TOTALLY GEEKED!

ed11563 · Guru

The passion of Kim Davis

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

If thy politician offends thee, vote her out.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I read that the couple who sued her just got married, but these were 2 women.

Was she sued by more than one couple?

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

According to the definition of the word, she is, in fact, being persecuted.

ed11563 · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

According to the definition of the word, she is, in fact, being persecuted.

for her belief? or for her dereliction of her sworn duty?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

According to the definition of the word, she is, in fact, being persecuted.

for her belief? or for her dereliction of her sworn duty?

It's not rocket science...

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

flan327 wrote:
I read that the couple who sued her just got married, but these were 2 women.

Was she sued by more than one couple?

flan

Yes she is being sued again. Two men were issued a marriage license on 9-4-15. It was issued with the new changes and it was completely legal. "Office of Broward County" was removed and "Pursuant to Federal law blah blah blah" was put on it. Her second in command was signing them. Everyone was happy. Except these two men. They are suing to have the form changed back to the original form because they "will not rest until her signature is on it". Meanwhile their marriage license is expired and they have again put their wedding on hold to sue to get Kim Davis to personally sign the document. They say if she signed documents before she can sign them now and they want the past corrected to be equal. Which is totally stupid. You can't go back in time and fix it.

These men are totally frauds IMO. They did an interview that said they didn't hate Kim and this wasn't about her. This was just about being able to get married. They wanted to be legally wed like everyone else. Claimed to have all the wedding stuff bought and paid for and ready to go. They said the minute they got a license they would get married. Turns out that's not their issue at all. Now they are saying they are not going to get married until the government forces Kim Davis to sign their license. Not going to happen. The government has ruled she has a right to her beliefs, has made it possible for everyone to get a license, and now they are bucking the system some more. They will not be successful.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

According to the definition of the word, she is, in fact, being persecuted.

for her belief? or for her dereliction of her sworn duty?

Your hostility is her persecution.

That is what it is.

You are being hostile toward her because of her beliefs.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nope, we just want her to do her job.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:

Nope, we just want her to do her job.

flan

OK, well then when Obama actually enforces the laws he was sworn to uphold, let us know. Then we will get our gym shorts in a knot over a two bit clerk.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

She is doing her job. There are many jobs where employers make an exception for people for a variety of reasons. This is one of them. Gay people can get their licenses there. So there's no problem. The only problem is that some people feel like HER signature has to be on it. It does not. It is a legal document without her signature. If you are going to whine and cry now then you get no sympathy. You have the same rights as everyone else.

I didn't get to force whoever I wanted to sign my marriage license. It was signed by the person the local government office decided. The government has decided to take that power away from her. The licenses still get signed. You, general you, cannot demand at will that the person of your choosing sign your license. It doesn't work like that for straight people. It's not going to work like that for gay people.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It's crazy.

ed11563 · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

According to the definition of the word, she is, in fact, being persecuted.

for her belief? or for her dereliction of her sworn duty?

Your hostility is her persecution.
That is what it is.
You are being hostile toward her because of her beliefs.

When I was in college I knew guys whose belief system proscribed both killing and being shot at. They got drafted and sent into the jungle anyway.

Did she swear an oath before God to fulfill the duties of her office?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Go look at my posts when this first came out.

I said if she can't do her government job, she should quit.

However, I do support her RIGHT to abide by her Faith.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I hate zombies.

flan

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
I hate zombies.

flan

Even if it's ...

Spoiler

a zombie PIG?

biggrin

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
She is doing her job. There are many jobs where employers make an exception for people for a variety of reasons. This is one of them. Gay people can get their licenses there. So there's no problem. The only problem is that some people feel like HER signature has to be on it. It does not. It is a legal document without her signature. If you are going to whine and cry now then you get no sympathy. You have the same rights as everyone else.

I didn't get to force whoever I wanted to sign my marriage license. It was signed by the person the local government office decided. The government has decided to take that power away from her. The licenses still get signed. You, general you, cannot demand at will that the person of your choosing sign your license. It doesn't work like that for straight people. It's not going to work like that for gay people.

This. So much this.

