Kentucky court clerk....

[RickN]

Rick,

GTG is right. As many people that gets the application of the 1A wrong I tend to think that this is exactly what it's intent is. .gov can't dictate to a group citing religious grounds which is exactly what this case did. I personally think they got the gay marriage ruling wrong and were simply legislating from the bench and that they went against the majority of the population in doing so. But it is what it is and the recourse to be had was tried and lost unless they can regroup their argument and get it in front of SCOTUS another way, or congress gets off their ass and does it right. Until then this woman doesn't really have a case whether we like it or not...

Edit: This is a quote from the O/P's article that was made by this woman's husband. It just goes to show the state we're in but doesn't hold any weight legally speaking.

The part in bold is exactly what they are trying to do and personally I think the gay marriage ruling is only partly wrong. They either should have named it something else or built in protection for those who belong to religion that says it is wrong. The thing I have problems with is the double standard with some members. Most seem to think even if we disagree with someone they still have their rights, but with some that does not seem to apply if the person being disagreed with is religious.

 

[Dale00]

The oath of office that she took sounds rather vague and open to interpretation (except for the dueling part).

Did not our high level national politicians take an oath to uphold the law and then turn around and not uphold the immigration laws?? Aha - it is Obama's fault!


Oath Of Office For Kentucky State Officeholders

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Source: The National Conference of State Legislatures
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124616129

 

[Shadowrider]

The thing I have problems with is the double standard with some members....

Definitely. Here, there and everywhere. Double standard abounds these days!

 

[JD8]

I wonder if a Jewish or Muslum health inspector in that same KY county could deny a BBQ restaurant a license to open based on his religious beliefs against the consumption of pork.

Separation of church and state applies here.

Yep.... one wonders if she were Muslim and didn't acknowledge christian weddings for whatever reason then how many would cry "religious freedom?"

 

[dennishoddy]

She has individual rights. Her position (County Clerk) does not. She isn't supposed to issue gay marriage licenses personally, the County Clerk is. Her rights are separate and have no bearing on her duty. If she cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the position, she has the RIGHT to vacate it.

Does that make more sense?

Exactly.

 

[JD8]

Why get so upset over this? It will sort itself out. I assume those who are gay and desiring to get a marriage certificate in that county can just go to the neighboring county court house instead.

Y'all are getting way too worked up over this. It's just theater IMO.

I'd wager the hypocrisy would come out full force if this was somehow against christians.

 

[RickN]

Definitely. Here, there and everywhere. Double standard abounds these days!

So true.

Some gay friends and I are having this same discussion and most want her to just quit because if removed she has standing to file a suit. If she quits then she was not harmed by the gay marriage ruling and can not file suit. As one put it, a clear ruling is the last thing they want because there is a 50/50 chance they will lose. If that happens the political types will have to get off their asses and write clear laws. The other one agrees with me that we need a clear ruling so that we do not have to hear about it as much for the next 30 years. Usually only on the anniversary of the ruling instead of every month or two.

 

[Dave70968]

Tell me this folks, when it was a pharmacist was refusing to sell the morning after pill you said it was wrong because he dealt with the public (Muslims get a pass it seems), when Hobby Lobby did not want to pay for 4 types of birth control you said it was wrong because they are a company, now this. When is it OK in your opinion for people to follow their beliefs? Only when they agree with yours? Only if they hide it? Only when it does not go against what is PC?

And no the Supreme Court has not ruled, they refused to hear a stay so have set it up to where if removed or forced out, she can file suit for infringement.

Free hint: public official. Chose to run for public office. Private entities can do as they choose; public officials are beholden to all of their constituents, not just the ones they like. If they don't want to serve everybody, that's fine; just don't run for public office. There are plenty of private-sector options (including starting one's own business) that can (or at least should) be allowed to choose their own clientele. Government officials, however, have power over everybody, as a matter of the fundamental nature of government. Don't like it? Don't choose a government career. Other options abound.

She needs to issue the licenses, resign her (voluntarily sought and actively campaigned-for) position, or sit in jail for contempt until she chooses between the first two options.

 

[Dale00]

Free hint: public official. Chose to run for public office. Private entities can do as they choose; public officials are beholden to all of their constituents, not just the ones they like. If they don't want to serve everybody, that's fine; just don't run for public office. There are plenty of private-sector options (including starting one's own business) that can (or at least should) be allowed to choose their own clientele. Government officials, however, have power over everybody, as a matter of the fundamental nature of government. Don't like it? Don't choose a government career. Other options abound.

She needs to issue the licenses, resign her (voluntarily sought and actively campaigned-for) position, or sit in jail for contempt until she chooses between the first two options.

Does the same argument apply to the President's deliberate failure to enforce immigration laws?

 

[dennishoddy]

Does the same argument apply to the President's deliberate failure to enforce immigration laws?

That's a racist opinion........