Author Topic: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?  (Read 2779 times)

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,776
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2019, 09:04:51 PM »
BTW -- Y'all are aware that we're not talking about her legal fees here, right? The article is about the fact that the court may order her to pay the legal fees of the people who sued her.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

zxcvbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,498
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2019, 12:48:52 AM »
Actually, she had a much simpler recourse -- she could have allowed others in her office to issue the license. But she refused to allow the entire office to perform its function. That's indefensible.

Also, let's remember that she (and her staff) were not asked to perform the marriage. They were only asked to issue the license. That's a purely administrative function.


I basically agree with you on all points (including those I edited out for brevity), but i still have a couple of questions:
If she had refused to personally issue the license but allowed others in her office to do so, would that really have been enough?  
Also, would her signature (and therefore her blessing) still be printed on the license?
"It's good, though..."

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2019, 03:27:36 AM »
If she had refused to personally issue the license but allowed others in her office to do so, would that really have been enough?  
Also, would her signature (and therefore her blessing) still be printed on the license?

On the first, I think that it is 95% likely that it wouldn't have made national news if she'd allowed others in the office to issue the licenses.  90% if she told gay couples to their face that she wouldn't issue them a license, but Joe over there would.  99% if she was mysteriously on break or busy with another task whenever a gay couple showed up, and oh yeah, Joe can help you soon.

On the second, we're back to a matter of opinion.  I don't think her signature on a government document is a blessing, a religious approval, which some people might actually object to.  Instead it is a certification that all rules and requirements for the issuance of the document have been met, and therefore it is valid unless fraud is discovered.

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,883
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2019, 07:15:19 AM »
She didn’t want to certify that 2+2=5 despite a higher court ruling otherwise.
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2019, 08:43:24 AM »
On the first, I think that it is 95% likely that it wouldn't have made national news if she'd allowed others in the office to issue the licenses.  90% if she told gay couples to their face that she wouldn't issue them a license, but Joe over there would.  99% if she was mysteriously on break or busy with another task whenever a gay couple showed up, and oh yeah, Joe can help you soon.

On the second, we're back to a matter of opinion.  I don't think her signature on a government document is a blessing, a religious approval, which some people might actually object to.  Instead it is a certification that all rules and requirements for the issuance of the document have been met, and therefore it is valid unless fraud is discovered.

On the first, I'm certain it would have made national news. Cannot let the peons think they have any rights.

On the second, that very well may be a matter of opinion. In her opinion, it DID convey her blessing, which was against her convictions.

Which is why what the Supreme Court did was so pernicious. If it were left to the states, as it clearly should have been as the Federal Government has no enumerated powers here, the states could have carved out specific exemptions for religious objections. Instead, as is their wont, the Supreme Court said "WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST AND YOU RUBES MUST BEND THE KNEE."

And, as a result, we have a woman put in jail for standing by her Christian beliefs. And now to be forced into penury for the same. In the United States. Our Founding Fathers would be mortified.
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,776
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2019, 10:15:15 AM »

Also, would her signature (and therefore her blessing) still be printed on the license?


Initially, her name (don't know if it was her signature) appeared on all licenses issued by her office. That was subsequently changed, but I believe she continued her "resistance" even when that impediment had been removed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,776
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2019, 10:58:22 AM »

Which is why what the Supreme Court did was so pernicious. If it were left to the states, as it clearly should have been as the Federal Government has no enumerated powers here, the states could have carved out specific exemptions for religious objections. Instead, as is their wont, the Supreme Court said "WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST AND YOU RUBES MUST BEND THE KNEE."


What sort of specific exemptions could the states have carved out for a public official who refused to perform the duties of her office?

Initially, Davis refused to issue -- or allow to be issued by her office -- a marriage license for a same-sex couple. The objection was made that this was discriminatory. Her response was to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Which meant that the entire county was being held hostage to her religious beliefs.

If you do a bit of research on Ms. Davis, you'll find that she is the living embodiment of hypocrisy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,883
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2019, 11:01:39 AM »
The whole country is being held hostage by the progressives “religious” beliefs imposed upon us by unaccountable judges.

