Is this a fair depiction of the LOGIC of the Kim Davis $hit storm?
 

no

8 or some shit

Hah, interesting angle. the entire issue is completely fascinating and not at all simple or over.

not even close, but keep trying!

Just asking :helpme

Well.. it IS definitely close. Just not quite the same side of the fence with the offense.

Did she ever sign a contract she would only do straight weddings? - I assume it was just weddings according the the law...

Good point. Any rebuttal? (I feel like this dude from "The Paper Chase")

http://i.imgur.com/Jzv0lE0.jpg

It's basically the same theory...a person takes a job, that job changes then the person doesn't want to do the job anymore.

Here is a more accurate version when it comes to Kim Davis

An actress signs a contract to make a movie, however after the contract is signed the movie script is changed from a family movie to a porn flick. The actress refuses to do the movie, but still insists on getting paid for the job. She simply shows up at the set, collects her check, but refuses to actually be in the movie. She could quit the movie, but she refuses. Instead she plans to continue to show up everyday and do nothing but sit around and get paid. The producers even have a stand in that will play her part, but she won't allow that to happen. Nobody can play her part, but her and she refuses to do it. Eventually the producers take her to court hoping a judge will make her either do the job she has been paid for or she will quit and leave them alone.

You know what, it actually is simple, I misspoke earlier. remove the government authorization from the marriage contract.
This isn't about her religious freedom, what motivated her to be in contempt is beside the point. What's at issue here is the sc opinion that same sex marriage is legal by law in all 50 states.

The solution then is to instead of bringing IN same-sex marriage to government authorizing and okaying personal relationships and certifying that, take OUT the government from that contract between 2 adults.

Quakers do it that way in Pennsylvania, self confirmed marriage and the libertarian party also disagrees with government intervention in personal choice of relationships.

But in Kim's case there are other 'movies' she does (there are other matters in front of a county clerk besides marriages, right)?

Source: Rowan County Kentucky Clerk (Looks like a Fiverr WP site design job - load it on What WordPress Theme Is That? - BTW)

Interesting point.

But what if one side doesn't want to live up to their obligations?

There we go.

Then she could still let this small movie go to the other actors. This is super hard to defend. She is being a nutcase.

Interesting point. So delegation is the answer? Wouldn't that jeopardize her job since she's supposed to handle all cases? Isn't her name on the clerk of record line on the materials her office handles? How does this square with her 'matter of conscience'?

Again, I don't have an answer nor an agenda, I'm just asking questions so we COLLECTIVELY can become clear on the LOGIC and FACTS and POLICY IMPLICATIONS.

http://i.imgur.com/qG9n57o.png

Then quit. This doesn't have to be a zero sum game. You don't like US laws. Move. Taking a job that conflicts with your beliefs is dumb so move on.

Nothing would be different than how it is now.

It's still a contract. Marriage is still marriage etc, just not certified by the government. It's certified by the 2 parties entering into the contract.

Easy.

I like this one, it's more accurate:

http://www.kcconfidential.com/wp-con...Davis-Hair.jpg

So the original contract did not go through the state but to ENFORCE the contract you have to go through the state... according to your proposition. Did I get that right?

Her name is on the records, but that may change. She asked the governor to take it off the marriage certificates, but he wouldn't. I have a feeling the state legislature will when they meet in January.

Until then the judge says certificates issued by her clerks are legal so she can just stay in her office and let a clerk deal with gay couples.

Of course she could always quit. If you take a job then the job changes and you don't like it, you can leave. You can't just refuse to do the job and still demand to be paid for it.

Interesting. So the conflict that you see is this: She agreed to take on a job involving the LAW of the land. IMPLICIT in this is the KNOWLEDGE that the LAW CHANGES per interpretation of the courts. ALso implicit is the AGREEMENT to accept such changes.

Did i get that right?

Basically, yes. When taking office she swore to uphold the law. Laws change and in this case she doesn't agree with the change so she refuses to uphold it.

