Posted on 01/02/2024 9:47:22 PM PST by daniel1212
The former Kentucky clerk who refused to grant a gay couple a marriage license must pay an additional $260,104 to the couple, a federal judge ruled last week.
David Ermold and David Moore sued former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in 2015 after she declined to issue the couple a marriage license because doing so would violate “God’s definition of marriage” and her religious beliefs as a Christian.
The additional fees Davis must pay are on top of the $100,000 in damages she was ordered to pay Ermold and Moore in September after losing the lawsuit the couple brought.
Davis’s legal team argued that the proposed attorneys’ fees put forward by the couple’s lawyers were too much, saying that the fees should be reduced by more than 50 percent. U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning sided with the couple and awarded them $246,026.40 in attorneys’ fees and $14,058.30 in expenses, according to court documents published last week.
Bunning said that the couple’s requested attorneys’ fees were “reasonable” in his order.
Abortion.
1973.
Tell that to the martyrs ...
Having been in a similar situation I agree with Kim pertaining to what she did and how she did it. Quitting was not the correct decision. By staying in the position, she had an opportunity to influence the situation, she did delay the licensing. Her job was to approve or disapprove the legal process. Or are you saying that the engineers involved with the approval of the “O” ring on the Challenger should have quit instead of trying to delay the launch? It was part of their job also to approve or disapprove the readiness of the space craft. If they had not fought and announced their disapproval the whole episode would have been swept under the rug and the public today would not know about the crime. And with Kim the two persons she delayed was given witness to God’s standard and glory, which they needed.The public now still is bearing witness to this situation; which would not be happening if she just quietly quit. The end of the story has not been yet written. All things work together for the glory of those that love the Lord. God always has the last word.
One thing that weighs heavily in her favor, however, is the legal arguments that she presented when she was originally jailed by this same judge for refusing to sign the “marriage” certificate. In one of her court hearings, she made a very simple point that turned out to be ultimately damning for the court (I’m paraphrasing):
“If the matter of this marriage certificate is so important to you, your honor, then why don’t you just sign it yourself?”
His response: “As a Federal judge, I have no authority to sign a state marriage document.”
He was exactly right … but that was the exact same legal reason why the U.S. Supreme Court had no business overturning Kentucky’s marriage laws in the first place.
She ought to fight this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and have those morons explain this clear legal conflict in its own rulings and procedures.
Oh my word. Stone her post haste.
Where the Court got it wrong was the REMEDY they mandated — i.e., overturning state marriage laws all over the nation. The true remedy should have been to address the issue from the standpoint of Federal control — by overturning any provisions of Federal law that address married couples.
On its face, any Federal law that involves married couples have a basic legal impediment, in that they’re predicated on an institution (marriage) that is adjudicated entirely under state law.
Judgemental much? I guess no one is allowed to make mistakes in your religion.
I'm sure you've made none.
its hard to win an argument with an intelligent person, with a stupid person its impossible.
its not 1940 anymore. people no longer have rigid morals. morality is now on a sliding scale, that moves with the crowd. and you, dear Christian, ain't part of that crowd.
The family courts are an abomination, a large part of the reason many will not get married. That’s another huge issue.
Are there any states that don’t have a family court division? Those might be great places to live.
“ She was hired and paid to do a job”
The president’s job is to secure the border. How much is he being fined?
A homosexual judge sides with homosexuals. What a surprise.
This self righteous lady is a big phony. IIRC, her mother held the clerk’s position for 30 years. And she’s been married like 3 times.
But she married men.
What is this? It’s not even a kangaroo court.
This is raw revenge, nothing more. It has no place in a courtroom.
I disagree. Davis was obeying the Constitution of the State of Kentucky. That has massive authority.
No, because that situation is different. The definition of a county clerk's job includes issuing licenses; I would expect it's a fairly explicit requirement, and taking the position means one agrees to those requirements. OTOH, a doctor who objects to abortion would never take a position where doing abortions was a job requirement.
The State coming along after the fact and adding such a requirement is IMO unlawful and unconstitutional.
> And soldiers must obey what they believe as unlawful orders
Soldiers are in a difficult position in that regard because their explicit job requirement is "Do what you are ordered to do, regardless" and they agree to that when they sign up. If they are later given an unconscionable order, they are in a tough spot because refusing to follow orders carries a large penalty, but if they make a stand, they are accepting that penalty.
So, if you're in a government position that asks you to perform against your religious convictions/creed, your options are to act against your conscience or find another job? Freedom of religion does not end when we step outside a church as many would like us to believe. Liberty is not license; it is the freedom to agree or disagree. There needs to be accommodation and respect for the religious convictions of individuals both in and out of government. It is presently lacking.
Wait a minute....she’s the one who was doing the judging...so you have things twisted to fit your narrative.
If you take a job, with certain known job requirements, and you later decide that you cannot in good conscience perform the job so as to meet those requirements -- for whatever reason -- you have three choices:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;It does not guarantee you the freedom to exercise your religion at your job to the point where you are unable to perform your job requirements (you are still free to exercise it elsewhere). You are welcome to fight The System if you wish, but the 1A "Freedom of Religion" does not guarantee that you'll win that fight.
That is, if your religion requires you, say, to wear a pendant with a Cross on it, that probably doesn't get in the way of doing your job. But if your religion requires you to be naked and carry a boombox with loud rap music blaring, that's likely to affect your ability to do your job effectively.
So to your point, does freedom of religion end when you step outside a church? OF course not. But it is inapplicable when you take a job with requirements and then refuse to meet those requirements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.