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2019, 11:36:38 AM »
If you do a bit of research on Ms. Davis, you'll find that she is the living embodiment of hypocrisy.


And if you'd do a bit of research, you'll find her "hypocrisy" is that she lived a life of a sinner, with many divorces, before her conversion to Christianity.

I'd be willing to bet those failures are what made her even more adamant. She has failed multiple times in this area in her life before and has determined not to fail again.
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2019, 11:41:16 AM »
What sort of specific exemptions could the states have carved out for a public official who refused to perform the duties of her office?

The removal of her signature from the license?

For example, from the article where she lost re-election:

Quote
Davis has said she no longer objects to issuing the licenses to same-sex couples because Kentucky dropped a requirement that the licenses bear the clerk’s signature.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-who-refused-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-loses-re-election-bid

That would be a pretty easy accomodation. Additionally, they could also allow wedding vendors to refuse service based on religious convictions so we could avoid issues like this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/

Where wedding vendors are having their businesses destroyed because the left will brook no dissent from their agenda. (You can look up the florist in Washington also being destroyed by the heavy boot of the State.)
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,883
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2019, 01:22:24 PM »
Quote
I'm afraid I have to object to being labeled as "Satanic and evil."

Luke 20:25:

She was elected to a civil (secular) office. Her job was to do as Caesar (the government, the civil laws) dictated, not to impose her view of morality onto people who were seeking administrative services in complete accordance with Caesar's (the government's) laws. She has every right to her views of morality -- outside of her office. What she does not have a right to do is to bring her religious views into the office and use them as a reason/excuse to refuse people the services to which they are entitled.

I've already mentioned my status as a justice of the peace. I am opposed to same sex marriage. IMHO it's unnatural, and it violates Holy Scripture. But as a JP I'm a civil official, not a cleric. As a cleric, I could decline to perform a same-sex marriage on the grounds that it's a violation of my religious beliefs. As a JP, I don't have that freedom. So, if I am ever asked to perform a same-sex marriage as a JP, I will have to resign my commission.

Which is what she should have done.

Actually, she had a much simpler recourse -- she could have allowed others in her office to issue the license. But she refused to allow the entire office to perform its function. That's indefensible.

Also, let's remember that she (and her staff) were not asked to perform the marriage. They were only asked to issue the license. That's a purely administrative function.

Btw, I don’t believe you are Satanic or evil but I do believe in the banality of evil found in bureaucracy.

We’ve let evil reign because they’ve filed the correct paperwork, with all their i’s dotted and t’s crossed.

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

230RN

  • I saw it coming.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,354
  • But they're SUPPOSED to be "military-style."
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2019, 02:28:05 PM »
I'm afraid I have to object to being labeled as "Satanic and evil."

Luke 20:25:

She was elected to a civil (secular) office. Her job was to do as Caesar (the government, the civil laws) dictated, not to impose her view of morality onto people who were seeking administrative services in complete accordance with Caesar's (the government's) laws. She has every right to her views of morality -- outside of her office. What she does not have a right to do is to bring her religious views into the office and use them as a reason/excuse to refuse people the services to which they are entitled.

I've already mentioned my status as a justice of the peace. I am opposed to same sex marriage. IMHO it's unnatural, and it violates Holy Scripture. But as a JP I'm a civil official, not a cleric. As a cleric, I could decline to perform a same-sex marriage on the grounds that it's a violation of my religious beliefs. As a JP, I don't have that freedom. So, if I am ever asked to perform a same-sex marriage as a JP, I will have to resign my commission.

Which is what she should have done.

Actually, she had a much simpler recourse -- she could have allowed others in her office to issue the license. But she refused to allow the entire office to perform its function. That's indefensible.

Also, let's remember that she (and her staff) were not asked to perform the marriage. They were only asked to issue the license. That's a purely administrative function.

Thaaaaaank you. Wohlgesagt.

I too especially disliked the inference that I am Satanic and evil.

You said it and then sorta backtracked.

But you still said it.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 02:54:45 PM by 230RN »

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,883
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2019, 03:48:28 PM »
Truthfully I said it without anyone here in mind.