I think this might be closer to the answer but still raises the 'why doesn't she just quit if she doesn't want her name on gay marriage certificates' question...

Which brings up the 'surprise' employment term change implied in the first post.

Maybe the answer is some sort of 'grandfather clause' application of selective clerk name application.

Is that a 'reasonable accommodation based on faith'? The US Supreme court has case law regarding this.

Or does it open up the whole 14th amendment Equal Protection issue again because there are 'artificial' lines being drawn among people who are 'similarly situated'?

What do you think?

http://i.imgur.com/629TGOi.jpg

Early on there were reasonable accommodations based on faith offered. It was suggested right from the start that she just let her clerk issue certificates to gay couples and the problem would be solved, but she refused. She continued to refuse that compromise until she spent a few days in jail then suddenly it looked like a pretty good deal.

It looks like this case has brought out into the open all the other sub-issues and possible solutions that might crop up in other similar cases.

It should be interesting how the KY (no pun intended) legislature navigates the 'grandfather clause' issue.

All new country clerks can't 'pull a Kim Davis' because they already know coming in what the law on marriage is. A grandfather clause should do the trick.

The only question is how narrowly tailored should it be so it survives equal protection challenges...

Laws change all the time, and whether they're municipal, provincial or federal - my officers are obligated to enforce them regardless of their own conscience or beliefs. We've never had an officer refuse to enforce a bylaw because of his/her own beliefs - but if we did, they'd be deemed insubordinate, sent home (without pay) and given the choice of returning to do the job they're paid to do - or voluntarily resign. If they returned and still failed to do the job - they'd be terminated.

It's not up to us (as officers) to decide which laws we'll enforce. That's decided by the municipal government at City Hall.

This county clerk in the U.S. should resign her position if she can't administrate the laws of the land. Her personal religious beliefs cannot be allowed to be a variable factor.

Republicans....masters of the false equivalency.

ahaha that's more like it.

All religious kooks should shut the fuck up or go live in the woods away from the rest of us sinners.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kz...d04no1_500.png


Do you really want to turn them loose in the woods?

What did the oath she took say I wonder? If it said "I swear to do my job to the best of my ability provided those duties fall within my personal faith-based moral code" then she's golden.


By the way, the rhetoric in that first image would make sense if the government were demanding that she herself become gay and partake of lesbian relations. The better comparison would be to those florists and bakeries refusing to sell their wares to gay couples. No one is forcing them to do porn either.

She isn't entitled to her position, she was elected by the people into it. Was there a guarantee when she accepted the position that the details of the job description would never change nor anything ever be added or amended during her term of office? Somehow I doubt it. Therefore if she can no longer do the job or is unwilling to perform her sworn duties she really ought to step off and let someone else take over who can. She's not being asked to lick pussy, just issue marriage licenses to all whose applications are legal under existing law. Surely she knows how to do that, she's had 4 herself. I wouldn't be surprised if the words without predjudice were lurking somewhere in the job's mandate as well.

No true Christian would use their power of position to impose their will on others. :2 cents:

The legal reason that the original contract could not be enforced in a court of law is that there was either a misrepresentation of a material fact - or that a material fact, that was one of the main constituents in the original contract, had changed.

She is an officer of the court and she took an oath to upload the laws -- period.

Uphold the law, quit or go to jail in contempt ... It's her choice but those are the choices.

I'm only guessing here, but I have a feeling the KY legislature will vote to remove the county clerks' names from marriage licenses which will allow the clerk or any of their deputy clerks to issue the licenses. This way someone like Kim could simply opt out and let a deputy clerk give a gay couple a license.

This is consertive logic...

http://i.imgur.com/35jVSH0.jpg

Interestingly enough I saw a story over the weekend of a Muslim airline attendant who was suspended because she wouldn't serve customers booze since it was against her religion. I don't see conservatives rushing to her aid.

How does one get an erection if having sex with Kim Davis? Her husband must love farm animals.