Same-sex couple can seek damages from Kentucky clerk: U.S. appeals court

[Objective Voice]

Good thing Kim Davis was arrested and/or detained prior to the law being changed huh.

Well, we are a nation of laws.

And yes, I do understand that laws change, but if one is convicted under the law as it stood not only on the day of the arrest but also the day of the conviction, I see no reason why any person should suddenly be exonerated simply because a law is amended after the fact.

Sidenote: This isn't about my perception of Mrs. Davis. It's about adherence to the law.

 

[trouble13]

Sidenote: This isn't about my perception of Mrs. Davis. It's about adherence to the law.

No its not. Its about a bunch of vindictive people who do not like her because of her religious convictions and want to stick it to her good. People believe her and others like her should be punished for being opposed to homosexuality.

She disagreed and made her stand. Fought it out in court and lost. Suing her accomplishes nothing but appeasing petty vindictiviness.

I did not agree with her refusal to marry people but since thats her claimed religious conviction, i think it would of been reasonable to allow people to get married without her participation. We make reasonable accommodations for proples religious convictions all the time, so why not this time?


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Objective Voice]

No its not. Its about a bunch of vindictive people who do not like her because of her religious convictions and want to stick it to her good. People believe her and others like her should be punished for being opposed to homosexuality.

She disagreed and made her stand. Fought it out in court and lost. Suing her accomplishes nothing but appeasing petty vindictiviness.

I did not agree with her refusal to marry people but since thats her claimed religious conviction, i think it would of been reasonable to allow people to get married without her participation. We make reasonable accommodations for proples religious convictions all the time, so why not this time?


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Considering that it was an appeals court that overturned an earlier court's decision not to "grandfather" her judgement based on an amendment to existing law and NOT the legal system being being pressured to change its ruling due to some activist protest, I'd say you're way off base here.

Roll that hate train back into the station.

 

[Napoleon]

No its not. Its about a bunch of vindictive people who do not like her because of her religious convictions and want to stick it to her good. People believe her and others like her should be punished for being opposed to homosexuality.

She disagreed and made her stand. Fought it out in court and lost. Suing her accomplishes nothing but appeasing petty vindictiviness.

I did not agree with her refusal to marry people but since thats her claimed religious conviction, i think it would of been reasonable to allow people to get married without her participation. We make reasonable accommodations for proples religious convictions all the time, so why not this time?


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

It's about a religious bigot who abused her authority as a public servant to violate the civil rights of the public based on her religious beliefs and required her subordinates to do the same. There is no reasonable accommodation to be had here. The job required religious neutrality in the commission of her duties. Period. If she can't do the job she is being paid to do because of her religious beliefs then she should quit or be removed from that office. As it stands, she hast to pay the price for violating the civil rights of the public. In my view, they should have made an example of her, left her in that prison cell and thrown away the key. We cannot allow government officials to abuse their authority and deny the citizenry their civil rights to advance a religious agenda.

 

[chromium]

Agreed, the suing party must show material harm, and with that showing, made whole. That is the foundation of civil liability in this nation and has been for centuries. The Plaintiffs must show harm, not hurt feelings, that doesn't count, never has.


Tim-

Um yes it does. Pain and suffering has always been a claim. Their marriages were delayed by her illegal actions. Thus, there's damages right there

In addition, she has to pay for their legal fees

 

[chromium]

Then you are not looking at this just from the legal question if you think she is somehow personally responsible for comments other people made to this couple as a result of their politcal stunt. IIRC this is the case where the couple weren't even from that county and went to that same clerk's office repeatedly because they knew they would get denied because they wanted to fashion themselves victims, knowing full well that clerk's offices in the surrounding counties had already been issuing the licenses. I am not defending her position, but this couple clearly invited any "personal verbal abuse" and "blame".

She turned down more than one couple. The very first one went there fully expecting to be married and after she refused and prevented others on the staff from doing so, they broke down in tears

To think they won these rights and could finally celebrate their relationship as equals and to have that cruelly denied at the last moment, she deserves her own (4th) marriage annulled

 

[trouble13]

Considering that it was an appeals court that overturned an earlier court's decision not to "grandfather" her judgement based on an amendment to existing law and NOT the legal system being being pressured to change its ruling due to some activist protest, I'd say you're way off base here.

Roll that hate train back into the station.

Im not on a hate train. I shared my observation of the motivation behind sueing that woman. Feeling insulted does not translate into damages.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

It's about a religious bigot who abused her authority as a public servant to violate the civil rights of the public based on her religious beliefs and required her subordinates to do the same. There is no reasonable accommodation to be had here. The job required religious neutrality in the commission of her duties. Period. If she can't do the job she is being paid to do because of her religious beliefs then she should quit or be removed from that office. As it stands, she hast to pay the price for violating the civil rights of the public. In my view, they should have made an example of her, left her in that prison cell and thrown away the key. We cannot allow government officials to abuse their authority and deny the citizenry their civil rights to advance a religious agenda.

