Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy
Discussion
jimmybobby said:
Viper in the marriage case when she took on the job it did not conflict with her religious beliefs. They then changes a very significant rule which meant it does. In the case of the stewardess she was already in the job and knew the rules and requirements one of which was to serve alcohol. She then by her own choice decided to follow Islamic faith which would bring in her in direct contravention of a major aspect of her job.
She had a choice. Continue working as a stewardess and disregard the alcohol aspect of her belief or quit her job and do something that would not conflict with her religious beliefs.
They both have the choice to quit and in my opinion they should both have done just that. If something were to change with my job that I found unacceptable then that is what I'd do.She had a choice. Continue working as a stewardess and disregard the alcohol aspect of her belief or quit her job and do something that would not conflict with her religious beliefs.
wolves_wanderer said:
They both have the choice to quit and in my opinion they should both have done just that. If something were to change with my job that I found unacceptable then that is what I'd do.
That is a fair argument however i have to say i don't see why she should suffer potential hardship or leave a job she may care about a great deal just because a law was changed.jimmybobby said:
That is a fair argument however i have to say i don't see why she should suffer potential hardship or leave a job she may care about a great deal just because a law was changed.
Because her job is to issue marriage licences according to the law. If she is not prepared do that for whatever reason then she can't do her job.wolves_wanderer said:
Because her job is to issue marriage licences according to the law. If she is not prepared do that for whatever reason then she can't do her job.
The issue is she can do her job but her employers have in effect changed the terms and conditions of her job without consideration of her religious beliefs. If it was simply the case that she objected then i would say its basically tough s
t but its not.In her shoes while i would take issue with having to approve gay marriage licenses i would suck it up and get on with life or quit the job. Religious beliefs however are taken into consideration within employment law as i understand it. As such i think her situation is not fair.
Also as i understand the situation in the US this change in marriage status was not publicly approved it was simply legislated like it was here in the UK. As such i believe it is being challenged. The challenges have no hope in hell of success of course but they will try nonetheless. As such i get the impression she is hopeful that if she sticks it out she may get some form of exemption or compensation payout.
jimmybobby said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Because her job is to issue marriage licences according to the law. If she is not prepared do that for whatever reason then she can't do her job.
The issue is she can do her job but her employers have in effect changed the terms and conditions of her job without consideration of her religious beliefs. If it was simply the case that she objected then i would say its basically tough st but its not.In her shoes while i would take issue with having to approve gay marriage licenses i would suck it up and get on with life or quit the job. Religious beliefs however are taken into consideration within employment law as i understand it. As such i think her situation is not fair.
Also as i understand the situation in the US this change in marriage status was not publicly approved it was simply legislated like it was here in the UK. As such i believe it is being challenged. The challenges have no hope in hell of success of course but they will try nonetheless. As such i get the impression she is hopeful that if she sticks it out she may get some form of exemption or compensation payout.
Was she actually stopping people getting married. It seems odd she was the only clerk in a state.
You can't advertise a job and say if you get this job, leave your morals and religion at home.
I had this once working alongside a doctor, who was brilliant but didn't believe in abortion. When I was on with him and one had to be done he would simply look at me, and take over whatever I was doing, so that I could do it for him.
Its not rocket science to include someones strongly held beliefs, and it doesn't need the law to tell you what to do.
You can't advertise a job and say if you get this job, leave your morals and religion at home.
I had this once working alongside a doctor, who was brilliant but didn't believe in abortion. When I was on with him and one had to be done he would simply look at me, and take over whatever I was doing, so that I could do it for him.
Its not rocket science to include someones strongly held beliefs, and it doesn't need the law to tell you what to do.
Davis has prevented marriages in her area (not the whole State of Kentucky). She would not allow her deputies to issue licences. Davis has sought to privilege her views above the views of others. She has in effect converted her job description to that of professional self styled martyr.
As noted above, Davis is duty bound to uphold the Constitution of the US, and the laws of the US and of the State of Kentucky. The laws of the State of Kentucky must give way to the Constitution of the US. The Supreme Court, which rules on what the Constitution means, has ruled that the Constitution allows all consenting adults who are not otherwise married to marry one another, regardless of gender.
