If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future (page 4)

Viviane

Seems like you don't know anything about how government works, Fish.

_Morpheus

I find it hard to believe that one little clerk from bum screw america has garnered so much attention.

The Rebel

LOONEY TUNES:- Porky Pig works " as one little clerk" for local government, and he knows how local government works.

As Porky Pig would say:-

" T.T. T. That's all folks"

The Rebel.

DJS

Fish,

The ‘terms’ she agreed on were listed in an earlier comment. You could have read them or conducted your own research, neither of which you seem to be capable of.

Reasonable accommodation, which addresses making allowances or creating options for job duties or responsibilities considered to be essential, of beliefs is required. An example might be a company that allows a person to switch shifts or avoid scheduling someone on Sundays – when working Sundays is essential for the company and the job - if the person requested an accommodation to attend religious services on these days. However, a company would never be legally required to provide an accommodation to a religious person when they are willfully violating the US Constitution and federal or state laws. ‘Accommodations’ does not apply in this matter. This is another issue you could have researched and saved our time.

Davis is an elected official, which means there is no supervisor with the power to terminate her employment and that she cannot be ‘transferred’ to another task. As if she would accept such. This is yet another issue you could have researched.

The City Attorney's Office referred official misconduct charges against her to the State Attorney General, who is a Democrat that refused to defend Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage, so Davis is not likely to find a champion for her cause in the A.G.'s office. They have asked the attorney general to charge Ms. Davis with misconduct under KRS 522.020 and KRS 522.030. One is a Class A misdemeanor punishable with imprisonment not to exceed 12 months and fine of $500. The other is a Class B misdemeanor punishable with up to 90 days imprisonment and a fine of $250. Which degree of culpability applies to Ms. Davis would be decided after a guilty verdict at trial, but the offense is the same:

“A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.”

Yes, Fish. Orange is the new black. But look on the positive side, Fish. She can start a prison ministry.

Billyblobber

She was divorced three times, and remarried. She issues licenses to divorced people that remarried (and when questioned, said, "it is their conscience." Even if there were a religious exemption, which there is definitely not, she is breaking her own logic in doing this, and it wouldn't stand. She has absolutely no leg to stand on. Even a lot of the extreme religious right is turning on her (basically saying that her history makes her a terrible martyr and defeats the purpose).

GrreatTeacher

She is refusing to issue ALL marriage licences, even heterosexual ones!

Can she claim religious conscientious objection to issuing heterosexual marriage licenses? She's never had a problem with that before!

I don't think she's thought this through very well.

redvip2000

if religion is her reason or another valid reason, then must the State be forced to protect her rights and accommodate her someway so that she does not have to issue licenses to same sex marriages?

I'm always surprised when people bring up this argument. It's still not obvious to people that when you perform a public-facing job, your personal views don't come into play - those are reserved for your personal life. So if you are a clerk, you need to leave your personal convictions aside and follow the law and serve everybody equally when you are working. When you leave work, you can be a huge bigot if you want.

If you own a bakery, you serve the public and thus, you need to serve everybody equally. If you are a firefighter, you don't get to refuse to put out a fire in a gay person's house just because you are a bigot. You simply put out the fire because that is your duty. When all of these folks leave their jobs, they can do whatever you want, but when you are in a public facing position, you don't get to choose.

Fisherman

.".violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.”

DJS, you are no shrinking violet! -But neither is she.

They cannot force her to violate her religious beliefs. If when she was appointed to public office, she did not know that she would have to issue same sex marriage licenses, then I think that she has a good reason for her case.

DJS

Fish,

You are once again wasting everyone's time. Now you think an argument exists because she didn't know at the time she took the oath. Really? But keep posting, please. You make it abundantly clear with each of your posts that you don't know what you are talking about, you are lazy and refuse to do any real research, you lack the humility to admit you are mistaken and the self control to avoid the keyboard.

People like her refused to marry blacks and whites years ago - one just recently - for religious reasons. Judges and the like. They all either resigned or capitulated. As will she. None of them 'won' the right to violate the Constitution based on their religious views.

violias

Well, I think she should probably just suck it up and do her job, but I am not her.

The fact that she has been divorced 3 times has nothing to do with anything. The Bible allows for divorce, or so she would tell you.

.Everyone wants their rights respected unless it is something they hate, like Christians.

I know the WTS has left a lot of us wounded but the hate on this thread is horrible.

The courts will deal with her.

Should a bunch of us gather around her house or the courthose and shout insulting vulgar names at her until she sees the error of her ways?

It's almost like many would like to shove something down her throat.

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

Share this