Kim Davis

[BoilersRock]

So to the best I can tell, Kim Davis did not break any laws - she mainly went against a court order.

My question is: when she went against the court order, did she violate a different law or code? In other words, is there an established law or code, Fed or State, that states, You MUST obey a court order or you are breaking THIS law?

 

[SDBoiler1]

So to the best I can tell, Kim Davis did not break any laws - she mainly went against a court order.

My question is: when she went against the court order, did she violate different law or code? In other words, is there an established law or code, Fed or State, that states, You MUST obey a court order or or you are breaking THIS law?

My understand is that typically accommodations are made for religious beliefs or matters of conscience. In this case, the judge who put Davis in jail did not provide an accommodation.

 

[qazplm]

My understand is that typically accommodations are made for religious beliefs or matters of conscience. In this case, the judge who put Davis in jail did not provide an accommodation.

Not remotely true. He's already accomodated her. The reason why he released her from jail is because her deputies agreed to issue the licenses. She's stated that she wasn't allowing them to do that, which is the reason why she was put in jail. No one is forcing her to personally sign or issue anything.

As for what law she broke. She's acting as a government official, not a private actor/individual. So no, government officials do not have a right to ignore a law when acting as a government official. A valid court order IS the law. And she was found in contempt of court, and yes there are actual state and federal laws on contempt of court.

 

[qazplm]

And I will add that the only way she goes back to jail is if she tries to stop her deputies from issuing more licenses.

One has already said he would defy her and follow the court order. But say she fires him for insubordination. Ignoring the lawsuit he could file against her for wrongful termination, she'd likely find herself back in jail for contempt. If she does nothing, and allows him to continue issuing the licenses but does not issue them herself, she's golden.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

To be fair, this whole thing could be solved relatively easily if they would just remove her name from the form. Davis has said that that would be an acceptable solution, and it's a reasonable request and simple enough accommodation to make.

 

[qazplm]

To be fair, this whole thing could be solved relatively easily if they would just remove her name from the form. Davis has said that that would be an acceptable solution, and it's a reasonable request and simple enough accommodation to make.

My understanding is you'd have to bring the legislature back in session to do so.
I don't agree that a reasonable accomodation is to bring the entire legislation back into special session to change a form for one clerk. A reasonable accomodation is to allow a deputy/other member of her office process the forms. Her name on the form does not signify approval or agreement.

 

[BoilersRock]

As for what law she broke. She's acting as a government official, not a private actor/individual. So no, government officials do not have a right to ignore a law when acting as a government official. A valid court order IS the law. And she was found in contempt of court, and yes there are actual state and federal laws on contempt of court.

Okay, I can buy that. let me ask this then: What is the determining factor between a judge issuing a contempt of court because she broke a law, vs having an prosecuting attorney (at any level) from pursuing charges? Is there any reason a prosecutor could or could not file charges at this point if Davis does nothing else?

 

[qazplm]

Okay, I can buy that. let me ask this then: What is the determining factor between a judge issuing a contempt of court because she broke a law, vs having an prosecuting attorney (at any level) from pursuing charges? Is there any reason a prosecutor could or could not file charges at this point if Davis does nothing else?

I mean I would need a much more detailed knowledge of specific state/federal law to tell you what a prosecutor could or could not file. I would be surprised if there isn't something, but I don't know the intricacies of the law in this area. However, contempt of court is easy peasy in this situation. so no need to go to a prosecutor. The court ruled, she's blatantly decided not to follow the court's order. She can certainly appeal the contempt ruling, file a writ of habeus, etc.

All the luck that will do her, but she can try it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Basically, she's an idiot.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Basically, she's an idiot.

I tend to agree. She's falling on her sword to try to make a point, but she had much less extreme options than the one she chose.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yeah, sometimes - especially when you work for the government and as an elected official - you end up having to go along with things you don't agree with. At least in her position, she could've resigned, but whatever...

 

[qazplm]

Yeah, sometimes - especially when you work for the government and as an elected official - you end up having to go along with things you don't agree with. At least in her position, she could've resigned, but whatever...

Yes. She also could have simply allowed her deputies to do it, and avoided the "stain" of doing it herself, AND kept her job and stayed out of jail. She gets to protect her beliefs, and gay people get their marriage license and everyone wins.

 

[ecouch]

Yet another example of how religion poisons everything.