The US is a secular Republic governed by the rule of law. The US is emphatically NOT a State founded on any religion. Separation of church and State is routinely enforced in settings such as schools, and elsewhere, as here, in public life. Opinion is free, and religious belief, affiliation and practice are protected. Davis remains free to follow her conscience, but she should not at the same time hold a public office in which she refuses to act as the Constitution requires her to act.
As noted above, Davis is duty bound to uphold the Constitution of the US, and the laws of the US and of the State of Kentucky. The laws of the State of Kentucky must give way to the Constitution of the US. The Supreme Court, which rules on what the Constitution means, has ruled that the Constitution allows all consenting adults who are not otherwise married to marry one another, regardless of gender.
The US is a secular Republic governed by the rule of law. The US is emphatically NOT a State founded on any religion. Separation of church and State is routinely enforced in settings such as schools, and elsewhere, as here, in public life. Opinion is free, and religious belief, affiliation and practice are protected. Davis remains free to follow her conscience, but she should not at the same time hold a public office in which she refuses to act as the Constitution requires her to act.
jimmybobby said:
Also as i understand the situation in the US this change in marriage status was not publicly approved it was simply legislated like it was here in the UK. As such i believe it is being challenged. The challenges have no hope in hell of success of course but they will try nonetheless. As such i get the impression she is hopeful that if she sticks it out she may get some form of exemption or compensation payout.
In the UK legislation to allow gay people to marry was passed by Parliament.In The US the decision was made by 5 Supreme Court judges, no legislation no democratic vote. What ever you may think on the subject this clearly fails the democratic test.
A modern democracy is not merely an electoral system. If democracy is reduced to voting, then crude majoritarianism will prevail. Two foxes and one chicken voting on what to have for lunch is not a very good model for democracy. The public might vote in favour of bear baiting, public hanging, free money, you name it, if they had the chance, so the question of what the majority want is not always the only question. See Edmund Burke's explanation in 1774 of how a representative and not a delegate legislature works.
A modern democracy consists of many elements, including a ballot system, a legislature, an executive, a free press, and the rule of law, administered by Judges (and sometimes juries). In the US, the Constitution is a living and evolving instrument, to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Thus the democratic settlement of the US gives to the majority in the nine Judge Court the right and power to determine what the living instrumemnt means from time to time.
A modern democracy consists of many elements, including a ballot system, a legislature, an executive, a free press, and the rule of law, administered by Judges (and sometimes juries). In the US, the Constitution is a living and evolving instrument, to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Thus the democratic settlement of the US gives to the majority in the nine Judge Court the right and power to determine what the living instrumemnt means from time to time.
Mrr T said:
jimmybobby said:
Also as i understand the situation in the US this change in marriage status was not publicly approved it was simply legislated like it was here in the UK. As such i believe it is being challenged. The challenges have no hope in hell of success of course but they will try nonetheless. As such i get the impression she is hopeful that if she sticks it out she may get some form of exemption or compensation payout.
In the UK legislation to allow gay people to marry was passed by Parliament.In The US the decision was made by 5 Supreme Court judges, no legislation no democratic vote. What ever you may think on the subject this clearly fails the democratic test.
Mrr T said:
In The US the decision was made by 5 Supreme Court judges, no legislation no democratic vote. What ever you may think on the subject this clearly fails the democratic test.
As BV says, it's legit.Even the most reactionary of my friends are of the opinion that while they respect the mad old baggage for having the courage of her convictions, the proper course of action would have been for her to resign.
Mrr T said:
jimmybobby said:
Also as i understand the situation in the US this change in marriage status was not publicly approved it was simply legislated like it was here in the UK. As such i believe it is being challenged. The challenges have no hope in hell of success of course but they will try nonetheless. As such i get the impression she is hopeful that if she sticks it out she may get some form of exemption or compensation payout.
In the UK legislation to allow gay people to marry was passed by Parliament.In The US the decision was made by 5 Supreme Court judges, no legislation no democratic vote. What ever you may think on the subject this clearly fails the democratic test.