If they just wanted to get married, they'd accept the license they got. But no. That's not good enough. They want to lord their wants over Davis. They want respect for their wants but have zero respect for Davis' rights. Hypocrites.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I hate zombies.

flan
Even if it's ...
Spoiler
a zombie PIG?

That's so awesome!

cadiver · Senior Member

There were at least two lawsuits. April Miller v Kim Davis was being handled by the ACLU and had 4 couples listed as plaintiffs, two straight and two gay. David Moore and Dave Ermold also had a suit that was on hold until the other one progressed.

The ACLU filed around September 16 questioning the validity of the licenses. That has all the changes. They would like the licenses to be issued as they were prior to September 8, the second version that simply had Davis' name removed.

The Deputy Clerk Mason has the same concerns.

bigstory.ap.org/article/b5527e5b41974f1dabb9bd638f36e695/attorney-kentucky-clerk-interfered-judges-order

U.S. District Judge David Bunning released Davis from jail on the condition that she not interfere with her employees as they issue marriage licenses. When she returned to work, Davis altered the marriage forms by removing her name, making deputy clerk Brian Mason initial the form instead of sign it, and then requiring the form to be notarized.

"A notary has nothing to do with it," Mason's attorney, Richard Hughes, told The Associated Press on Friday after filing a status report with the judge. Hughes said it was "really bizarre" that Davis would alter the forms.

"Unless she's got a really good reason, and I'll certainly be patient and wait to hear it, the only inference I personally can draw from it is she is trying to circumvent the court's order," he said.

Bunning appointed attorneys for each of Davis' deputy clerks and asked them to file status reports every two weeks. The reports are not due until Tuesday, but Hughes filed his on Friday saying Davis' "changes were made in some attempt to circumvent the court's orders and may have raised to the level of interference against the court's orders."

"We'll see what Judge Bunning is going to do with it," Hughes said.

Also Friday, the attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union said in a court filing that the changes on the form require Mason to issue the licenses "in his capacity as a 'notary public' rather than a deputy clerk of the Rowan County Clerk's Office," changes that "do not comply" with the court's order to not interfere with her employees who issue the licenses.

"These alterations call into question the validity of the marriage licenses issued," the attorneys wrote in a footnote to a motion asking the judge to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit. "Plaintiffs are exploring legal options to address these material alterations."

I have not found much about the David Moore and Dave Ermold case.

-- Edited by cadiver on Monday 26th of October 2015 02:04:07 AM

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Why did I click that spoiler, chef?????

flan

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Why did I click that spoiler, chef?????

flan

Because you love zombies, of course!

Especially zombie pigs!

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

Two straight couples were suing her? Whatever for?

cadiver · Senior Member

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
Two straight couples were suing her? Whatever for?

She stopped issuing all licenses.

WYSIWYG · Guru

She is doing her job. There are many jobs where employers make an exception for people for a variety of reasons. This is one of them. Gay people can get their licenses there. So there's no problem. The only problem is that some people feel like HER signature has to be on it. It does not. It is a legal document without her signature. If you are going to whine and cry now then you get no sympathy. You have the same rights as everyone else.

I didn't get to force whoever I wanted to sign my marriage license. It was signed by the person the local government office decided. The government has decided to take that power away from her. The licenses still get signed. You, general you, cannot demand at will that the person of your choosing sign your license. It doesn't work like that for straight people. It's not going to work like that for gay people.
- Nobody Just Nobody

______________________________

Was changing the State approved form, part of her job? I do agree that it's a legal document without her signature. I don't agree that it's a legal marriage license without all the things she's removed from it. I think that's the problem now. She basically made it an invalid form.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Her superiors okayed all the changes. If her superiors said all was well and that they would consider it valid and legal then it's a valid form. The complaint is not that it's invalid. The complaint is that without HER signature it's valid. You know, sometimes companies change policies or forms or even procedures and it's fine. Life goes one. This is one of those cases where the upper people said the change was fine but people aren't happy with the change. They are not going to win this lawsuit.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Would you have a link to any article saying her superiors approved her changes? I have not seen any such information released.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

No. I saw it on the news. It was part of the news conference when she came back to to work. The superiors, whoever those powers to be are, said the changes in the form are fine. They are still legal and valid documents. It was my understanding that they took her name off it but I could be wrong. She may have done it with their permission. Either way the change was what they all decided on. She was on and she was explaining the compromise.

