August 27, 2015 at 7:52 pm #13436
Only in a government job can someone act like this and continue to be employed. She would have been fired on day one in any other type of position. Why is she still on payroll?August 27, 2015 at 8:22 pm #13437
There are enough others, who don’t like the new law, to let this all play out martyr style.
At some point, it’s contempt of court and jail time.
If I were the judge, I wouldn’t let her out, until she signs that license.August 27, 2015 at 8:34 pm #13438
I don’t believe they should be arrrested, rather, they should be fired for insubordination. This would not fly with any other employer.
Just imagine the hotel clerk denying gays the right to make a RSVP. How long would they be at the desk??August 27, 2015 at 10:17 pm #13441
As a civil servant, they are required to perform the work of the public.
They can either resign, or do the work. If they won’t resign, great. Put ’em in contempt and they can either resign, or perform the work.
But they have to do something. They can’t just say no after a valid court order and decision.
That’s the difference on this one and why I hope somebody places this person in contempt of court. This kind of garbage is what we have it for.
A private hotel will can somebody for garbage like this, or suffer the business consequences. Book it, or see the whole mess on Twitter kind of thing.
In this case, some supervisor somewhere, who is also a public servant isn’t supervising. They didn’t can the person, nor have they compelled them to perform the duty the people hired them to do. Somebody else is letting this happen as a statement and at some point the cost of that needs to go up.
Since it’s not a business and the markets can’t speak to it, we use contempt of court for that purpose.
Toss her in the can, and it will all end fairly quickly. She can resign, or perform the work, or just stay there for a while she thinks it all over.
Doesn’t have to be hard time, just the local jail. Maybe it will cause some thinking to get done a bit more quickly than it is right now.August 28, 2015 at 12:47 am #13446BrianlParticipant
She can’t be “fired”, as she is an elected position, but she can be recalled by at least the voters of her county, if not the county itself or Kentucky.
They aren’t exactly known for being the most progressive folk down there, so I wouldn’t be surprised if that didn’t happen.
IIRC, she was given until the 31st to comply, or be found in contempt of court.
I am sure she will keep refusing to comply, and keep riding the appeals process as far as she can. And she will lose every step of the way, continuing to look like a horse’s ass the whole time.August 28, 2015 at 12:15 pm #13462
I was not aware this was an elected position. Is this true for all states? Issuing marriage licenses isn’t rocket science, why can’t someone else issue them?August 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm #13463LangstonParticipant
It is true for Oregon.August 28, 2015 at 3:36 pm #13470
“IIRC, she was given until the 31st to comply, or be found in contempt of court.”
Somehow I missed that. Good, and even with a reasonable timeline attached to it.
Elected? Man, I missed that too. Well, contempt is even more indicated then.
And it’s not like contempt is the end of the world charge either. Basically, “Does not do what is required or told to do.” Compliance usually means release and a return to ordinary life.August 28, 2015 at 6:16 pm #13474
Which answers my question on why she hasn’t been fired. If this was not an elected position, she would have been gone the first day she was insubordinate.
And, she makes $80K per year as an electetd clerk. $80K for this cake job??August 28, 2015 at 6:27 pm #13477AmusParticipant
The Lord works in mysterious ways.August 29, 2015 at 1:26 pm #13489
Her lawyer is using the analogy of conscientious objectors during war, and how they have the right to not fight. True, but we also don’t give those people guns, put them in the battlefield, and say its okay to ignore orders to shoot the enemy. We let them stay home, and we give the job to someone else.
When this all shakes out, this will end up being an important test of gay *and* religious rights. Keep an eye on this story.August 29, 2015 at 3:26 pm #13490Deane JohnsonParticipant
She will lose in the end.August 29, 2015 at 4:12 pm #13491
But what does “losing” look like? She’s an elected official; she can’t be fired, only impeached, and the conservative KY legislature is unlikely do that. She seems determined to stick to her current course of never issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, and she has vowed to never resign. If she ignores a court order that compels her to issue gay marriage licenses, what then?
This could get very, very interesting.August 29, 2015 at 6:00 pm #13492mike_kolbParticipant
“KY”? ..like in “KY Jelly”? Somehow it’s appropriate.August 31, 2015 at 5:19 pm #13507
The Supremes say she must issue gay marriage licenses. Let’s see what she decides to do tomorrow morning (probably defy the order), and then what the justice system does in response.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.