As to the UK it was passed in parliament but it was neither asked for nor was it voted on to see if the general population were in agreement with the change.
Obviously this is all water under the bridge as it is not going to be changed back and it simply has to be accepted and we all have to move on and live our lives.
julian64 said:
You can't advertise a job and say if you get this job, leave your morals and religion at home.
That is exactly what swearing an oath to uphold the constitution of the USA does though, The first amendment enshrines that the government can not establish religion or prohibit free worship. By imposing her religious views in the public office she is establishing her variety of religion and prohibiting that of others. Its no different than a judge being required to pass a judgment that they don't agree with but is the only legal verdict, I.e. letting someone off who is obviously guilty but the evidence was not handled as per the law etc.
So she swore the oath to uphold the constitution with full knowledge her religious views had no relevance to carrying out the duties of that office, as such her terms and conditions haven't changed, they always said she couldn't impose her religion on the public.
Breadvan72 said:
Davis has prevented marriages in her area (not the whole State of Kentucky). She would not allow her deputies to issue licences. Davis has sought to privilege her views above the views of others. She has in effect converted her job description to that of professional self styled martyr.
As noted above, Davis is duty bound to uphold the Constitution of the US, and the laws of the US and of the State of Kentucky. The laws of the State of Kentucky must give way to the Constitution of the US. The Supreme Court, which rules on what the Constitution means, has ruled that the Constitution allows all consenting adults who are not otherwise married to marry one another, regardless of gender.
The US is a secular Republic governed by the rule of law. The US is emphatically NOT a State founded on any religion. Separation of church and State is routinely enforced in settings such as schools, and elsewhere, as here, in public life. Opinion is free, and religious belief, affiliation and practice are protected. Davis remains free to follow her conscience, but she should not at the same time hold a public office in which she refuses to act as the Constitution requires her to act.
Wasn't actually defending her, she undoubtedly is a fruitloop. It was more aimed at the posters suggesting you have to leave your religion at home. As noted above, Davis is duty bound to uphold the Constitution of the US, and the laws of the US and of the State of Kentucky. The laws of the State of Kentucky must give way to the Constitution of the US. The Supreme Court, which rules on what the Constitution means, has ruled that the Constitution allows all consenting adults who are not otherwise married to marry one another, regardless of gender.
The US is a secular Republic governed by the rule of law. The US is emphatically NOT a State founded on any religion. Separation of church and State is routinely enforced in settings such as schools, and elsewhere, as here, in public life. Opinion is free, and religious belief, affiliation and practice are protected. Davis remains free to follow her conscience, but she should not at the same time hold a public office in which she refuses to act as the Constitution requires her to act.
Not sure even in the states they could advertise for someone suggesting they must have not a relgion which would interfere with their duties.
Mrr T said:
In the UK legislation to allow gay people to marry was passed by Parliament.
In The US the decision was made by 5 Supreme Court judges, no legislation no democratic vote. What ever you may think on the subject this clearly fails the democratic test.
The situation is entirely different in each case:In The US the decision was made by 5 Supreme Court judges, no legislation no democratic vote. What ever you may think on the subject this clearly fails the democratic test.
The UK Parliament amended an existing law that explicitly stated that marriage was between a woman and a man. This required a vote a Parliament, as a law was being changed.
The US Supreme Court made a judgement about whether laws implemented by individual States were legal and constitutional. In all courts, Judges make decisions about what is lawful or not lawful, according to written laws. That's all these Justices did.
Given the Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the Executive, voted for and affirmed by the Legislature, to suggest the whole thing fails a democracy test is just plain wrong.
jimmybobby said:
I am no expert on US political or legal affairs so I can merely take your word on that.
As to the UK it was passed in parliament but it was neither asked for nor was it voted on to see if the general population were in agreement with the change.
Obviously this is all water under the bridge as it is not going to be changed back and it simply has to be accepted and we all have to move on and live our lives.