Right, your reinforcing my point. You want vindication against her and everyone who thinks the way she does. You want the courts to punish her for refusing to endorse gay marriages.

I do generally agree with you about not bringing your faith to work if your a civil servant. She howeber falls into a gray area for me because when she was elected her religious did not conflict with her duties. I think some kind of accomidation should of been made where people could of gotten certified marriage certificates that did not include her signature.

We dont make menonites go to war or stop muslim women from wearing Burma's. We have a history of making accomidations for people we deem to have legitimate religious convictions that conflict with our laws.

When you throw a woman like her in jail or some other legal consequence. You are sending a message to her and everyone like her that their convictions are illegitimate. I dont share her beliefs but i do respect her right to have them. The law is failing to protect her from persecution.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Napoleon]

Right, your reinforcing my point. You want vindication against her and everyone who thinks the way she does. You want the courts to punish her for refusing to endorse gay marriages.

This isn't vindication - it is justice. She must compensate the victims of her abuse of power for violating their civil rights.

When you throw a woman like her in jail or some other legal consequence. You are sending a message to her and everyone like her that their convictions are illegitimate. I dont share her beliefs but i do respect her right to have them. The law is failing to protect her from persecution.

Her convictions are illegitimate and while she is free to believe and practice whatever superstitious nonsense in her private life she is not entitled to use it as a cudgel in her capacity as a public servant.

 

[trouble13]

This isn't vindication - it is justice. She must compensate the victims of her abuse of power for violating their civil rights.



Her convictions are illegitimate and while she is free to believe and practice whatever superstitious nonsense in her private life she is not entitled to use it as a cudgel in her capacity as a public servant.

WADR Napolean:

1. What compensation do you think that couple should get for her refusal to endorse their marriage? In other words, in your view, what are the damages they should be personally compensated for by her?

2. The 2nd part of your quote you contradict yourself. You say she is free to believe in whatever superstious nonsense she wants to but you advocated her persecution for holding those beliefs. How do you square thos contradiction is what im curious about.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Napoleon]

WADR Napolean:

1. What compensation do you think that couple should get for her refusal to endorse their marriage? In other words, in your view, what are the damages they should be personally compensated for by her?

2. The 2nd part of your quote you contradict yourself. You say she is free to believe in whatever superstious nonsense she wants to but you advocated her persecution for holding those beliefs. How do you square thos contradiction is what im curious about.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

1) Let's say up to $1 million per person.

2) I'm not contradicting myself. She can believe whatever codswallop she wants to but that does not translate into a right to act on those beliefs in the capacity of a public servant.

 

[trouble13]

1) Let's say up to $1 million per person.

2) I'm not contradicting myself. She can believe whatever codswallop she wants to but that does not translate into a right to act on those beliefs in the capacity of a public servant.

1. Why 1 million? How did you arrive at that number.

2. What she did was engauge in passive resistence by refusing to act. I can however concede that in these circumstances an inaction is an action of sorts.

Given your position on this im curious if you feel the same way toward a mayor who refuses to enforce immigration laws or a govenor who refuses to enforce drug laws. Should they also be liable to lawsuits as well.

Ehat im asking is what is the distinction that draws the line between liability and protection by the law

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Napoleon]

1. Why 1 million? How did you arrive at that number.

I arrived at the number because the price hast to be high enough to serve as an effective deterrent against future civil rights violations by public officials. Most couldn't afford it.

2. What she did was engauge in passive resistence by refusing to act. I can however concede that in these circumstances an inaction is an action of sorts.

She also intimidated her subordinates into refusing to issue the licenses.

Given your position on this im curious if you feel the same way toward a mayor who refuses to enforce immigration laws or a govenor who refuses to enforce drug laws. Should they also be liable to lawsuits as well. Ehat im asking is what is the distinction that draws the line between liability and protection by the law.

I think that is a different issue since the responsibility of enforcing Federal statutes rests with the Federal government and its agencies. I don't believe there should be any protections as it relates to religion in the workplace when that workplace is the government. As far as I'm concerned they should be neutral in the commission of their duties or be gone.

 

[trouble13]

I think that is a different issue since the responsibility of enforcing Federal statutes rests with the Federal government and its agencies. I don't believe there should be any protections as it relates to religion in the workplace when that workplace is the government. As far as I'm concerned they should be neutral in the commission of their duties or be gone.

Ha, i knew if i dug long enough i would find common ground with you. I completely agree that the gov should be neutral and people should be asked to out their beliefs aside in favor of the laws passed


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor]

Well, we are a nation of laws.

And yes, I do understand that laws change, but if one is convicted under the law as it stood not only on the day of the arrest but also the day of the conviction, I see no reason why any person should suddenly be exonerated simply because a law is amended after the fact.

Sidenote: This isn't about my perception of Mrs. Davis. It's about adherence to the law.

She wasn't convicted of anything. There hasn't even been a trial.

 

[Taylor]

Amending a law does not detract from the fact she broke the law and as such consequences follow.
How the Judge arrived at this conclusion is beyond me.
Thoughts are?

What fact? It hasn't yet been determined whether or not she broke the law. That was the reason for the lawsuit. The 6th is saying that since this particular suit was only about money/damages, it can continue. I'm guessing that Bunning grants her qualified immunity and that will be that. The ACLU already lost their bid to recover their attorney's fees.

 

[rocket88]

Judges being constrained by the law is your daddies justice system.

It should be everybody's.

 

[Napoleon]

What fact? It hasn't yet been determined whether or not she broke the law. That was the reason for the lawsuit. The 6th is saying that since this particular suit was only about money/damages, it can continue. I'm guessing that Bunning grants her qualified immunity and that will be that. The ACLU already lost their bid to recover their attorney's fees.

She did break the law. That determination was made 2 years ago.

 

[Grand Mal]

WADR Napolean:

1. What compensation do you think that couple should get for her refusal to endorse their marriage? In other words, in your view, what are the damages they should be personally compensated for by her?

2. The 2nd part of your quote you contradict yourself. You say she is free to believe in whatever superstious nonsense she wants to but you advocated her persecution for holding those beliefs. How do you square thos contradiction is what im curious about.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

It's not persecution for her beliefs, it's persecution for thinking her beliefs should be policy. There's so many ridiculous directions that premise could go that assigning her different religious beliefs and making up scenarios would be an
entertaining self-indulgence but the bottom line is her beliefs are irrelevant to her job- rubber-stamping forms according to the law.
My judgement- $1 damages awarded to the complainants.

 

[Napoleon]

My judgement- $1 damages awarded to the complainants.

I'd go for $1 if the real punitive measure is that she's hauled into the public square and flogged with a rod engraved with the law(s) she violated.

 

[Cardinal]

Devil's Advocate: If the federal government legalized marijuana today, should the DEA still be able to arrest and charge someone if they have evidence that someone possessed marijuana yesterday?

The answer you get to that will be based on the starting point of the person giving it. From a rigid view the only logical answer is a yes or a no if someone is staying to the literal walls of your question. But if the premise of the person answering is that the situations are based on something else, say, individual liberties, then the answer will be something else entirely.

So for me, since individual liberties are the beginning premise of my values, then Davis would still be prosecuted, and the DEA would not be able to charge the person suspected of possession. Oh, and if said law passed, all inmates previously convicted of that crime would be released.

 

[trouble13]

It's not persecution for her beliefs, it's persecution for thinking her beliefs should be policy. There's so many ridiculous directions that premise could go that assigning her different religious beliefs and making up scenarios would be an
entertaining self-indulgence but the bottom line is her beliefs are irrelevant to her job- rubber-stamping forms according to the law.
My judgement- $1 damages awarded to the complainants.

You too are another example of my point. You want that woman punished for endorsing homosexuality. Imo you are behaving as poorly as the people who want homosexuals punished for being gay.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[JANFU]

What fact? It hasn't yet been determined whether or not she broke the law. That was the reason for the lawsuit. The 6th is saying that since this particular suit was only about money/damages, it can continue. I'm guessing that Bunning grants her qualified immunity and that will be that. The ACLU already lost their bid to recover their attorney's fees.

Fact - she repeatedly broke the law-
I am not getting your point on qualified immunity? Reason is I am not familiar with certain aspects of US laws/terms

 

[Taylor]

Fact - she repeatedly broke the law-
I am not getting your point on qualified immunity? Reason is I am not familiar with certain aspects of US laws/terms

That was contempt of court. You don't get damages for that. Qualified immunity means you can't be held personally liable for damages as a representative of the state - to get qualified immunity, she has to demonstrate that there was a legal gray area to the judge.

 

[JANFU]

That was contempt of court. You don't get damages for that. Qualified immunity means you can't be held personally liable for damages as a representative of the state - to get qualified immunity, she has to demonstrate that there was a legal gray area to the judge.

Thanks for that definition.
IMHO- That would depend then upon the sequence of legal events. She lost that when the USSC refused to hear the case, then again when refusing to comply with the court order, and her continuous interference in the process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis

A few months later, Obergefell v. Hodges was decided and all county clerks were ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis refused, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union who had been denied marriage licenses from Davis filed and won a lawsuit against her, Miller v. Davis, and she was ordered to comply with the decision of the U.S. District Court and start issuing marriage licenses. Her lawyers tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the application to appeal was denied. Davis continued to defy the court order, refusing to issue marriage licenses, and was ultimately jailed for contempt of court. She was released from jail five days later, under the condition that she not interfere with the efforts of her deputy clerks, who had started issuing marriage licenses to all couples. Davis then modified the Kentucky marriage licenses to no longer mention her name. The Attorney General of Kentucky said that because the matter was already being handled by the federal court, there would be no appointment of a special prosecutor to pursue charges of official misconduct against her. Several weeks later, Davis announced she had met with Pope Francis in Washington, D.C.; the Holy See Press Office clarified that the Pope met with many others and that the meeting was not a form of support for her actions.