County Clerk Defies Federal, Appeals, And Scotus Court Orders Against Her, Invoking Her Faith And Religious Freedom

[Daniel2]

In today's politically correct environment, when a person or a group of people take a stand for religious liberty, I think it is worth highlighting and applauding.

Since we as Latter-day Saints are being encouraged to safeguard religious liberty, I see it as relevant to this board.

A high school marching band in Mississippi was forbidden from performing a Christian hymn at a football game. In defiance, the crowd spontaneously began to sing the hymn.

Read about it here.

Forget about Football fans singing hymns... let's get real about the REAL legal ramifications of Scott's assertions about defiance of law due to allegations of religious liberty...

In the spirit of Scott’s “sister thread” “highlighting and applauding” “when a person or a group of people take a stand for religious liberty,” which is “relevant to this board” since “Latter-day Saints are being encouraged to safeguard religious liberty,” I submit the following case of defiance of a court order for “highlighting and applauding”:

 

Defying court, Kentucky clerk denies gay-marriage licenses ‘under God’s authority’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/01/will-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-supreme-court-ruling/

By Jim Higdon, J. Freedom du Lac and Sarah Larimer September 1 at 11:30 AM Follow @jfdulac Follow @slarimer

MOREHEAD, Ky. — Citing “God’s authority,” Kim Davis, the elected clerk of Kentucky’s Rowan County, refused to issue marriage licenses to several same-sex couples Tuesday — just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against her request to be excused from issuing such licenses.

April Miller and Karen Roberts were the first couple through the courthouse door — and the first to be rejected.

They were followed by David Ermold and David Moore, who have been rejected multiple times in Rowan County.

“I feel like I’ve been humiliated on such a national level,” Ermold told the Associated Press.

Davis did not make an appearance at the counter as the first couples streamed in, leaving employees to deny the licenses on her behalf. A woman at counter said Davis was “doing reports.”

When Davis emerged, she declared that she was not issuing any licenses.

“Under whose authority?” she was asked.

“Under God’s authority,” she said.

Amid competing chants of “Do your job!” and “Praise the Lord!” Davis asked the rejected applicants to leave the courthouse.

The AP reported that another couple, James Yates and Will Smith Jr., were “red-eyed and shaking” as they left Tuesday morning, after being denied a license.

 

James Yates and William Smith Jr. just got denied a license in Rowan County again. #LGBT

— Mike Wynn (@MikeWynn_CJ) September 1, 2015

Yates said this was the fifth time they have been denied. Said it was too hard to talk about as he left hand-in-hand with Smith. #LGBT

— Mike Wynn (@MikeWynn_CJ) September 1, 2015

Groups of supporters and protesters gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday morning, though each side kept its distance from the other.

“We are children of God and we very much disapprove of same-sex marriage, as it is an abomination,” Randy Smith, the pastor of a local evangelical congregation, said in an opening prayer before the courthouse opened. “However, we need to promote the love of God as well. Emotions can run wild, and we need to love people.”

Smith then prayed for the county clerk, saying: “We love Kim Davis.”

On the other side of the courthouse lawn, David Ermold and David Moore waited for the doors to open.

“I’m expecting a license today,” Ermold said, before the courthouse opened.

As Ermold was speaking with reporters, a rendition of ”Amazing Grace” began from the anti-gay-marriage group just before 8 a.m. The group protesting in support of gay rights joined and sang as well.

Ermold and Moore have previously documented their efforts to secure a license in Rowan County, which is located about an hour from Lexington. A video of a July attempt has more than 1,800,000 views on YouTube; another trip to the courthouse was recorded in mid-August.

Rowan County Sheriff Matt Sparks told the couples there was nothing he could do, saying the matter was in the hands of the federal courts.

“She will likely be found in contempt, as we know,” the sheriff said.

As The Washington Post reported Monday night, the high court turned away a request by Davis, who faces fines or even jail time if she doesn’t begin issuing marriage licenses Tuesday.

Davis, an Apostolic Christian who opposes same-sex marriage, has argued that doing so would violate her religious liberties. Her husband, Joe Davis, also visited the county courthouse Tuesday, and told AP that his wife was “standing for God.”

“I’m an old redneck hillbilly, that’s all I’ve got to say,” Joe Davis, who said his wife has gotten threats against her life, told AP. “Don’t come knocking on my door.”

As The Post reported previously, Davis’s resistance has led to the most prominent of a number of legal skirmishes that have broken out since the high court decided in June that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The ruling was implemented relatively smoothly at first but lately has encountered resistance, particularly in the South.

