Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back to jail

[Hatuey]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

Not even sign something?

Unless she's being forced to remain a government official, then no she is not being forced to sign anything.

 

[scatt]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

no she is not being forced to sign anything.

Why did the judge say she no longer had to then?

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

:lamo You are desperate. There is zero hardship...undue or otherwise.

I'll give you one chance to get it right, what does "undue hardship" mean?

It has nothing to do with accommodation.

Kim Davis seems to disagree.

Can you point to a single person being denied a license or even slowed down due to this enormous hardship?

This is why I can't take you seriously in this discussion. The hardship doesn't have to be only for the people receiving the licenses. The hardship is on the people who provide the accommodation. The government creating entirely new forms, and having to change its bureaucratic infrastructure for a single person would constitute a hardship. Do you disagree?

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

Why did the judge say she no longer had to then?

Scatt, is Kim Davis being forced to sign anything?

 

[scatt]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

Scatt, is Kim Davis being forced to sign anything?

She was, yes. Did you forget? After being jailed for not signing something, the judge said she no longer has to sign them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

Not even sign something?

Nope, Kentucky law does not require the County Clerk to actually sign Civil Marriage licenses, they can be signed by the Deputy County Clerk(s).

Ms. Davis's own marriage license from 2009 does not bear the signature of the County Clerk, but that of the Deputy County Clerk.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

Why did the judge say she no longer had to then?

The Judge didn't. He said that she could not interfere with their being issued.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

She was, yes. Did you forget? After being jailed for not signing something, the judge said she no longer has to sign them.

No he didn't since under Kentucky law she didn't have to be the one to sign them anyway.


>>>>

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

She was, yes.Did you forget? After being jailed for not signing something, the judge said she no longer has to sign them.

Scatt, she was jailed for being in contempt of court. Please stop lying. At no point was she being forced to sign them as she has absolutely no obligation to remain an official.

 

[scatt]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

At no point was she being forced to sign them

So she was not sent to jail for it?

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

I'll give you one chance to get it right, what does "undue hardship" mean?



Kim Davis seems to disagree.



This is why I can't take you seriously in this discussion. The hardship doesn't have to be only for the people receiving the licenses. The hardship is on the people who provide the accommodation. The government creating entirely new forms, and having to change its bureaucratic infrastructure for a single person would constitute a hardship. Do you disagree?

:lamo You think it is a 'hardship' to stamp a document with a notary stamp and initial the document? You think it is a 'hardship to alter a digital form?

No...you don't and you know how ridiculous you sound.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

So she was not sent to jail for it?

She was sent to jail for being in contempt of court. Do you want to continue lying... or?

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

:lamo You think it is a 'hardship' to stamp a document with a notary stamp and initial the document?

This is a pretty dishonest way to state it. No Vance, this isn't about somebody stamping a document, Kim Davis has sought to entirely change the forms to reflect her religious position on gay marriage. That is an undue hardship. Do you disagree?

You think it is a 'hardship to alter a digital form? No...you don't and you know how ridiculous you sound.

Alright, so now that you've realized that hardship isn't just whatever the people about to receive a marriage licenses have to go through, I'll ask you again: Should governments change their bureaucratic frameworks to reflect and please the religious beliefs of certain individuals? You can answer whenever you want.

 

[VanceMack]

Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

The Judge didn't. He said that she could not interfere with their being issued.


>>>>

And who has had their license not issued?

 

[VanceMack]

Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

This is a pretty dishonest way to state it. No Vance, this isn't about somebody stamping a document, Kim Davis has sought to entirely change the forms to reflect her religious position on gay marriage. That is an undue hardship. Do you disagree?



Alright, so now that you've realized that hardship isn't just whatever the people about to receive a marriage licenses have to go through, I'll ask you again: Should governments change their bureaucratic frameworks to reflect and please the religious beliefs of certain individuals? You can answer whenever you want.

I think it's beyond ridiculous you think changing a form is a hardship. Come on man...you know better.

There is ZERO hardship. YOU just admitted there is no hardship to the recipients. You admit there is no hardship to the clerk to stamp it. It's already been done so your incredible hardship....well...wasn't.

What are you bitching about again?
:lamo

Edit: Let me help you with that. You, like the others, are bitching because she is not doing what you want her to. At he end of the day...that's ALL this is about. She is refusing to capitulate....and that has people furious.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

I think it's beyond ridiculous you think changing a form is a hardship. Come on man...you know better.

