Decision Day. What will she do?

[TripleSevens]

@TripleSevens and Ms Davis do not have an accurate legal understanding of Freedom of Religion.

 

 

Here. Here. :idunno:

 

I understand perfectly well.

[All Tell]

Wouldn't him electing not to pursue it on those grounds — that he found it unconstitutional — actually be him doing his job and keeping the state out of what he thought in his professional opinion was a losing battle?

 

Did he cite his religious faith as a reason for not pursuing it?

 

No, as I recall he said (with a few tears) that he couldn't in good conscience appeal a law that he believed was discriminatory. If he's allowed to arbitrarily decide that what do we need the SCOTUS for?

 

And someone else noted that Ms.Davis took an oath to uphold laws and that she was doing a disservice to the people of Rowan County by not doing her job. A large majority of Kentucky voters (and 3/4 of the members of each house of the legislature) voted for the marriage amendment. Didn't Mr. Conway have an obligation based on his oath to defend a legitimately passed constitutional amendment regardless of his belief?

[Jesse James]

Thank you for sharing the benefit of your perspective on this important issue facing our Commonwealth.

 

As Attorney General, I have vowed to the people of Kentucky to uphold my duty under the law and to do what is right, even if some disagreed with me. I evaluated Judge Heyburn’s legal analysis and informed my client and the people of Kentucky that I would not appeal.

 

From a constitutional perspective, Judge Heyburn got it right, and in light of other recent federal decisions, these laws will not likely survive upon appeal. We cannot waste the resources of the Office of the Attorney General pursuing a case we are unlikely to win.

 

There are those who believe it’s my mandatory duty, regardless of my personal opinion, to continue to defend this case through the appellate process, and I have heard from many of you. I respect your position, however, I came to the inescapable conclusion that, if I appealed, I would be defending discrimination.

 

That I will not do. As Attorney General of Kentucky, I must draw the line when it comes to discrimination.

 

The United States Constitution, which I am also sworn to uphold, is designed to protect everyone’s rights, both the majority and the minority groups. Judge Heyburn’s decision does not tell a minister or a congregation what they must do, but in government “equal justice under law” is a different matter.

 

In the end, this issue is really larger than any single person and it’s about placing people above politics. If you disagree, I can only say that I am doing what I think is right. In the final analysis, I had to make a decision that I could be proud of – for me now, and my daughters’ judgment in the future.

 

If you have questions about the future of this case, you may contact Gov. Steve Beshear. He is appealing Judge Heyburn’s ruling.

 

May we all find ways to work together to build a more perfect union, and to build the future Commonwealth in which we want to live, work and raise all of our families.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Conway

Kentucky Attorney General

[jpa2825]

It is spot on.

 

If you desire someone to lose their job because of who they are and what they believe, that would be discrimination.

 

Her rights remain as an elected official. Her rights remain even with the SCOTUS ruling. Her rights remain even if it cost millions. Her rights remain even if some folks don't like it.

 

Answer this honestly: If Kim Davis said tomorrow that she would only issue marriage licenses to women wearing a burka or hijab when they came to apply for the certificate, would you support her as completely and say "Her rights remain as an elected official"?

[jpa2825]

No, as I recall he said (with a few tears) that he couldn't in good conscience appeal a law that he believed was discriminatory. If he's allowed to arbitrarily decide that what do we need the SCOTUS for?

 

And someone else noted that Ms.Davis took an oath to uphold laws and that she was doing a disservice to the people of Rowan County by not doing her job. A large majority of Kentucky voters (and 3/4 of the members of each house of the legislature) voted for the marriage amendment. Didn't Mr. Conway have an obligation based on his oath to defend a legitimately passed constitutional amendment regardless of his belief?

 

You do realize that Conway ended up being 100% correct, right? I presume you are saying he did not have this discretionary authority and was duty bound to prosecute the appeal. We obviously disagree.

[TripleSevens]

Answer this honestly: If Kim Davis said tomorrow that she would only issue marriage licenses to women wearing a burka or hijab when they came to apply for the certificate, would you support her as completely and say "Her rights remain as an elected official"?

 

That is easy.....

 

Her religious liberty is not lost as an elected official....no matter if it was burka, hijab, budha, or whatever.

 

 

Every person has the right to determine his or her own faith and creed according to conscience.

 

Every person has the right to the privacy of his belief, to express his religious beliefs in worship, teaching, and practice, and to proclaim the implications of his beliefs for relationships in a social or political community.

 

Every person has the right to associate with others and to organize with them for religious purposes.

 

Every religious organization, formed or maintained by action in accordance with the rights of individual persons, has the right to determine its policies and practices for the accomplishment of its chosen purposes, which implies the right:

 

to assemble for unhindered private or public worship

to formulate its own creed

to have an adequate ministry

to determine its conditions of membership

to give religious instruction to its youth, including preparation for ministry

to preach its message publicly

to receive into its membership those who desire to join it

to carry on social services and to engage in missionary activity both at home and abroad

to organize local congregations

to publish and circulate religious literature

to control the means necessary to its mission and to secure support for its work at home and abroad

to cooperate and to unite with other believers at home and abroad

to use the language of the people in worship and in religious instruction

to determine freely the qualifications for professional leadership of religious communities, freely naming their religious leaders at all levels and designating their work assignments.

