If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future

by DJS 508 Replies latest social current

• 

  Fisherman

  Here is what I would do in Davis' place. I would have issued the licenses. No big deal. Here is why; I am only a clerk. I do not get to decide who should qualify. People in higher office have done that, deciding that ss marriages is the law. The qualifications for licenses are not set by me. They are set by the State. It is my job to decide if each individual that appears before me meets those qualifications set by law (not by me.) Davis claims that her signature and title on the certificate means that she is endorsing ss marriages. I strongly disagree. It only means that she certifies that the named individuals on the document meet the required qualifications And because they do, she (empowered by the State) licenses them. But actually, it is the State not her.
  I think that she does not qualify for RA. She may get it because KY is mostly anti=ss marriage. The reason I think that she does not qualify is because there is absolutely no reason, religious or otherwise FOR NOT DOING YOUR JOB! She should have been forced to resign. I would have sought to charge her with official misconduct FIRST while she was refusing to do her job.. As a public official, she must uphold and defend the Constitution. She is not doing that in my opinion. Giving her a reasonable accommodation is an outrage in my opinion. I feel sorry for her loosing her job. That is not what I want and I do not want her to go to jail but from an emotionally sterile position based on what she has done, she should be forced to resign. She does not qualify for that position anymore. If I were King , Kim Davis would not be working (based on the facts that I know about this case.)
  
• 

  Fisherman

  I have read a publication that says that the related US Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional.
• 

  LisaRose

  Fisherman3 minutes agoI have read a publication that says that the related US Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional.

  Lol, What publication is that? You do know that the Supreme court actually decides what is constitutional or not, right?
  
• 

  Viviane

  Fishperson, stop lying. I never said anything about reasonable accommodation. You seem to be constitutionally unable to address realitty.

  So, as reality once again shows, you've not the slightest idea what you're talking about and are full of shit.
• 

  Fisherman

  I doubt she will have the brains to keep her mouth shut and do her job. She will be back in jail before long.

  Her attorneys stated that all she wanted was an accommodation where her name and title does not appear on the certificate.
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  LisaRose:

  Guppy Hunter won't answer your question, he/she's clearly demonstrated his/her incapacity to be honest.
• 

  Fisherman

  Guppy Hunter won't answer your question, he/she's clearly demonstrated his/her incapacity to be honest.

  How about just showing respect to others that you do not agree with. You should: "try reading"-Marvin Shilmer It is there.
• 

  Village Idiot

  Fisherman:

  "I have read a publication that says that the related US Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional."

  We're all interested in that publication Fisherman. Not that it matters because the only proper way of interpreting the Constitution is to apply it to everyone equally. The same constitution used to allow slavery. That was changed. The basic principle comes down to whether gays have the moral right to be like everyone else and they do. That supersedes any abstract question of constitutionality.
• 

  Viviane

  How about you show respect to others by not constantly lying and distorting reality for your trolling?
• 

  Fisherman

  Great Post VI!