Clerk digs in, defies judge’s gay marriage order

[Anomalism]

Kentucky clerk digs in, defies judge’s gay marriage order

Despite a federal injunction, one same-sex couple has already been turned away from obtaining a marriage license at the Rowan County Clerk's Office. David Moore, who is trying to marry his partner of 17 years, David Ermold, visited the clerk's office early Thursday, but a deputy clerk told him that the office is still not issuing the forms.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Then an arrest warrant should be issued for the clerk for "defying the injunction."

 

[Chomsky]

Some 'civil servant'.

If they won't do their job, let them go - why should public service employment standards be different than private?

This is why unions have no place in public employment.

If one doesn't want to work in public servitude under our terms, they should get out and seek their fortune in the private sector.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I think the clerk and the clerk's office in this matter is wrong, but I do find it curious that when clerks and clerk's offices in places like San Francisco were defying legislation and court orders in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples these clerks were championed as fighting laws they felt were wrong. When the shoe's on the other special interest's foot, no such acceptance of civil disobedience.

 

[Ikari]

Kentucky clerk digs in, defies judge’s gay marriage order

Despite a federal injunction, one same-sex couple has already been turned away from obtaining a marriage license at the Rowan County Clerk's Office. David Moore, who is trying to marry his partner of 17 years, David Ermold, visited the clerk's office early Thursday, but a deputy clerk told him that the office is still not issuing the forms.

Clerk should be getting a new job.

 

[Verthaine]

I think the clerk and the clerk's office in this matter is wrong, but I do find it curious that when clerks and clerk's offices in places like San Francisco were defying legislation and court orders in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples these clerks were championed as fighting laws they felt were wrong. When the shoe's on the other special interest's foot, no such acceptance of civil disobedience.

People have the right to decide which side they root for. I personally make a distinction between civil disobedience to end discrimination and civil disobedience to continue discrimination. Either way,if you defy the law,then face the consequences for doing so.My parents did in the 1950's for staging sit-ins to end desegregation and were regularly arrested for it. They have my respect. This clerk doesn't.

 

[Quag]

I cannot see how anyone can expect to keep their job if they refuse to perform the assigned duties, unless of course those duties are illegal and/or dangerous.

 

[Verthaine]

I cannot see how anyone can expect to keep their job if they refuse to perform the assigned duties, unless of course those duties are illegal and/or dangerous.

Wait a bit.Pretty soon there will be posters here practically advocating just that.

 

[joG]

Then an arrest warrant should be issued for the clerk for "defying the injunction."

Or there could be a call to arms, if the conscientious objection is strong enough. That was what the First Amendment was meant to prevent.

 

[joG]

I cannot see how anyone can expect to keep their job if they refuse to perform the assigned duties, unless of course those duties are illegal and/or dangerous.

That exactly why forcing people to act against their conscience or lose their existence is so stupid. That cries out for violence and destruction. That is why the First Amendment was installed and why citizens may bare weapons. In Western philosophy many strains think that armed resistance to coercion felt to be illegitimate is fully permissible.

 

[Quag]

That exactly why forcing people to act against their conscience or lose their existence is so stupid. That cries out for violence and destruction. That is why the First Amendment was installed and why citizens may bare weapons. In Western philosophy many strains think that armed resistance to coercion felt to be illegitimate is fully permissible.

They aren't forced to do anything they choose to.
That is the whole problem. Anyone who thinks that they can refuse to do their job based on their personal beliefs and suffer no consequences because of it is living in fantasy land.
A racist policeman who believes lynching is OK and so wont stop one deserves to be fired (and prosecuted) a judge who believes polygamy is ok and refuses to sentence a polygamist should be thrown out.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Or there could be a call to arms, if the conscientious objection is strong enough. That was what the First Amendment was meant to prevent.

If that is the result, then it is a bridge we have to cross. If there is something there to challenge on some merit, then there is a means to do so. But our immediate problem is a clerk's office disobeying an injunction (as best I can tell from the story.)

Best I can tell, the 1st Amendment is not an open license to defy court order. But it is a means to challenge a court order that is in error.

 

[Ikari]

Or there could be a call to arms, if the conscientious objection is strong enough. That was what the First Amendment was meant to prevent.

The clerk is free to think, say, and believe as she likes. She may not, however, use the force of government to hold her personal beliefs over others and infringe upon their rights.

 

[natsb]

I cannot see how anyone can expect to keep their job if they refuse to perform the assigned duties, unless of course those duties are illegal and/or dangerous.

