Author Topic: Kentucky To Pay Attorney Fees of Gay Couples Denied Marriage Licences  (Read 242 times)

Offline SGOS (OP)


Just when you thought the media had forgotten. 

It was said in this forum many times, "As an employee of the state, Kim Davis must do her job."  Fucking obvious right?  But that argument was sloughed off like an annoying bug on your shirt.  Now, a judge rules that Kentucky must pay the attorney fees of gay couples because the state did not require Kim Davis to perform her state duties.  As I recall, they got around the issue by saying someone else in the office could do the job.  And that's not entirely unreasonable.  While it was kind of a chicken shit way out, it effectively allowed citizens to exercise their rights.

However, those citizens with the audacity to demand their rights were stuck with $220,000 of attorney fees just to access their rights, which is hardly fair when those rights are protected by law.  No doubt there will be an appeal on some grounds.  But I think the decision by the judge is correct.  "The State was responsible for issuing marriage licenses and Kim Davis was its agent."  In theory, I suppose Kentucky could now sue Kim Davis for costing them $220,000 by refusing to do her job.  But that's not going to happen.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/21/538592022/kentucky-must-pay-attorney-fees-for-couples-who-sued-kim-davis-says-judge

Offline Atheon

Good news for a change!

Sometimes I wish hell were real so people like Kim Davis would end up burning in it.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

Online Baruch

Unfortunately true in real US legal system.  You have to have deep pockets.  When in fact, public defenders, at taxpayer expense, should be able to take on all vetted cases.  Not all cases are legit, but many are.  And taxpayer funded public defenders, would be able to fight back against corporate mistreatment of just about everyone.
שלום

Offline SGOS (OP)

I don't know where this is going to go next, but it's such a contentious issue, especially in light of contrary laws protecting religious freedom.  It will probably be something unanticipated.  I'm wondering if in the future a state might have the freedom to deny a job to any person whose religion prevents them from performing their job.  Maybe they already can do that without facing some kind of discrimination suit.  There are probably other ways it could be handled too.

In theory, I suppose Kentucky could now sue Kim Davis for costing them $220,000 by refusing to do her job.  But that's not going to happen.

Yep probably not going to happen. But one can still hope.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

I don't know where this is going to go next, but it's such a contentious issue, especially in light of contrary laws protecting religious freedom.  It will probably be something unanticipated.  I'm wondering if in the future a state might have the freedom to deny a job to any person whose religion prevents them from performing their job.  Maybe they already can do that without facing some kind of discrimination suit.  There are probably other ways it could be handled too.
Why would a religious person want a job they couldn't do because they're religious?
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Online Baruch

Why would a religious person want a job they couldn't do because they're religious?

Aggressive religious people aka Inquisition.
שלום

I dunno if it's the lengthy court process or what, but I've noticed that the courts often (but not always) weigh in on stuff after it's already been settled in the court of public opinion and side with the victors.  (The Supreme Court okayed gay marriage by a slight majority only after the American public okayed gay marriage by a similar majority)  Kim Davis is one such example, being very obviously on the losing side in that fight.  But if things had gone the other way, I wonder if Kim Davis's legal woes would have disappeared.

Offline trdsf

Why would a religious person want a job they couldn't do because they're religious?
Oh, easy.  So they can shove it down everyone else's throats.  And then claim they're the injured party.

I hope Kentucky sues her ass off.  She and her pirate mother before her brigandized that county.  She makes more money as clerk of her podunk little county than the clerk of my massively urbanized county does.
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

Offline SGOS (OP)

So they can shove it down everyone else's throats. 
True.  Religion is about control.  Not entirely, maybe.  But mostly.

And then claim they're the injured party.
"I only want you to be like me, so you will be a better person, and now you are hating me for it."

I hope Kentucky sues her ass off. 
I doubt that will happen.  It would carry significant political risks, and at some point would require Kentucky leadership to admit they stood by and did nothing.  That would actually add weight to the charge that the responsibility lies with them, or as the judge said, "The buck stops with the state."  And like it or not, I think Kim Davis has created an injured party image for herself among most Kentuckians.  And it's not just an "image".  To Kentuckians, she IS the injured party.  Kim Davis is an icon that underscores the persecution and suffering Christians must endure for loving their god.

In fact, now that I'm on the subject of the Christian persecution complex, I think this notion that "others are persecuting poor little Christian Us," might be among the top five psychological projections among social groups today.  A classic example of the abuser projecting his own need persecute and descriminate onto others.  And it's one of those projections that is so obvious that one has to wonder why Christians are oblivious to it.

Online Baruch

Re: Kentucky To Pay Attorney Fees of Gay Couples Denied Marriage Licences
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2017, 06:50:44 AM »
Oh, easy.  So they can shove it down everyone else's throats.  And then claim they're the injured party.

I hope Kentucky sues her ass off.  She and her pirate mother before her brigandized that county.  She makes more money as clerk of her podunk little county than the clerk of my massively urbanized county does.

Family in high places, or low places, whatever pays the bills.  You should see the local and county pension plan.  Weimar republics, all of them.

Ape people manipulate two ways ... bare their canines, or make big cat eyes at you.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 06:52:15 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Kentucky To Pay Attorney Fees of Gay Couples Denied Marriage Licences
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2017, 02:45:39 AM »
Kim Davis had a choice.  She made that choice.  That choice has been decided to be incorrect for her office.  She will pay for that choice.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950