 

 

Religious Freedom

[True blue (and gold)]

^ Which specific part of that do you feel allows this women to refuse to do her job, without repercussions, as a result of her religious beliefs?

[All Tell]

You do realize that Conway ended up being 100% correct, right? I presume you are saying he did not have this discretionary authority and was duty bound to prosecute the appeal. We obviously disagree.

 

The fact that he would likely have lost plays no factor in my opinion. I see no difference between Conway not doing his job and Davis not doing hers and I find it a bit puzzling that other don't.

[ColonelCrazy]

It is spot on.

 

If you desire someone to lose their job because of who they are and what they believe, that would be discrimination.

 

Her rights remain as an elected official. Her rights remain even with the SCOTUS ruling. Her rights remain even if it cost millions. Her rights remain even if some folks don't like it.

 

As the clerk, Ms. Davis is a government official. One of her governmental duties, as the clerk, is to issue marriage licenses. This is a non-discretionary duty. Ms. Davis, as a government official, does not have the individual authority to pick & choose who she issues license to, nor does she have the right to pick & choose to whom she denies a license. She has taken an oath to carry out the law, and the law is crystal clear on this issue. Nonetheless, Ms. Davis has repeatedly chosen to ignore the law.

 

The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the government shall not endorse any religion. Ms. Davis is certainly entitled to her own religious viewpoint & beliefs in her own personal life. That is NOT the issue here. The issue is that Ms. Davis has endorsed a religious viewpoint & imposed her religious beliefs on others through her official capacity as an elected official.

 

This situation is exactly why there is a separation between church & state.

 

Again, nobody is taking away Ms. Davis' rights. She is free to have her own religious beliefs on her own time, just like you & I. If she believes that her personal beliefs are interfering with her duties as an elected official, then she has several options. Refusing to comply with the law and thereby obstructing business in her official capacity is not an option, and I suspect she'll learn that soon enough.

[Clyde]

I am certainly not as smart as ColonelCrazy when it comes to law but here's where I think you are completely off base , @TripleSevens , in your belief that her religious rights are being violated.

 

The Freedom of Religion does not supersede law. The law says gays can legally marry. When she refuses to allow that to happen she is breaking the law. Do we agree on that?

 

If so, your (and her)argument that this violates her freedom of religion is completely off base.

 

Again, I am not a legal scholar. Could be wrong. Doubt it though. Seems pretty straightforward.

[thehotsnakes]

It is spot on.

 

If you desire someone to lose their job because of who they are and what they believe, that would be discrimination.

 

Her rights remain as an elected official. Her rights remain even with the SCOTUS ruling. Her rights remain even if it cost millions. Her rights remain even if some folks don't like it.

 

You also don't have a right to discriminate if you are a holder of public office or offer public services. The right to discriminate isn't a right at all.

 

Do you see what I'm getting at, here?

[Clyde]

The other thing I'd say, @TripleSevens , is that your belief and her belief that the law is unconstitutional is incorrect. Why? SCOTUS says so. It's really that simple.

[SportsGuy41017]

...

[Bipsic]

I am certainly not as smart as ColonelCrazy when it comes to law but here's where I think you are completely off base , @TripleSevens , in your belief that her religious rights are being violated.

 

The Freedom of Religion does not supersede law. The law says gays can legally marry. When she refuses to allow that to happen she is breaking the law. Do we agree on that?

 

If so, your (and her)argument that this violates her freedom of religion is completely off base.

 

Again, I am not a legal scholar. Could be wrong. Doubt it though. Seems pretty straightforward.

 

I'm going to have to disagree. ColonelCrazy is spot on. This isn't so much an issue of freedom of religion, but one of her acting as a government actor. I might be nitpicking, but if by freedom of religion, you mean First Amendment rights, it does supersede law. Of course your later post expands on this. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. Regardless of one's feelings, that is their job.

 

Of the many, the main issue where I am with you in disagreeing with TripleSevens is that her Freedom of Religion rights are not absolute. As an arm of the government she is attempting to use the rights she believes she has to actively deny rights that belong to others. I have no clue what a clerk's duties entails, but this isn't the right to register a car or get a hunting license. She's denying a right that the highest court of the country has stated belongs to all.

 

This is a poor analogy, but hopefully it sheds a little light on my disagreement with TripleSevens and it even uses the same 1st Amendment. We often say that the freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from consequences. We also say that this only applies to government restriction. We probably agree that teenagers have these same rights. They don't go away, but when high school students wear obscene clothing or say certain things at school, their teachers can still punish them. This can happen even if they would do the same thing outside of school without punishment. Of course Davis wouldn't have the same opportunities without her job, but by the virtue of her position, she's allowed all the freedom of religion she wants until she uses that freedom to actively deny similar rights to others.

[t horns]

Different strokes for different folks I suppose, but I'd never associate the words "admirable" or "brave" with bigotry.

 

Both sides are bigots