What an awful god that feeds her morals. Despicable. Kim is the epitome of evil.

At its root, Christianity is immoral. This episode puts it on display for all to see.

 

[kescwi]

Yet another example of how religion poisons everything.

What an awful god that feeds her morals. Despicable. Kim is the epitome of evil.

At its root, Christianity is immoral. This episode puts it on display for all to see.

Was this really Christianity or was it politics? Honest question, I get you're angry about something but I do find it odd that you always stay inside of Western ideas, philosophy, logic. .. yet strangely all of that comes from the Catholic Church not just saving, storing, cataloging... but then also studying, interrupting... ancient text even when they contradicted Rome.

There is much to be upset about with religion, but these issues aren't religious IMHO, as much as you may try to use each one as an indictment of Christianity. While I have no doubt she sees her actions as serving Christ, I who oppose those views see myself as serving the same Christ, neither of us will know which is right, and you may be right that we both are deluded to believe that there is such a thing as God/heaven/Chrst but at the end of the day we both are going to die and at that point this debate ends, hopefully you cheat death and find all of the answers but sadly history says all of your ideas will be as quaint as a flat earth, leaching, Christ... a thousand years from now..

 

[Bill4411]

What bugs me are the politicians who rallied to her defense: Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz. They know better than to support her position but they are looking for votes from the religious right and they have no principles or honor in my opinion.

 

[qazplm]

Was this really Christianity or was it politics? Honest question, I get you're angry about something but I do find it odd that you always stay inside of Western ideas, philosophy, logic. .. yet strangely all of that comes from the Catholic Church not just saving, storing, cataloging... but then also studying, interrupting... ancient text even when they contradicted Rome.

There is much to be upset about with religion, but these issues aren't religious IMHO, as much as you may try to use each one as an indictment of Christianity. While I have no doubt she sees her actions as serving Christ, I who oppose those views see myself as serving the same Christ, neither of us will know which is right, and you may be right that we both are deluded to believe that there is such a thing as God/heaven/Chrst but at the end of the day we both are going to die and at that point this debate ends, hopefully you cheat death and find all of the answers but sadly history says all of your ideas will be as quaint as a flat earth, leaching, Christ... a thousand years from now..

Let's assume there was no Christianity or no religion, there would still be folks who thought being gay was unnatural or wrong, and who would object to gay marriage. Christianity just provides a convenient reference point/crutch to folks like her.

 

[ecouch]

Was this really Christianity or was it politics? Honest question, I get you're angry about something but I do find it odd that you always stay inside of Western ideas, philosophy, logic. .. yet strangely all of that comes from the Catholic Church not just saving, storing, cataloging... but then also studying, interrupting... ancient text even when they contradicted Rome.

There is much to be upset about with religion, but these issues aren't religious IMHO, as much as you may try to use each one as an indictment of Christianity. While I have no doubt she sees her actions as serving Christ, I who oppose those views see myself as serving the same Christ, neither of us will know which is right, and you may be right that we both are deluded to believe that there is such a thing as God/heaven/Chrst but at the end of the day we both are going to die and at that point this debate ends, hopefully you cheat death and find all of the answers but sadly history says all of your ideas will be as quaint as a flat earth, leaching, Christ... a thousand years from now..

You are making the claim that Ms. Kim's actions aren't religious.

Are you sure that is the route you wish to take? I am giving you an out here...

Excellent. Morality isn't derived from religion, rather religion hijacked humanity.

I am glad we are on the same page.

 

[ecouch]

To be fair, this whole thing could be solved relatively easily if they would just remove her name from the form. Davis has said that that would be an acceptable solution, and it's a reasonable request and simple enough accommodation to make.

You are asking for your personal/religious law to trump the written law.

You are a theocrat.

You are the problem. Your preachemts are evil

 

[ecouch]

What bugs me are the politicians who rallied to her defense: Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz. They know better than to support her position but they are looking for votes from the religious right and they have no principles or honor in my opinion.

Read up on the history of religious preachers...

 

[qazplm]

Yet another example of how religion poisons everything.

What an awful god that feeds her morals. Despicable. Kim is the epitome of evil.

At its root, Christianity is immoral. This episode puts it on display for all to see.

Just so I'm clear with your logic, the very worst of a group sets the standards for the entirety of that group?
So, the very worst of those who are religious define all religious folks? Or religion as a general principle?

