A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

With shackled around her ankles and waist, this is the

Posted: Sep 4, 2015

clerk who is refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses was led away from federal court - and taken to jail. Kim Davis, 49, was told by U.S. District Judge David Bunning on Thursday that she would stay behind bars until she complied with his order to resume issuing the licenses to gay couples. Donning a blue top and striped skirt, Davis, a thrice-divorced Apostolic Christian who works at Rowan County Courthouse, said 'thank you' before being led from the courtroom by a marshal. She later insisted that she would not accept a compromise that would allow her out of jail. Attorneys for the plaintiffs had proposed to the court that Davis be freed if she promised not to interfere with her deputies. But Davis refused - noting her name would still be on the licenses. dailymail.co.uk ;

How ironic and absurd, Hillary Clinton says the clerk - has to obey the law or suffer

[ In Reply To ..]
suffer the consequences of not doing so. Absurd coming from the biggest lawbreaker in the country.

What about politicians in sanctuary cities and illegals?

KY clerk is doin her job. KY law says marriage is 1 man and - 1 woman, it's the feds and SC

[ In Reply To ..]
disenfranchising the voters.

So you do not believe in the constitution? - Or just

[ In Reply To ..]
the articles that benefit your belief at any point in time?

Did you believe the SC was right during Dred - cott or that Rosa Parks was

[ In Reply To ..]
wrong to defy an immoral law?

They did not refuse to perform a public law - while being paid to do so

[ In Reply To ..]
Clerk should resign if she cannot perform her duties for whatever reason. The laws and court have already decided this issue. Perhaps you would be better off working toward a constitutional amendment. Good luck on that.

How is that relevant? - JC

[ In Reply To ..]
Rosa Parks wasn't refusing to do her job

Would you issue a license to a polygamist? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

How is that relevant? - JC

[ In Reply To ..]
That is completely different

Since when is relevancy required here? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Why not post this below the Rosa Parks comment. Was that relevant?

Okay - JC

[ In Reply To ..]
Okay I will

So when will those failing to enforce immigration laws - being going to jail?

[ In Reply To ..]
NM

Won't be until after Commie Obammie is gone. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Democrats typically don't follow the laws as they are written. They try to rewrite them to fit their sicko agenda. Hillary is living proof. So is Slick Willie for that matter. The last honest powerful democrat is Jimmy Carter. Weak though he was, he was at least honest.

There are only two kinds of rights, natural and civil. Natural - rights come from God and are

[ In Reply To ..]
with us at birth. Civil rights come from man, and are created through law. But laws in a republic are made by legislatures.

"Rights" created by judges are therefore not rights at all, but decrees.

We are moving from a republic to an oligarchy.

The left loves the heavy hand of the law for this, but - silent on CA clerk who refuses to issue

[ In Reply To ..]
carry permits even though it's the law. A federal court struck down California's unconstitutional concealed carry rules.

Where's the outrage? Don't answer that. It's rhetorical.

Why isn't Al Sharton in shackles? He didn't obey the - law, he owes millions to the IRS,

[ In Reply To ..]
this is ridiculous.

Obviously Mrs. Clinton has not been proven - to have broken a law

[ In Reply To ..]
It is just bipartisan drivel at this point.

I don't think she will be proven to have broken a law. - Bibbie

[ In Reply To ..]
I think Hillary's statement that she didn't really think about email servers is true. I mean, look at her age and the time all of this began. Email wasn't the big deal it was then. Think about it honestly, who was really thinking about email safety in the late 1990s and even early 2000s? I just don't think it's a big deal, sorry. I look at her overall career, especially as secretary of state and NY senator and I personally like her, hope she gets the nod.

Plus the sanctuary cities issue results in the MURDER - of American citizens, Kim

[ In Reply To ..]
Davis' refusal to issue a license does not.

The USSC states that elected state officials cannot be - drafted to carry out federal dictates,

[ In Reply To ..]
if the federal government wants gay marriage, it must supply the bureaucrats to carry out the edicts.

Godspeed.

It's going to be interesting in the future to see if this - is just Christians they are targeting

[ In Reply To ..]
or if Muslims will be shackled and jailed too. My guess is no.

Show me an exampls of where Muslims, Hindus, etc. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
receive preferential treatment over white Christians.

For not doing their jobs, Obama defends Muslims but - jails a Christian.

[ In Reply To ..]
In May 2013, the Obama administration sued Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Illinois, because it fired Muslim truck drivers who refused to drive trucks that were carrying alcoholic beverages.

However, earlier this week, the Obama administration pursued federal action against Kim Davis, a Christian court clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and a federal judge put her in jail.

The truck drivers were hired to do a job. They refused - to do that job, fire them. The KY clerk

[ In Reply To ..]
was elected to carry out KENTUCKY laws. She is doing precisely that. KY law says marriage is between one man and one woman.

This example is not specific to Muslims - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The trucking company was required to make a small accommodation. Not the same as refusing to provide a public service.

