, that cashier can no longer do her job.

Why do you assume that the Muslim cashier is a woman?

#MaleMuslimCashierLivesMatter bro. 😛

If this woman *truly* had the courage of her convictions then she would simply resign. It's that simple.

One of the more interesting aspects to this whole to-do is that fact that she's a Democrat. Not that Democrat's can't be Christians or homophobes or women with large foreheads, it's just...odd. Then throw in the support of Cruz, Jindall, et al, and I kind of feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[RY62]

If she can deputize people to do her job when she is elsewhere, then she can deputize people to do the parts of her job she finds in violation of her faith. In this she has much more flexibility than most workers who lack that power and are at the mercy of their bosses. She chose not to do that, but instead to pitch a hissy and refuse to do her job. Real people were discriminated against and inconvenienced due to her decision; real people had their rights denied. She chose to put herself above the people she nominally serves and thus at this point she needs to be gone, whatever that takes.

Thank you and a few others for actual civil and respectful debate. As I said, I had not followed this story but you've given me points to consider. Still not really sure where I'll end up on this one but, if someone else could have done this part of the job, she had the compromise situation I was seeking.

 

[RY62]

Devout Muslim clerk - no drivers license for women
Devout Quaker clerk - no concealed carry permits.
Devout Baptist clerk - no liquor licenses for any bars or restaurants

I'm sure your willing to support these hypotheticals as well.

As you've basically said, your freedoms and rights should be restricted based on the religion of the representative of the state you interact with. Their rights supersede yours.

I really can't agree with your points but your welcome to have them.

No, we don't have to restrict the freedoms and rights of anyone, including hers. I'm sure you've read enough to understand my true concerns so I won't go over it again but thank you again for the civil debate.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You say "not willing", she says "not able" there's a big difference. Not willing, I agree. Not able and I've got a problem.

She is choosing not to fulfill the legal responsibilities/duties of her job. She should resign.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Slightly off topic, is she still collecting a salary while she is in jail?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No, we don't have to restrict the freedoms and rights of anyone, including hers. I'm sure you've read enough to understand my true concerns so I won't go over it again but thank you again for the civil debate.

Just saw on the news, the county offered to essentially deputize other people in the office to handle her marriage duties but she would not relinquish the authority, it appears she may have threatened to fire anyone who goes against her decision.
She had ample opportunity to comply. This also could explain why the county refused to rewrite the paperwork to say per office of deeds without a name. I'd bet she burned some bridges.