Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Students

@awcntdb, as Cardinal Fang clarifies in #157 and as I suggested in my post, she and her lawyers did not apply to the state judicial system for that accommodation under RFRA.

I would venture to guess they did not because they thought it would likely be granted without a fuss.

It is difficult to believe that her lawyer is actually stupid enough to have taken his course of action by mistake.

@1or2Musicians, previously the office was held by her mother, for whom she worked. Now her son works for her. Her opponent in the election suggested that nepotism was a problem, but she was elected anyway.

@Consolation - Thanks for the clarification. I see the detail I missed now.

The cynic in me says she is doing it for financial reasons. Think how much she stands to gain from go fund me if she is forced out of office.

I used to moonlight selling seafood at a grocery store. Once in awhile we would get live lobsters in for holidays. I hated watching them in the tank and really hated steaming the poor things. But it was my job and I had to do it. When corporate decided we needed to make them available all the time I resigned.

Christians are told that living faithfully requires hard choices and sacrifices. Perhaps quitting her job is the cross that she must bear? Standing up for Jesus (as she understands/misinterprets) might be a more powerful witness if she cares enough to quit. Show some true devotion by giving up an easy well paying job. Come to think of it that goes well with Jesus telling the rich man to sell all that he had…

Kim Davis is at it again. Today her lawyer filed a petition asking that no marriage licenses be issue to any more same sex couples in her county. [Here’s the petition.](https://assets.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/documents/2401470/6thcir-motion-stay090315injunctionpendingappeal.pdf)

As far as I can tell (I am not a lawyer) the petition says that since the couples who sued her initially only asked that they be issued licenses-- and not other same sex couples who might come in to the office-- therefore, the judge was not justified in ordering Davis’ office to do its job and issue licenses to all qualified couples who apply for them.

Can we stop pretending that Davis just wants an accommodation? She got her accommodation, and she is still trying to prevent gay and lesbian couples from getting married.

The best part of Davis’ petition is the blithe dismissal of any possible harm to any member of the public if her office again denies marriage licenses to qualified same sex couples. “No public interest is served by upholding” the order that her office should grant licenses to qualifed couples who apply for them, it says.

SMH . . .

I read about 80% of Davis’ petition. Don’t they realize they could at most require the federal judge to issue the exact same broad order at once? And I thought very little of their attempts to characterize the judge’s order as some extraordinary act expanding the relief sought. My understanding is the judge has authority to recognize that plaintiffs are being burdened because they are a member of a class, not because of a specific circumstance applicable only to them. In the latter case, a judge makes a ruling about that particular case.

Well then…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-government-group-vows-to-keep-kim-davis-out-of-jail_55f1d06be4b03784e2786c51?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

When are people going to give up pretending that she is standing for religious liberty and admit that she is trying to impose HER religious beliefs on everyone else, effectively establishing a theocracy? Or, at best, a pawn of those who are trying to do so?

The hell with jailing her. We have far too many people in jail already. Fine her $80K per week, with the money to go to the county, which is poor and needs the help. If other people pay it for her, then it will soak up funds that could otherwise be donated to similar “causes.” Win-win situation.

So far, I don’t see a reason for her to be held in criminal contempt. It’s legal to file appeals.

But the minute she attempts to stop her deputies from issuing a license to a same sex couple is the minute she should be back in jail, criminally charged. AND she should be fined.

“There’s a judge in Oregon who has stopped performing marriages since the Supreme Court ruling. There was a judge in Texas who stopped performing marriages as a protest against the fact that (at the time) same sex marriage was illegal.”

I think you are confusing a judge with a justice of the peace. Judges have the right to marry people and in most places it is no different than a mayor or politician with that power, it is a token of their power but they don’t have to exercise it, whereas JP’s are a functionary tasked with marrying people, there is a big difference.

“We had clerks in San Francisco who gave out same sex marriage licenses when it was against the law. They were not prosecuted for doing what at the time was illegal. Now we have…(you get the drift).”

Yeah, Fox News logic, conflating Kim Davis (who refused to do her job, and defied a federal court order), with Gavin Newsome, who issued same sex marriage license based on a legal claim that the state constitution didn’t allow discrimination like that, he had a legal basis for his actions (unlike Kim Davis, who had only her twisted version of the Bible as her reason). Newsome, because he was citing a legal principle, was not breaking the law, because he was saying the law itself was invalid. It went to court, and the court ruled that Newsome’s argument was wrong, told him to stop, and he did…which Kim Davis did not do.

It is interesting watching the supporters try to conflate apples and pears as being the same. Davis was jailed because a judge said she didn’t have the right to do what she was doing, not because she refused to issue the licenses. If when the court had spoken, she had said she would obey, she wouldn’t have gone to to jail, the way Gavin Newsome didn’t go to jail because he listened. Tating, you have to learn that the law isn’t what people say it should be, the law is what the courts say it is. Newsome had legal grounds to do what he did, by citing the California constitution, he didn’t claim Jesus told him to do it, or the flying spaghetti monster, he cited the law and basically said that the same sex marriage ban was illegal, unconstitutional. When a court says your argument doesn’t hold water, then you are violating the law but since Newsome stopped, he was fine.

Davis is grandstanding, you can bet some of the heavy hitters in the religious right campaign to make the US a theocracy are probably paying her to be their martyr, in fact I would bet on it. Davis isn’t looking for an accomodation, she is looking to become a hero to all the real american types like her, start a revolution, but what she is really doing is making people like herself look small and mean.

When I think about Kim Davis, this is how she looks in my mind’s eye, and I think it is how history will remember her:

http://www.historybyzim.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/eckford.jpg

Kim Davis is the “girl” in the background. What an ugly legacy she will leave.

@Nrdsb4: I hope you are right that she will leave an ugly legacy. In the meantime, however, I’m discouraged by how many people see her as a martyr, and by how many people keep saying stupid things like, The government has forbidden people from practicing their religion. I am very discouraged by the anger and self-righteousness demonstrated by the people who support her point of view. I’m scared about the rhetoric that will be in the upcoming election. In my experience, people are smart, logical and thoughtful. But when I look at the people who support Kim Davis, I am genuinely frightened for what’s happening in this country.

@VeryHappy, I totally agree with you. Things may well get worse before they get better.

I am scared that folks are claiming Supreme Court decisions are up for debate. Ive heard it all this week, with regards to the 13th and 14th amendment.

^^^^ Yes. According to Huckabee, “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.” That’s true. Because the Court opines only on the Constitution.

I’ve heard folks dissing the Supreme Court because it doesn’t make laws. Right. It just tells us all whether a law that a state or Congress passed is constitutional.

Seems pretty “supreme” to me.

You have to remember that people like Huckabee or like Rand Paul (who claimed that the 1954 Brown vs Board of Ed decision was wrong, that the right to association applied and that the 14th amendment didn’t), when they say the Supreme Court makes laws, do so for decisions they don’t like, but are perfectly happy when the court “makes laws” in their favor, like Citizens United declaring that corporations are people and enjoy the rights of people, or when the Bush administration went to the Supreme Court to overturn Oregon’s assisted suicide law (passed by popular ballot initiative) arguing that it violated due process, the court “ruled wisely”. Courts don’t make law, courts rule on the laws that are made and whether they are legal. The Supreme Court didn’t create same sex marriage, they said banning same sex marriage while allowing straight marriage to have legal rights violated the constitution, so they extended existing law to groups that were denied it. The whole idea of “judicial activism” is basically this, with of course it being things they don’t like. What is interesting is that critics of Citizens United criticized the ruling, but don’t deny the right of the Supreme Court to issue such a decision, no matter how bad they think it is, but those who support Citizens United if there is something they don’t like, claim the court had no right to issue that decision.

@veryhappy:
I don’t think all that many people see her as a martyr, it is primarily the extreme religious right who are saying that, from what i understand most people in Kentucky think Davis is wrong and should face punishment for what she did. I don’t think this is going to affect the election one bit, people like Kim Davis and her supporters are concentrated in a swath of the country where they will vote a certain way anyway, and this isn’t going to give the election to the GOP, and I doubt very much when the main campaign happens that anyone nominated will mention the Davis case, because they know it will further alienate independent voters, young people and other groups they need.

I hope you’re right, but sometimes issues like this serve to galvanize or coalesce people into feeling more and more empowered, which results in crazy people being elected. I am genuinely concerned about this election cycle and the huge number of Republican candidates who are anti-same sex marriage, anti-women, and anti-government. We’ve gone from being a nation of laws to a nation of people with strong religious opinions that they think should trump laws. (No pun intended.)

You know the recent news about a new ancestor of man discovered in caves in South Africa? To me and others like me, it’s further proof that evolution is real. To the religious right, it’s an example of the devil planting false “evidence” in an effort to fool us.

Maybe these opinions have always been as common as they seem to be now. Maybe it’s just because of social media that we’re hearing about them more. I hope so, but I’m afraid that’s not the case. I think the nation has changed.

The way the judges marrying people worked in my courthouse (no justice of the peace) was that the county court judges were ‘on duty’ for certain weeks of the year, and if you came to the courthouse to get married you’d get the duty judge. Any judge could perform a marriage, but then again Colorado has common law marriage and ANYONE can ‘perform’ a marriage since no performance is actually necessary (you can just file the license if you want, or you can ‘hold yourself out’ as married and you are). My judge did it when he was in county court, but when he moved to district court he really didn’t like to do them. Why? Because he said people didn’t want a religious ceremony, but sortakinda did with readings and ‘so help me God’ and other aspects of a religious ceremony. And they wanted more than the standard script, and they wanted 40 people there, but were treating it like they were eloping. He just didn’t want to deal with it anymore. ‘Friends’ would ask him and he’d say no. He just found it easier to say no to everyone.