I infer that you would oppose same sex marriage if asked to vote on it. If my inference is correct, can you please explain why? "Because God tells me to" is not an answer. As to the UK it was passed in parliament but it was neither asked for nor was it voted on to see if the general population were in agreement with the change.
Obviously this is all water under the bridge as it is not going to be changed back and it simply has to be accepted and we all have to move on and live our lives.
In the UK, a Coalition Government that had, under our system, a democratic mandate, legislated for change. One of Cameron's relatively few admirable acts, IMO - he did not have to do it, and he made enemies in his own party by doing it. You can quarrel with the system that confers a mandate on Government in the UK (even with a minority of voter support for the party or parties that rule), but you cannot really say that the decision in the UK was just sneaked in by some Henry VIII style decree.
PS: Henry VIII? Didn't he have some sort of marriage stuff going on? I forget.
Breadvan72 said:
jimmybobby said:
I am no expert on US political or legal affairs so I can merely take your word on that.
As to the UK it was passed in parliament but it was neither asked for nor was it voted on to see if the general population were in agreement with the change.
Obviously this is all water under the bridge as it is not going to be changed back and it simply has to be accepted and we all have to move on and live our lives.
I infer that you would oppose same sex marriage if asked to vote on it. If my inference is correct, can you please explain why? "Because God tells me to" is not an answer. As to the UK it was passed in parliament but it was neither asked for nor was it voted on to see if the general population were in agreement with the change.
Obviously this is all water under the bridge as it is not going to be changed back and it simply has to be accepted and we all have to move on and live our lives.
In the UK, a Coalition Government that had, under our system, a democratic mandate, legislated for change. One of Cameron's relatively few admirable acts, IMO - he did not have to do it, and he made enemies in his own party by doing it. You can quarrel with the system that confers a mandate on Government in the UK (even with a minority of voter support for the party or parties that rule), but you cannot really say that the decision in the UK was just sneaked in by some Henry VIII style decree.
PS: Henry VIII? Didn't he have some sort of marriage stuff going on? I forget.
David Cameron did not have a mandate for the change. It was not a policy he was voted into office for. It was something he decided to do once in office rather than do anything of the other things people had voted him into office to do.
The man is a clown.
Does it not discomfort you to have an opinion that you cannot explain?
On mandates, our system does not require that the party of Government must include every policy and decision in its pre election manifesto. See again Edmund Burke's description of the system from 1774, as true today as it was then (the UK was not a democracy in 1774, BTW, but the representative system of legislation continued when the UK transitioned from propertied oligarchy to democracy). Note also that MPs across Parliament voted in favour of the change - it was not forced through by the Coalition without cross-party support. Some Bishops opposed it, but who GAF about them?
On mandates, our system does not require that the party of Government must include every policy and decision in its pre election manifesto. See again Edmund Burke's description of the system from 1774, as true today as it was then (the UK was not a democracy in 1774, BTW, but the representative system of legislation continued when the UK transitioned from propertied oligarchy to democracy). Note also that MPs across Parliament voted in favour of the change - it was not forced through by the Coalition without cross-party support. Some Bishops opposed it, but who GAF about them?
jimmybobby said:
The issue is she can do her job but her employers have in effect changed the terms and conditions of her job without consideration of her religious beliefs. If it was simply the case that she objected then i would say its basically tough st but its not.
She's not employed. She serves in Office. On election, presumably she made an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution has NOT been amended in regards to the issue of marriage. The grey area of same-sex marriage was put to the Supreme Court for clarification of how the U.S. Constitution applies. They provided clarification. State laws were deemed incompatible with the Constitution. t but its not.jimmybobby said:
Also as i understand the situation in the US this change in marriage status was not publicly approved it was simply legislated like it was here in the UK. As such i believe it is being challenged. The challenges have no hope in hell of success of course but they will try nonetheless. As such i get the impression she is hopeful that if she sticks it out she may get some form of exemption or compensation payout.
The U.S. Constitution was indeed democratically approved. It's been amended many times. (The first such Amendment is the one that is in discussion). These Amendments are voted on by the elected representatives of the States. No laws were changed.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff