Gay man denied marriage license by Ki...

Gay man denied marriage license by Kim Davis challenging her for county clerk

There are 43 comments on the ABC News story from Dec 6, 2017, titled Gay man denied marriage license by Kim Davis challenging her for county clerk. In it, ABC News reports that:

David Ermold, right, files to run for Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky as Clerk Kim Davis look on Dec. 6, 2017, in Morehead, Ky. Two years after Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis denied a marriage license to David Ermold and his partner of 15-plus years, Ermold and Davis are crossing paths once again: He is now challenging Davis for her seat.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
smh

Ashland, KY

#1 Dec 7, 2017
Disgusting.....
Karma

Beverly, MA

#2 Dec 7, 2017
smh wrote:
Disgusting.....
Karma
1 post removed

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#4 Dec 7, 2017
GOOOOO David!!!
1 post removed
Xstain Mullah Fricassee

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Dec 7, 2017
Is this stunt of his helpful? Is there any indication at all that he could hope to unseat talibangelical Davis in that K-Y State?
Buick

Matthews, NC

#7 Dec 7, 2017
I hope he wins, heís got my vote.
Wisdom

Florence, KY

#8 Dec 7, 2017
Which polling place in NC will you be voting??
Wisdom

Florence, KY

#9 Dec 7, 2017
Would you deny her the right to enforce the state of Ky voter mandated definition of marriage?

Would you deny her the right to have her grievances heard before being forced to comply with activist Judges forced mandates?

What would your position be if she was Muslim and it was against her faith??

Would you want the deciding Judges to be unbiased, or activist Judges who already participated in homosexual weddings? Or would you prefer them to have recused themselves. Likewise in a personal trial, would you accept an openly biased, hostile to your case Judge, or would you prefer an unbiased Judge?

Why vote for inexperience, when it is because it is gay versus an experienced professional whose issue was resolved in her favor by the state legislature...other than the fact you do not live, nor are from Rowan County?
2 posts removed
Xstain Mullah Fricassee

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Dec 7, 2017
Wisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you deny her the right to enforce the state of Ky voter mandated definition of marriage?
I'm sure that's what you still think about federal court ordered desegregation.

Because the country as a whole knows better than ignorant, racist bigots in backwater buybull regions, that's why.

Why aren't fundie freaks announcing they can't issue marriage licenses to adulterers? Adultery in its forms violates a _Commandment_.
2 posts removed
Wisdom

Florence, KY

#15 Dec 7, 2017
The question isn't on the marriage license.
Wisdom

Florence, KY

#16 Dec 7, 2017
The absolute hillarity of this is those who do not want discrimination want it for Kim Davis because hers is a religious right/freedom and theirs is a social issue.

ex,: What You Should Know About Workplace Religious Accommodation
1. Are employers required to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees?

Yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964=>> prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.

2. What does Title VII mean by "religion"?

Title VII defines "religion" very broadly. It includes traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. It also includes religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, or only held by a small number of people.

Some practices are religious for one person, but not religious for another person, such as not working on Saturday or on Sunday. One person may not work on Saturday for religious reasons; another person may not work on Saturday for family reasons. Under Title VII, a practice is religious if the employee's reason for the practice is religious.

->>Social, political, or economic philosophies, or personal preferences, are not "religious" beliefs under Title VII.

3. Common religious accommodations sought in the workplace?

Applicants and employees may obtain exceptions to rules or policies in order to follow their religious beliefs or practices. Remember that employers may grant these accommodations for religious reasons but still refuse to grant them for secular reasons. Examples of common religious accommodations include:

an employee needs an exception to the company's dress and grooming code for a religious practice, e.g., Pentecostal Christian woman who does not wear pants or short skirts; a Muslim woman who wears a religious headscarf (hijab); or a Jewish man who wears a skullcap (yarmulke).
The EEOC has developed a technical assistance document "Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities" along with a fact sheet explaining these issues due to the frequency of their occurrence.

a Catholic employee needs a schedule change so that he can attend church services on Good Friday;
an atheist needs to be excused from the religious invocation offered at the beginning of staff meetings;
a Christian pharmacy employee needs to be excused from filling birth control prescriptions , or a Jehovah's Witness seeks to change job tasks at a factory so that he will not have to work on producing war weapons;
an adherent to Native American spiritual beliefs needs unpaid leave to attend a ritual ceremony, or a Muslim employee needs a break schedule that will permit daily prayers at prescribed times;
an employee needs accommodation of a religious belief that working on his Sabbath is prohibited.
4. How does an employer determine if a religious accommodation imposes more than a minimal burden on operation of the business (or an "undue hardship")?