WYSIWYG · Guru

So, basically what you are saying is, that we have her word for it.

Sorry. I'd like a press release from her superiors. For all we know, based on her track record of following her religious beliefs over the law, is that she could be referring to God as her superior that approved it.

Ohfour · Hooker

WYSIWYG wrote:
So, basically what you are saying is, that we have her word for it.

Sorry. I'd like a press release from her superiors. For all we know, based on her track record of following her religious beliefs over the law, is that she could be referring to God as her superior that approved it.

"I'm ... confident and satisfied that the licenses that were issued last week (and) this morning substantially comply with the law in Kentucky," Gov. Steve Beshear told reporters Monday. "And they're going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Ohfour wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
So, basically what you are saying is, that we have her word for it.

Sorry. I'd like a press release from her superiors. For all we know, based on her track record of following her religious beliefs over the law, is that she could be referring to God as her superior that approved it.
"I'm ... confident and satisfied that the licenses that were issued last week (and) this morning substantially comply with the law in Kentucky," Gov. Steve Beshear told reporters Monday. "And they're going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."

Uh Ohfour, do you have the original document from Governor Steve Beshear signed and notified? Cause otherwise some people on this board won't believe the truth. Nevermind, some people won't believe the truth anyway.

cadiver · Senior Member

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
So, basically what you are saying is, that we have her word for it.

Sorry. I'd like a press release from her superiors. For all we know, based on her track record of following her religious beliefs over the law, is that she could be referring to God as her superior that approved it.
"I'm ... confident and satisfied that the licenses that were issued last week (and) this morning substantially comply with the law in Kentucky," Gov. Steve Beshear told reporters Monday. "And they're going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."
Uh Ohfour, do you have the original document from Governor Steve Beshear signed and notified? Cause otherwise some people on this board won't believe the truth. Nevermind, some people won't believe the truth anyway.

He does not have the final say. The quote was from September 14, before the ACLU filing and the judges order to the governor for a response. Since then,

On Wednesday evening, a spokesman for the governor’s office said in an email: “Pursuant to a court order in which the court found no issue with marriage licenses issued by the Rowan County Clerk’s office with minor alterations, the commonwealth has recognized such licenses as valid under the law. We will be filing a response pursuant to the court’s directive and will abide by its decision.”

The governor and AG recognize them but the judge has not weighed in.

Requirements of the form are set by state statute. The governor was asked about changing the form back in July and his attoneries said he did not have the authority.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

So first it was that the governor was never consulted. Then when we tell you he was your next point is that he doesn't get to decide. You just want to nit pick. EVERYONE has said the marriage licenses are legal and valid. What more do you want? Oh yes, you want Kim Davis to personally sign them. You want to bully her into going against her religious beliefs. It's funny how you get your knickers in a twist when someone starts talking about taking away a woman's right to have an abortion. This thread makes me sick. This is all about YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT I SAY OR ELSE. It's bullchit and it's not freedom. It's the leftist view that they can bully everyone into doing what they want. Good luck with that.

cadiver · Senior Member

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
So first it was that the governor was never consulted. Then when we tell you he was your next point is that he doesn't get to decide. You just want to nit pick. EVERYONE has said the marriage licenses are legal and valid. What more do you want? Oh yes, you want Kim Davis to personally sign them. You want to bully her into going against her religious beliefs. It's funny how you get your knickers in a twist when someone starts talking about taking away a woman's right to have an abortion. This thread makes me sick. This is all about YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT I SAY OR ELSE. It's bullchit and it's not freedom. It's the leftist view that they can bully everyone into doing what they want. Good luck with that.

I never said she needed to sign the form, neither does the ACLU filling. State statute requires it be signed by the County Clerk or Deputy Clerk. It is not signed by either, it is initialed by the Deputy Clerk but indicates Notary and does not have his title. The form is supposed be consistent across the state. It is also supposed issued by the clerks office but all references to the office have been removed.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"I'm ... confident and satisfied that the licenses that were issued last week (and) this morning substantially comply with the law in Kentucky," Gov. Steve Beshear told reporters Monday. "And they're going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."
- Ohfour

________________________

I can accept that (a link to it would have sufficed though).