So even though a majority, including a majority of Christians, think she's an idiot, and wrong, nevertheless, she puts all of the immorality of Christianity on display?

 

[ecouch]

Just so I'm clear with your logic, the very worst of a group sets the standards for the entirety of that group?
So, the very worst of those who are religious define all religious folks? Or religion as a general principle?

So even though a majority, including a majority of Christians, think she's an idiot, and wrong, nevertheless, she puts all of the immorality of Christianity on display?

Nope. Quit building strawmen. You can do better.

Just so I'm clear with your logic, the very worst of a group sets the standards for the entirety of that group?
So, the very worst of those who are religious define all religious folks? Or religion as a general principle?

So even though a majority, including a majority of Christians, think she's an idiot, and wrong, nevertheless, she puts all of the immorality of Christianity on display?

Nope.

You aren't clear.

What clarification would you like? I'm sensing a Harris/Afflek scenario. Am I right?

 

[qazplm]

Nope. Quit building strawmen. You can do better.



Nope.

You aren't clear.

What clarification would you like? I'm sensing a Harris/Afflek scenario. Am I right?

Lol you can avoid the clear implications of your words if you choose or maybe you don't understand them I don't know.

When you say example x puts all of the immorality of thing y then you are in fact saying what I asked you about... That because Kim Davis is an idiot who happens to express that idiocy through religion then to you that indicts all religion...which is a mind-numbingly simplistic argument which carried to its logical end can be applied to any group.

Of course in your all religion is evil rant you either are blind to or ignore that such a simplistic approach has pretty silly carry over.

 

[ecouch]

Nailed it.

 

[JFPurdue1]

Yeah, sometimes - especially when you work for the government and as an elected official - you end up having to go along with things you don't agree with. At least in her position, she could've resigned, but whatever...

She's doing the same thing Obama is doing with immigration. She doesn't like a law, so she's not enforcing it. Only difference is that she actually has a constitutional argument to make. Granted, no judge will favor her first amendment rights over the fourteenth amendment rights of a group of citizens, but at least there's an argument to be made.

 

[Purdue97]

Not remotely true. He's already accomodated her. The reason why he released her from jail is because her deputies agreed to issue the licenses. She's stated that she wasn't allowing them to do that, which is the reason why she was put in jail. No one is forcing her to personally sign or issue anything.

As for what law she broke. She's acting as a government official, not a private actor/individual. So no, government officials do not have a right to ignore a law when acting as a government official. A valid court order IS the law. And she was found in contempt of court, and yes there are actual state and federal laws on contempt of court.

I think what you meant to say is that govt officials low on the totem pole get put in jail for breaking/ignoring the law.

 

[qazplm]

She's doing the same thing Obama is doing with immigration. She doesn't like a law, so she's not enforcing it. Only difference is that she actually has a constitutional argument to make. Granted, no judge will favor her first amendment rights over the fourteenth amendment rights of a group of citizens, but at least there's an argument to be made.

So you equate prioritizing criminals over noncriminals for a law that you don't remotely have the money, resources or manpower to "totally enforce" to deciding not to follow a law in a way that takes away rights from folks?

Interesting.

Just FYI, if you can find a prosecutor in history who prosecuted every potential criminal in his jurisdiction please let me know. Because from where I sit, prosecutorial discretion is not just a fact of life, it's a necessity unless you want a police state.

 

[qazplm]

I think what you meant to say is that govt officials low on the totem pole get put in jail for breaking/ignoring the law.

Not really...prosecutors all over this country are pretty low on the totem pole, and they "ignore the law" all the time when they exercise prosecutorial discretion to not prosecute.

Cops all over the country are even lower, and they "ignore the law" when they let someone off with a warning.

And they don't seem to be filling the jails last time I checked.

 

[Purdue97]

Not really...prosecutors all over this country are pretty low on the totem pole, and they "ignore the law" all the time when they exercise prosecutorial discretion to not prosecute.

Cops all over the country are even lower, and they "ignore the law" when they let someone off with a warning.

And they don't seem to be filling the jails last time I checked.

Not sure I understand your point. In one post you stated that govt officials have no right to ignore the law when acting as a govt official but in another one state they do it all the time.

Anyway, this was a simple fix. Let her deputies handle it. Period. That way her religous freedom is intact and the law on gay marriage would be followed. The End.