Employers may not discriminate against employees or applicants based on their religious beliefs. This means, for example, that employers may not refuse to hire anyone who does not share their faith, promote only Jews or Catholics, or require background checks only of Muslim employees.

The Right to an Accommodation
If you have a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment rule or requirement, the law requires your employer to accommodate your beliefs, working with you to find a way around the conflict. This might mean, for example, agreeing not to schedule you to work on your Sabbath day or relaxing a company dress code so that you can wear religious garments.

Some possible accommodations include:
Scheduling changes. For example, you might need time off for religious holidays, breaks during the day for prayer, or a schedule that allows you to take your weekly Sabbath day off.

Changes in your job. If your job duties conflict with your religious beliefs, your employer may be required to modify your work.

Exceptions to dress or grooming requirements. For example, an employer that requires men to have short hair may have to make an exception for men whose religious beliefs prohibit cutting their hair.

Use of company facilities. If an employee needs a private space for prayer or other religious observance during the work day, for example, an employer may be required to provide it.

Excused absence from employer programs. Employers are free to include religious expression in their trainings, meetings, or other functions. Some employers also choose to include spiritual practices or express humanist beliefs that conflict with the idea of a God or Creator. These employers must allow employees whose religious beliefs (or lack thereof) conflict to be excused from attendance.

Proselytizing at work. Some religions require their practitioners to profess their faith. Although employers must try to provide an accommodation, this practice can conflict with the rights of other employees.

So you don't respect the US Constitiution - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Obama sure doesn't, that for sure. He's turned it on its - head.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Preemption and Supremacy Clause - Federal law supercedes state law

[ In Reply To ..]
When state law and federal law conflict, federal law displaces, or preempts, state law, due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI., § 2. Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act, an act of Congress, preempts state constitutions, and FDA regulations may preempt state court judgments in cases involving prescription drugs.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preemption

I'm still waiting on the lawsuits for the Muslim bakeries - that refused to bake a cake

[ In Reply To ..]
for the gay couple.

And I will show you 10 where Muslims, etc are - discriminated against

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Clerk - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
This is a cut and dried case. Her job is to issue the license. Her religious and personal beliefs are irrelevant. If she can't do that she should find another job.

Oh yeah there's a war on Christians - AD

[ In Reply To ..]
That's ridiculous

She's not targeted, nor is she being jailed for practicing her religion. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
She's being jailed for using the government to force others to practice her religion.

When law came into effect--she should - have resigned

[ In Reply To ..]
as she could no longer perform her duties as outlined by the law.

but then she wouldnt have a - lucrative book deal

[ In Reply To ..]
and a go fund me.

I thought this was VERY interesting and thought provoking... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
"I have to wonder just how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses based on her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support a Quaker government official who refused to issue them gun permits based on a religious commitment to pacifism?" - Jon Davidson, Lambda Legal legal director

Somehow, I doubt the same support would be there. I think this case demonstrates the importance of keeping church and state separate.

With all due respect, the Bill of Rights would have been - on the books BEFORE the Quaker

[ In Reply To ..]
got the job.

Why would someone run for an elected office knowing - that would be part of their job anyway?

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Maybe it was a nonissue when she ran for office. - Sick liberals plow through.

[ In Reply To ..]
Who would have thought this would ever become an issue?

Why couldn't they have been satisfied with civil unions?

Don't answer that rhetorical question. I don't care to hear more amoral garbage excuses from the left.

Remember when Hillary blamed Benghazi on a youtube - video? That person went to jail!

[ In Reply To ..]
This is New Amerika.

Well, deaf and dumb, if she didn't know it - was possible when elected

[ In Reply To ..]
You are correct, that your rhetorical question need not be answered, as the Supreme Court has already answered...what could be added?

She needs to resign.

She should have been fired to begin with. - Dix

[ In Reply To ..]
Given supreme court ruling legalization of gay marriages, the first time she refused to issue a license to a gay couple, she should have been fired. I don't view this as someone remaining steadfast to her morals. I view it as someone refusing to do her job, which is cause for termination. It is no different than me saying I refuse to do my job because I happen to disagree with a physician. She doesn't approve of homosexuality - that's her right. However, when working in a public position, she should not allow her personal feelings to impact her job. It's simple.

Very well said! - JC

[ In Reply To ..]
I agree with you 100%. She has every right to her beliefs, but if they get in the way her doing her job then she shouldn't be doing that job. It's amazing to me that so many people think it's okay for her to refuse to do the job she is paid to do.

They can't just fire her because it is an elected position. They have to have a recall election to remove her. I hope they do that soon. If she is refusing for the reasons she says she is refusing for she will never be able to perform the duties of her job and the right thing to do would be for her to resign.

Similar Messages:

Feb 12, 2015
Does anyone have a problem with their ankles swelling? I've never had a problem with this before; it must be the hours of sitting. Any ideas of what to do about this? ...

Sep 09, 2010
xxxxxxx ...