Davis — who stopped issuing licenses to all couples, gay and straight — had not indicated late Monday how she would respond to the court’s decision. If she refuses to comply, she could be held in contempt, leading to daily fines or jail time. At a recent rally, Davis adopted a defiant tone, asking for prayers to “stand firm.”

And this morning, Ms. Davis defied SCOTUS:

 

Kentucky Clerk Denies Gay Couples Marriage Licenses, Defying Court

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-kim-davis.html?_r=0

By ALAN BLINDER and RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑASEPT. 1, 2015

MOREHEAD, Ky., — A county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds denied licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, saying she was acting “under the authority of God,” just hours after the Supreme Court refused to support her position.

In a raucous scene in this little town, two same-sex couples walked into the Rowan County Courthouse, trailed by television cameras and chanting protesters on both sides of the issue, only to be told by the county clerk, Kim Davis, that she was denying them marriage licenses.

Ms. Davis at first remained in her office with the blinds drawn, while a deputy clerk told two couples, April Miller and Karen Roberts, and David Ermold and David Moore, that no licenses would be issued Tuesday.

“Tell her to come out and face the people she’s discriminating against,” Mr. Ermold shouted.

Ms. Davis emerged, argued briefly with the applicants, and asked them to leave.

Mr. Moore said he would remain in the clerk’s office until he and Mr. Ermold had a license.

“Then you’re going to have a long day,” she replied.

After the county sheriff, Matt Sparks, arrived, Mr. Moore asked him to arrest Ms. Davis, but Sheriff Sparks said he could not.

“I suspect the federal court will decide the next course of action,” the sheriff said. “There’s actually people pushing — want us to arrest everybody here for disorderly conduct.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a motion in District Court asking a judge to hold Ms. Davis in contempt of court, and to assess fines for refusing to issue marriage licenses. A hearing was set for Thursday.

In an interview, Ms. Miller said, “We were hopeful that we would get a license this morning, but we also understood that she has taken a pretty strong stand, so it was not a surprise.” She and Ms. Roberts were the first through the door when the clerk’s office opened at 8 a.m. — their third attempt to get a license in Rowan County.

They might be able to get a license in another county. “But it would set a dangerous precedent to let it go,” Ms. Miller said. “We had no idea that this would blow up into national news.”

Though she and Ms. Davis have become adversaries, “I respect her for standing up for what she believes in — I know that’s hard to do, because we’re doing that, too,” Ms. Miller said. “I’m just sorry that she’s interjecting her personal beliefs above her government job duties.”

Ms. Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June.

After the state’s governor told county clerks to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples, Ms. Davis filed suit in federal court, arguing that she should be excused from the obligation, given her religious beliefs. A District Court judge ruled against her, as did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and she appealed to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, a stay granted by the District Court expired, and the Supreme Court rejected without comment Ms. Davis’s emergency application for a new stay, pending the outcome of her appeal. That left her no legal grounds to refuse to grant licenses to same-sex couples.

“She’s certainly in contempt of court by any definition of the term, so the District Court has an array of sanctions it can resort to, to deal with that,” said Daniel J. Canon, a lawyer for some of the same-sex couples seeking licenses. “It can levy civil or criminal sanctions against her, and we had hoped that it would not come down to that.”

Ms. Davis told the Supreme Court that her Apostolic Christian faith forbade her to affix her name to a document endorsing the view that the marriages of gay men and lesbians were authentic. “This searing act of validation would forever echo in her conscience,” her lawyers told the court.

A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, who has protested alongside Ms. Davis, insisted Tuesday that “we’ve not tried to prevent,” same-sex marriages, “we’ve only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights.”

Mr. Davis said same-sex couples could go to another county to get married when a county clerk objects due to religious beliefs. “There was a lot of people that died for that right and I think we should be able to exercise it,” Mr. Davis told CNN. He is riding his bicycle from Louisville, Ky., to the West Coast to raise awareness for what he described as an assault on religious liberty.

Gov. Steven L. Beshear’s office had no immediate comment on the confrontation. But in July, Mr. Beshear, a Democrat, said their oaths of office bound the county clerks to perform their duties, including issuing marriage licenses. Most clerks were doing so, he said, and “the courts and the voters will deal appropriately with the rest.”

Some lawmakers have discussed the possibility of changes to state law to address the issue, but the governor has said he will not call a special legislative session, so any action would have to wait until next year.

So…. How’s about it, everyone ? (and Scott…)?

Should we be “applauding” Kim Davis as a modern day Daniel or Rosa Parks?

Or should Ms. Davis “obey, honor, and sustain the law"?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

The court has given its verdict.  She needs to step down from the position or be released from that particular responsibility on the grounds of her religious beliefs.

[thesometimesaint]

She seems blissfully unaware that she personally, and the county she works in, can be held for Contempt of Court.

[ERayR]

Do you not see the difference between a High School band playing a song and a government official not performing their legal duties?  Of course she should step down or be removed.

[Calm]

It is her job. Employees don't get to pick and choose what they want to do unless the employer wants to allow them to.

I do think this is rather silly:

"“I feel like I’ve been humiliated on such a national level,” Ermold told the Associated Press."

Was there any expectation the clerk was going to change her mind? Did he have to come that day or could he have waited? Did he have to shout out his demand? He did not have to video previous experiences and publicize them. Did he have to give his name and a public statement? No one would know about his particiaption otherwise. He will be applauded for standing up and taking a hit for gay rights.

I can see feeling a bit thrown even if expecting it to happen. But he put himself in that position intentionally. It is like someone complaining about how being on reality TV has made him look __________. Not really moving me.

It feels like the equivalent of focusing on women in tears. Over the top sympathy play.

Otoh, bravo for this woman:

"Though she and Ms. Davis have become adversaries, “I respect her for standing up for what she believes in — I know that’s hard to do, because we’re doing that, too,” Ms. Miller said. “I’m just sorry that she’s interjecting her personal beliefs above her government job duties.”"

Edited September 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

I feel for her.  I don't agree with her but i feel for her.

 

She took a job and had a career which supported her belief system completely.  Then one day all of that changed and now she is being forced to perform work that she believes to be sinful.

 

Personally, i feel that she should just quit but i'm sure it's not that simple since most people depend on their jobs.

 

On a more broad plane-i doubt that this issue is solvable.  People will be able to disagree on what she should do and how she should do it because there is no precedent either group can point to that fully supports either conclusion.  

 

History shows that there are times when the laws of the land are immoral and should not be submitted to (and those who did obey and honor them are rightly judged harshly as some of the worst kinds of people).  History also shows that there are times when the laws of the land stop people from behaving in immoral ways and must be obeyed.

 

The 11th article of faith is a general statement of belief and can't be used by itself to judge whether or not someone is justified in following or not following the law.

[CA Steve]

The ideal situation would be for the county to find another position for her, one in which she could follow the dictates of her beliefs and place someone in her job who will follow the court instructions. The fact that this is not happening just shows that there are other people in the same office who support her decision.

[HappyJackWagon]

She is doing herself and her cause no favors by defying the law. She's a poor example and is not protecting religious liberty. In fact she is denying it by forcing her religion on others.

[ttribe]

The court has given its verdict.  She needs to step down from the position or be released from that particular responsibility on the grounds of her religious beliefs.

 

This.

[Bernard Gui]

Sister Gui has been ordered to remove the "girls" and "boys" signs from the coat closets in her kindergarten room,

to stop lining up the kids by gender, and to talk with them about gay and transgender issues.

[Bernard Gui]

She is doing herself and her cause no favors by defying the law. She's a poor example and is not protecting religious liberty. In fact she is denying it by forcing her religion on others.

But others are forcing their religion on her.

[ttribe]

But others are forcing their religion on her.

 

Nonsense.  Her religious beliefs have now come in conflict with her employment duties in a public service role.  She has to choose how to reconcile that without being a burden on the public.

[ERayR]

But others are forcing their religion on her.

 

However on this one she is a government official and she must obey the law. 

[KevinG]

I think she should ask for other duties or step down if she is a contentious objector to the law that has been passed.  I'm sure the organization can find other accounting or clerk duties that don't involve marriage licenses for her to do.

 

That is pretty consistent with my opinion that people whose basic values clash with an organization should voluntarily remove themselves or find other duties they can do in good conscience.

 

For example I would not demand that Coors beer provide me with a job that doesn't involve the manufacture, distribution or sales of alcoholic products.

 

Then again I wouldn't insist the BSA hire me as a professional or volunteer leader if I were openly gay.

[ALarson]

But others are forcing their religion on her.

No, she has a choice.  She can either stay and do her job (which now includes issuing marriage licenses to SS couples) or she can ask for a transfer or she can seek a job elsewhere.  

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[Gray]

Forget about Football fans singing hymns... let's get real about the REAL legal ramifications of Scott's assertions about defiance of law due to allegations of religious liberty...

In the spirit of Scott’s “sister thread” “highlighting and applauding” “when a person or a group of people take a stand for religious liberty,” which is “relevant to this board” since “Latter-day Saints are being encouraged to safeguard religious liberty,” I submit the following case of defiance of a court order for “highlighting and applauding”:

And this morning, Ms. Davis defied SCOTUS:

So…. How’s about it, everyone ? (and Scott…)?

Should we be “applauding” Kim Davis as a modern day Daniel or Rosa Parks?

Or should Ms. Davis “obey, honor, and sustain the law"?

 

It's really no different than bigoted officials who would turn black voters away. Appeal to "religious liberty" all you like, it's no different. 

[thesometimesaint]

Sister Gui has been ordered to remove the "girls" and "boys" signs from the coat closets in her kindergarten room,

to stop lining up the kids by gender, and to talk with them about gay and transgender issues.

 

We never had signs for "girls" and "boys" coats in closets growing up in the 1950's and 60's. We had individual lockers from junior high on. We didn't line up by gender either.  From kindergarten to about 3rd grade all girls had cooties.

[Calm]

But others are forcing their religion on her.

There is an expectation that businesses and governments change practices over time, and thus requirements for jobs change as well. No one would expect a secretary who refused to leran how to use a computer to be able to keep his job, a nurse who refused to learn a better technique, a policeman who refused to memorize and use language required by his job to ensure legalities were satisfied.

Is there any law that protects religious practices from such changes?

If a medical research firm began doing research using embryonic cells, would a lab tech have a right to refuse to process the results because she felt such use was wrong based on religious beliefs? What if it was a small company and any available job was lower pay and she refused to accept the lower pay? Do they have a right to fire her and find someone else to do the work or are they required to support someone who is not contributing to the business' productivity?

If it makes sense for businesses, why wouldn't it be the same for government? Hard reality, but a business is going belly up if it supports workers for more than they are worth. Taxpayers foot the bill if it happens in government.

[KevinG]

We all have a right to take an ethical stand at our place of employment.  That does not guarantee employment because of our ethical stand.  If the pendulum sweeps more conservative in government and the workplace, I hope those who seek to liberalize public and private policy will remember their insistence on  having their voices heard.

[Calm]

"I'm sure the organization can find other accounting or clerk duties that don't involve marriage licenses for her to do."

It appears she is the boss of the department. Finding a comparable job that is open might be hard. Also, isn't it an elected office? Not exactly the same as being hired. But also she would have been aware she could lose her job at anytime the voters ousted her, so not the same as someone who has been working for a company for decades.

Edited September 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

We all have a right to take an ethical stand at our place of employment.  That does not guarantee employment because of our ethical stand.  If the pendulum sweeps more conservative in government and the workplace, I hope those who seek to liberalize public and private policy will remember their insistence on  having their voices heard.

 

The arch of the moral universe bends towards justice. What a liberal thought.

[Calm]

As an elected official she can't be fired, but it would seem to me that means she can't change her job either. It is either do it, step down, or be fined. Voters can kick her out or keep her in next election.

"An hour later Davis and her deputy clerks were notified to appear at an 11 a.m. Thursday hearing at U.S. District Court in Ashland, Ky., about an hour to the east. As an elected official, Davis can’t be fired, but a judge can impose steep fines and jail time. She could be impeached but the state Legislature is not in session and many lawmakers support her position.

She won the office in November, running as a Democrat, and succeeded her mother who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to The Morehead News."

USA Today bombed before got link.

Edited September 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[ttribe]

We never had signs for "girls" and "boys" coats in closets growing up in the 1950's and 60's. We had individual lockers from junior high on. We didn't line up by gender either.  From kindergarten to about 3rd grade all girls had cooties.

 

Wait...I thought they still had cooties!

[KevinG]

The arch of the moral universe bends towards justice. What a liberal thought.

 

I've been accused of such before.  I expect it will happen again.  

 

I am socially libertarian at the core.  Despite my adherence to a personal standard that is very conservative, I allow others to govern themselves.

 

My greatest distaste is reserved for those who insist their personal beliefs be codified as public policy.  That allows me to disdain social conservatives and progressive socialists equally.

[Calm]

I feel for her.  I don't agree with her but i feel for her.

 

She took a job and had a career which supported her belief system completely.  Then one day all of that changed and now she is being forced to perform work that she believes to be sinful.

 

.

She took it in November...somehow I don't think this was unexpected.