Okay, so her superior said he accepted it as legal, but as cadiver pointed out, it's in question as to whether or not he has the authority to call it legal anyway.

Why not just go with the original state approved form, or quit if she doesn't want to do her job. If I swear to God to do a job, then by God I will do that job. She swore to do the job, by God, and is reneging on that oath.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

LOL so you accept what ohfour says. The same damn thing I've been saying all along. Well here's the deal, employers can, at any time, alter a person's responsibilities for any reason. Employers do it all the time. I've worked with Catholic nurses that insisted on having every Saturday off to go to mass. They gave them off with the stipulation that they worked on Sundays. I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Someone else in her office said he'll do it. It's legal and valid. The only problem is that some people want to force her to do it. Ridiculous.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I would have accepted your assertion had you made a quote I could search easily for. You just said "Her superiors okayed all the changes.". I Googled Ohfour's quote and found a link (CNN to be specific) to the assertion. That's why I accepted it. Not because Ohfour said it.

I do agree that employers can change things at any time, and then it's up to the employee to either change with the changes or quit. In this instance Kim Davis was the employee, and the State of Kentucky was the employer. Kim Davis had no right to impose her will on the State. She should have just quit instead of violating her oath under God.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

She has the right not to violate her religion. Employers do it all the time for other religions. If they can do it for other religions they can do it for a Christian.

And I said I saw it on a news program but you felt my news program was unworthy of your standards. I said exactly what ohfour said so Kim Davis was not making it up on the show I watched. For someone who claims to be a Christian you fight against more Christians having rights than anyone I know.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I don't fight against Christians having rights. I fight against them getting to impose those rights on others. We, as Christians, should have all the rights to our beliefs that we want, so long as it doesn't include imposing our beliefs or choices on others. That's where it crosses the line.

We are told to spread the word. We are not told to force it upon the unwilling.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

She is not forcing her rights on others. Her superiors, whether you choose to believe the FACTS or not, have okayed a job duty change for her. This is legal. The licenses are valid. She's not trying to tell anyone how to believe unlike you. So good luck to you and all your gay friends. This is one battle you are highly unlikely to win. You got legal and valid licenses. You can't legally make someone believe in and support gay marriage no matter how much you say god would want them to. You shove YOUR beliefs down everyone's throats saying YOUR beliefs are the right way to go and people are getting sick and damn tired of it and finally standing up for what they believe in. They are not letting you people bully them anymore. These lawsuits will get them NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. See, let me explain a simple fact that you have an extreme problem grasping. Gay people have now received equal rights and they're still pissed and unhappy. Too bad, so sad.

WYSIWYG · Guru

If she's not doing her job, and the reason she's not doing that job is because it conflicts with her beliefs, and people can't get things that they legally qualify for because she's not doing her job, then I believe that she's forcing her beliefs on others via her job.

Your belief may be different.

I'm going to assume all those "you" and "your" references were general in nature. Because none of the sentences you used them in apply to me. I don't force my faith or beliefs on anyone. I do believe that everyone else should not force their faith or beliefs either. Spread religion to those that want it. Don't spread it to those that don't.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

It's called reasonable accommodation, people. Look it up.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Lawyerlady wrote:
It's called reasonable accommodation, people. Look it up.

I've said that like six hundred times but some people refuse to understand that.

Ohfour · Hooker

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
It's called reasonable accommodation, people. Look it up.
I've said that like six hundred times but some people refuse to understand that.

They only want accommodation when if affects THEM. To hell with anyone that doesn't fit their agenda. You should know this by now... wink

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Ohfour wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
It's called reasonable accommodation, people. Look it up.
I've said that like six hundred times but some people refuse to understand that.
They only want accommodation when if affects THEM. To hell with anyone that doesn't fit their agenda. You should know this by now...

I DO know this. That's why this stupid lawsuit that some think is so great is going to blow up in their face and fail. They got what they wanted and now they want more than equal treatment. Doesn't work like that.