News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[92tide]

I feel no particular outrage, but I will note that an employer in the U.S. that discriminates on the basis of religion might be in trouble. So, if a soldier in Afghanistan ignored the so-called "education" and ate or drank on base in front of Muslim soldiers and was later denied promotion or otherwise punished for doing so, the soldier might have a valid claim of having his constitutional rights violated.

what rights would have been violated in that instance.

 

[Jon]

I have had many many dealings with public employees over a life time. Not many of them display a sense of urgency in what they do. One can easily spend a full day at a DMV office just to renew a driver's license. I have also spent time at private establishments and had bad experiences at all levels. When I figure out that one place is bad, I go find another location to meet my needs. If I were to have trouble with a particular caterer, florist or restaurant, I may express my dissatisfaction but I then go and find one to my liking. If I would have had trouble getting a marriage license at one location, I would have gone to another location as any other couple in love would do. LGBT do not think this way. They demand everyone think the way they think or they want to destroy you. This was the case before the latest ruling. LGBT can not be satisfied with being given a special right to marry others of the same sex, they want people who disagree with them punished. This may seem like some othe religions out there that persecute non believers, but it certainly is not representative of Christianity.

so when all the DMV clerks in your town convert to Islam and stop issuing drivers licenses to women are you going just "happily move along to the next DMV office" to get your wife, daughter or mom's drivers license renewed? Or are you going to get upset?

 

[cbi1972]

so when all the DMV clerks in your town convert to Islam and stop issuing drivers licenses to women are you going just "happily move along to the next DMV office" to get your wife, daughter or mom's drivers license renewed? Or are you going to get upset?

Hang on, this idea has some merit.

 

[Tide1986]

what rights would have been violated in that instance.

It probably depends on the actions of the employer. If the employer does nothing, then probably no rights have been violated unless you are a follower of FFRF and believe that any acknowledgement of a religious practice by a government entity is a violation of your rights.

If the employer "writes up" the employee for not adhering to his "education", then their might be a claim of religious discrimination of some kind against the employer.

 

[Tide1986]

so you ctrl R the word marriage and enter the word religion and this is going to prove something? Next.....

oh and the courts have already denied to hear Davis's case.

Well, you can insert just about any "right" that you wish, and see the absurdity of the basis of Justice Kennedy's opinion.

 

[Tide1986]

so when all the DMV clerks in your town convert to Islam and stop issuing drivers licenses to women are you going just "happily move along to the next DMV office" to get your wife, daughter or mom's drivers license renewed? Or are you going to get upset?

The State of Alabama has not yet passed a law removing driving privileges for women.

 

[92tide]

It probably depends on the actions of the employer. If the employer does nothing, then probably no rights have been violated unless you are a follower of FFRF and believe that any acknowledgement of a religious practice by a government entity is a violation of your rights.

If the employer "writes up" the employee for not adhering to his "education", then their might be a claim of religious discrimination of some kind against the employer.

first, you are bouncing between employer and us military. besides that, it is quite a stretch to say that being punished/reprimanded/etc for not doing your job or not following instructions results in religious discrimination.

 

[Jon]

The State of Alabama has not yet passed a law removing driving privileges for women.

but it is the clerks deeply held religious belief that women are inferior and should not be allowed to drive. This hypothetical clerk is doing the same thing that Davis is doing

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I really think this one is pretty simple: An elected public official doesn't get to flout any laws simply by virtue of disagreement.

Like it or not, this issue is settled. SCOTUS has ruled. One might or might not agree, but you most abide by it or face contempt charges.

Off the job, she's free to protest and advocate any way she wants. Support a test case to get SCOTUS to reverse (good luck with that). But on the job, she has to follow the law.

Roy Moore was removed from office for this very issue: refusing to obey a federal court order with which he disagreed on religious grounds. He got elected again a while later, but notice he hasn't defied any court orders since then.

If she's allowed to both remain in office and deny lawful applications for licenses, that sets a nasty precedent for zealots of any description -- liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever -- to impose their will on the general public, never mind the fact that that imposition is in direct opposition to the law of the land.

That, to me, is far scarier than anything two consenting adults can do to or with one another.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I really think this one is pretty simple: An elected public official doesn't get to flout any laws simply by virtue of disagreement.

Agree.

If only all elected officials were held to the same standard...

 

[Tide1986]

first, you are bouncing between employer and us military. besides that, it is quite a stretch to say that being punished/reprimanded/etc for not doing your job or not following instructions results in religious discrimination.

Well, the military is an employer. Nevertheless, sorry for the confusion.

Again, being instructed not to eat or drink in public on base because of a religious holiday is either a violation of (1) individual religious rights and/or (2) the establishment clause. The FFRF should be going crazy over soldiers being compelled directly or indirectly to follow the practices of any religion. And being punished because you did not follow the indicated religious practices is employment discrimation as well.

 

[92tide]

Well, the military is an employer. Nevertheless, sorry for the confusion.

Again, being instructed not to eat or drink in public on base because of a religious holiday is either a violation of (1) individual religious rights and/or (2) the establishment clause. The FFRF should be going crazy over soldiers being compelled directly or indirectly to follow the practices of any religion. And being punished because you did not follow the indicated religious practices is employment discrimation as well.

then you should bring a case in military court. and try not to be offended when you are laughed out of the courtroom

 

[Tide1986]

but it is the clerks deeply held religious belief that women are inferior and should not be allowed to drive. This hypothetical clerk is doing the same thing that Davis is doing

Maybe unwittingly, Kim Davis was following Kentucky law.

 

[92tide]

Maybe unwittingly, Kim Davis was following Kentucky law.

so what

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Tide1986]

then you should bring a case in military court. and try not to be offended when you are laughed out of the courtroom

I think I said earlier that I feel no particular outrage. I'm just thinking through all of the arguments.

 

[Tide1986]

If only all elected officials were held to the same standard...

For sure.

And it will be interesting to see if Kentucky takes action to remove her from office or if the people take action not to return her to office.

 

[92tide]

I think I said earlier that I feel no particular outrage. I'm just thinking through all of the arguments.

well, this may help as you work through those arguments - to have an infringement of religious liberty, there has to actually be an infringement of religious liberty.

 

[GrayTide]

Let her clerks do all the work issuing marriage licenses, stay out of the way, sit on her fat arse in her office and draw her $80,000 a year salary. What am I missing?

 

[92tide]

Let her clerks do all the work issuing marriage licenses, stay out of the way, sit on her fat arse in her office and draw her $80,000 a year salary. What am I missing?

its a nice little grift she's got going.

i still can't get my head around a county clerk in a rural county (pop <> 23-24k) pulling down $80k per year

 

[Tide1986]

well, this may help as you work through those arguments - to have an infringement of religious liberty, there has to actually be an infringement of religious liberty.

It doesn't, but that's okay. The new "dignity" standard means the infringed get to decide what is and is not a right and what is and is not an infringement. So, whether or not an observer like yourself sees an infringement really doesn't matter.