At some point “those are the rules” or “I was just following orders” doesn’t wash.

It’s up to the individual to search their own conscience and search out whether they are facilitating evil or possibly deceived.

She chose to stand her ground and not slink away from the field of battle using legalisms as an excuse to retreat.

She is to be commended for standing up to the banal judicial/bureaucratic evil.






« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 04:03:43 PM by Ron »
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2019, 04:23:01 PM »
What sort of specific exemptions could the states have carved out for a public official who refused to perform the duties of her office?

My thought is that, while it breaks down at higher offices, so long as the duties the public official cannot perform due to their beliefs are both trivial and can be trivially covered by other workers/officials at the same location, then you can give them an exception.  My comparison would be a worker in a grocery store that, due to law, can't sell alcohol/tobacco due to their age or religious objection, but are still considered worthy employees by the company, they just don't put said worker in the related section/department, and have a sign up that if you're purchasing these objects to use a specific lane.

On the other hand, if you get too many workers who can't/won't work those sections, eventually it would become no longer a trivially accommodated exemption, at which point if you object during hiring interviews, or convert and start objecting, you make be told "sorry, no, we already have too many objectors to accomodate you, if you insist you won't be hired or will be let go, in favor of hiring somebody that will do it."

Quote
Initially, Davis refused to issue -- or allow to be issued by her office -- a marriage license for a same-sex couple. The objection was made that this was discriminatory. Her response was to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Which meant that the entire county was being held hostage to her religious beliefs.

If you do a bit of research on Ms. Davis, you'll find that she is the living embodiment of hypocrisy.

Indeed on the hypocrisy.  4-5 marriages, and infidelity during them.  That, I'd say, is more damaging to the concept of marriage than letting gay people marry each other.

Quote from: makattak
And if you'd do a bit of research, you'll find her "hypocrisy" is that she lived a life of a sinner, with many divorces, before her conversion to Christianity.

I have never read about there being a conversion.  Or even becoming "born again", where a lapsed christian finds faith.

Quote from: makattak
That would be a pretty easy accomodation. Additionally, they could also allow wedding vendors to refuse service based on religious convictions so we could avoid issues like this:

I agree with this.  I'm going to note that we have a pretty big change here though.  My thoughts on the proper rules and operation of government in regards to religion is very different than my rules and operations for private businesses and religion. 

Basically, if you're government, like I said earlier, you're more or less required to be agnostic about religion.  You're not allowed to discriminate by or for religion.  You're not allowed to favor or disfavor religious stuff.  As a government employee, you're required to meet these requirements.

If you're a private company, on the other hand, I think that you should be allowed to be religious and have policies in accordance with said religion.

So a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding over religious concerns.  Hell, they could refuse to bake a cake for a couple with a divorcee in it because their religion doesn't recognize divorce, and therefore the marriage would be bigamy.  A government office is NOT allowed to deny issuing a marriage license to a gay couple if they meet all the requirements under law for obtaining said license, or said couple with divorces who are marrying.

That's before getting into that I think that the baker company, let's say that it's a chain grocery store, should be able to fire an employee for violating policy and refusing to serve a customer under the rules of the company.  The government should be able to fire employees for not performing the work per the terms of their employment for pretty much the same reason.

Requiring the work to always stay the same over a career, setting terms at hiring, isn't practical either, but I will have changing work demands introducing work unacceptable to the employee would move it from a "firing" offense for not doing the required job to a "laid off" surplussing if it is the change that the employee can't/won't accomodate.  A non-religious example would be that you can't hire somebody to be a cashier, then tell them that they're going to be a garbage collector, and fire them for refusing to be a garbage collector instead.  You can lay them off, with all the consequences of that, such as unemployment benefits.

Quote
She chose to stand her ground and not slink away from the field of battle using legalisms as an excuse to retreat.

She is to be commended for standing up to the banal judicia/bureaucratic evil.

I don't see letting gay people get marriage contracts to be banal or evil.  At least no more than letting people who have already been divorced remarry, letting people who just met get married, under-18 get married, without counseling to ensure that they know what they're getting into, etc...