You are so right. The next thing you know, IRS officials will start to target political opponents, Secretary of States will start ignoring subpoenas, Sheriffs will start releasing illegal alien felons, ICE agents will stop deporting illegal aliens, and maybe an Attorney General who will refuse to prosecute tax cheats that are friends with the President. Yes sir, all kinds of hell could break lose because of this clerk is not performing his duties. Who does he think he is?

 

[Verthaine]

That exactly why forcing people to act against their conscience or lose their existence is so stupid. That cries out for violence and destruction. That is why the First Amendment was installed and why citizens may bare weapons. In Western philosophy many strains think that armed resistance to coercion felt to be illegitimate is fully permissible.

I cannot see how anyone can expect to keep their job if they refuse to perform the assigned duties, unless of course those duties are illegal and/or dangerous.

Wait a bit.Pretty soon there will be posters here practically advocating just that.

See Quag,What did I tell you.That sure didn't take long.

So in other words,if I,as the employer (the boss,the owner of the establishment),were to fire an employee for refusing to serve a table "because they are gay" (which violates my policies) I should be taken out to the back and shot.Viva la revolution.

That clerk works for the government.If that clerk doesn't want to do the job ,the clerk should no longer have that job,by either quitting or being fired.That clerk should have quit the moment SSM became legal.

 

[Wiggen]

Kentucky clerk digs in, defies judge’s gay marriage order

Despite a federal injunction, one same-sex couple has already been turned away from obtaining a marriage license at the Rowan County Clerk's Office. David Moore, who is trying to marry his partner of 17 years, David Ermold, visited the clerk's office early Thursday, but a deputy clerk told him that the office is still not issuing the forms.

Throw her ass in jail.

 

[Wiggen]

You are so right. The next thing you know, IRS officials will start to target political opponents, Secretary of States will start ignoring subpoenas, Sheriffs will start releasing illegal alien felons, ICE agents will stop deporting illegal aliens, and maybe an Attorney General who will refuse to prosecute tax cheats that are friends with the President. Yes sir, all kinds of hell could break lose because of this clerk is not performing his duties. Who does he think he is?

What does any of that have to do with defying a court order, other than being another pathetic right wing effort to deflect. Fail.

 

[natsb]

What does any of that have to do with defying a court order, other than being another pathetic right wing effort to deflect. Fail.

It has to do with officials picking what they will or will not comply with. It is directly related. Of course the left wing has that reflex that causes them to turn their heads when made to look in a mirror, so I understand why you missed it. I hope you didn't get whiplash turning your head that fast.

 

[Ikari]

Throw her ass in jail.

I wouldn't say she should be thrown in jail, just fired.

 

[Wiggen]

It has to do with officials picking what they will or will not comply with. It is directly related. Of course the left wing has that reflex that causes them to turn their heads when made to look in a mirror, so I understand why you missed it. I hope you didn't get whiplash turning your head that fast.

Is anybody under a court order in the situations you described? Or are we talking about partisan witch hunts, which the Republicans excel at. It's about all they excel at, but it's nice to have something, isn't it?

 

[Wiggen]

I wouldn't say she should be thrown in jail, just fired.

It's contempt of court. Jail her worthless ass.

 

[natsb]

Is anybody under a court order in the situations you described? Or are we talking about partisan witch hunts, which the Republicans excel at. It's about all they excel at, but it's nice to have something, isn't it?

Sigh... Yes. If you don't know what a subpoenas is, maybe you should have looked it up before posting.

Just to make sure you are not trying to be sophist, are you suggesting that the Attorney General of the DOJ is only required to do his or her job when a judge orders it? Witch hunt indeed.

 

[Taylor]

Then an arrest warrant should be issued for the clerk for "defying the injunction."

She's not in contempt (yet); she hasn't actually defied the injunction.

The injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs on that case. This couple would need to file their own lawsuit, or file a motion to intervene on the current one.

 

[CriticalThought]

This is kind of indefensible. She is not a baker or florist in a private business. She is not a religious official. She is a government official. There is no gray area here. If her religion procludes her from performing public duties then she should not be in public office. Her name on the license is not an affirmation of same-sex marriage.

 

[natsb]

This is kind of indefensible. She is not a baker or florist in a private business. She is not a religious official. She is a government official. There is no gray area here. If her religion procludes her from performing public duties then she should not be in public office. Her name on the license is not an affirmation of same-sex marriage.

I am not sure the Government can have a religious litmus test for employment. There is the matter of that pesky first amendment.