So then you believe that having to change the way these forms are done, to please one person whose job is not guaranteed next election season is a reasonable accommodation? You're welcome to answer.

There is ZERO hardship. YOU just admitted there is no hardship to the recipients. You admit there is no hardship to the clerk to stamp it. It's already been done so your incredible hardship....well...wasn't.

You create straw man arguments so you can knock them down? I'm not impressed.

What are you bitching about again? Edit: Let me help you with that. You, like the others, are bitching because she is not doing what you want her to. At he end of the day...that's ALL this is about. She is refusing to capitulate....and that has people furious.

VanceMack, do you agree that she should be required to do her job without asking the government to change things to please her religious views?

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back to ja

You understand that if it is on appeal it is still a valid law right? And you get that the Supreme Court decision that overturned 240 years of established precedence was decided on a 5-4 vote and was FAR from a done deal?

When she was elected, the Kentucky law and Constitution passed by 75% of Kentuckians was the law of the land. Your insistence in arguing otherwise is silly. Probably driven by your anger and hatred.

No its really not. The stay is only to allow a chance that the decision that just overturned a law would get overturned itself. The law is only being stopped from being enforced temporarily. The law is still overturned at that point.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

Not even sign something?

She voluntarily took that on herself by accepting the position in government that is tasked with signing those forms. If she can't handle that, it is her responsibility to resign or face punishment.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

So then you believe that having to change the way these forms are done, to please one person whose job is not guaranteed next election season is a reasonable accommodation? You're welcome to answer.



You create straw man arguments so you can knock them down? I'm not impressed.



VanceMack, do you agree that she should be required to do her job without asking the government to change things to please her religious views?

It's not a question of reasonable accommodation how many times would you like me to answer that question? The reasonable accommodation was allowing for her to not sign the forms. HER decision as county clerk is to change the way the licenses are issued which was done with ZERO hardship (come on, man...you ADMIT there was no hardship). All this is is a clerk, one with the authority to make this decision on how her office runs, MAKING a decision on how her office runs. No hardship. Licenses issued. Zero delays. But llllllllllots of hurt little wounded feelers. It's ridiculous.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

:lamo You are desperate. There is zero hardship...undue or otherwise. It has nothing to do with accommodation.

Can you point to a single person being denied a license or even slowed down due to this enormous hardship?

When people have to sue to get a license, and then have to likely go back to court to determine if their licenses are valid, that is an undue hardship.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back to ja

No its really not. The stay is only to allow a chance that the decision that just overturned a law would get overturned itself. The law is only being stopped from being enforced temporarily. The law is still overturned at that point.

Was the Kentucky law in effect while the case went to the Supreme Court? Simple question.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back to ja

Was the Kentucky law in effect while the case went to the Supreme Court? Simple question.

This one I was wrong on because Kentucky was part of the 6th Circuit. The one Circuit court that decided to rule differently than the others who had made rulings, overturning the ruling made by the lower court judge. It was still in affect.

However, there was every reason to believe that it would not remain that way since the SCOTUS had already turned down the other appeals to other Circuits from the states who were saying that their laws were overturned. It wasn't until this circuit's decision was made that the Court took the appeal, signaling pretty well that they would overturn this decision.

 

[VanceMack]

Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

When people have to sue to get a license, and then have to likely go back to court to determine if their licenses are valid, that is an undue hardship.

Past tense. No one is suing to get a license now and there are zero instances of Kentucky not recognizing the licenses. None.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back t...

Past tense. No one is suing to get a license now and there are zero instances of Kentucky not recognizing the licenses. None.

You don't know that the licenses will be recognized as valid, neither do they. And even one of the other clerks is worried that there may be an issue with the validity of those licenses, which means it is possible and likely that they will be in court to determine the validity of those licenses, and if that should happen, then she caused it. She is causing an undue hardship to others by even leaving the validity of those licenses in question due to her refusal to issue the licenses as they should be, on the form they should be issued on, unchanged.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Davis did the one thing a judge told her not to — and now she could go back to ja

No, technically, legally it wasn't. The issuing of licenses to same sex couples was merely on hold until there was not a chance that the decision would not be overturned.

Sorry but that is absolutely wrong. The law was still in effect. The Supreme Court reversed the 6th court decision SUPPORTING the state laws. You are just wrong. At some point you either admit it because you didn't know or just know and blatantly lie about it.