Examples of burdens on business that are more than minimal (or an "undue hardship") include: violating a seniority system.....

If a schedule change would impose an undue hardship, the employer must allow co-workers to voluntarily substitute or swap shifts to accommodate the employee's religious belief or practice. If an employee cannot be accommodated in his current position, transfer to a vacant position may be possible.

It is advisable for employers to make a case-by-case determination of any requested religious accommodations.
Wisdom

Florence, KY

#17 Dec 7, 2017
a portion of an article from a leading national newspaper...2015

I agree that just refusing to issue licenses is a violation of state law. But asking for an exemption from a state statute under the state RFRA would be asking for something that state law itself provides, because state law includes the state RFRA.]

So if Kim Davis does indeed go through the state courts, and ask for a modest exemption under the state RFRA ó simply to allow her to issue marriage licenses (opposite-sex or same-sex) without her name on them ó she might indeed prevail. Rightly or wrongly, under the logic of Title VIIís religious accommodation regime and the RFRA religious accommodation regime, she probably should prevail.

Thereís a lot of appeal to the ďyou take the job, you follow the rules ó if you have a religious objection to the rules, quit the jobĒ approach. But itís not the approach that modern American federal employment law has taken, or the approach that the state religious exemption law in Kentucky and many other states has taken.

Muslim truck drivers who donít want to transport alcohol, Jehovahís Witnesses who donít want to raise flags, Sabbatarians (Jewish or Christian) who donít want to work Saturdays, and philosophical vegetarians who donít want to hand out hamburger coupons can take advantage of this law. Conservative Christian county clerks who donít want to have their names listed on marriage certificates and licenses likely can, too.

**********

Regardless, the state legislature did remedy this old, worn out homocentric argument.
Wisdom

Florence, KY

#18 Dec 7, 2017

from a leading national news story...2015

I agree that just refusing to issue licenses is a violation of state law. But asking for an exemption from a state statute under the state RFRA would be asking for something that state law itself provides, because state law includes the state RFRA.]

So if Kim Davis does indeed go through the state courts, and ask for a modest exemption under the state RFRA ó simply to allow her to issue marriage licenses (opposite-sex or same-sex) without her name on them ó she might indeed prevail. Rightly or wrongly, under the logic of Title VIIís religious accommodation regime and the RFRA religious accommodation regime, she probably should prevail.

Thereís a lot of appeal to the ďyou take the job, you follow the rules ó if you have a religious objection to the rules, quit the jobĒ approach. But itís not the approach that modern American federal employment law has taken, or the approach that the state religious exemption law in Kentucky and many other states has taken.

Muslim truck drivers who donít want to transport alcohol, Jehovahís Witnesses who donít want to raise flags, Sabbatarians (Jewish or Christian) who donít want to work Saturdays, and philosophical vegetarians who donít want to hand out hamburger coupons can take advantage of this law. Conservative Christian county clerks who donít want to have their names listed on marriage certificates and licenses likely can, too.

**********

Regardless that one group seeking to avoid "discrimination" inflicts religious rights "discrimination" and "infringement" on another. Likewise, the state legislature has resolved this homocentric argument.
1 post removed
Tom

Morehead, KY

#20 Dec 7, 2017
Buick wrote:
I hope he wins, heís got my vote.
We don't need them thing's here
3 posts removed
Marco R s Secret Spouse

Philadelphia, PA

#24 Dec 8, 2017
Right wing cretins think that a cry of "religious freedom" allows all things, but that's not so. Bob Jones University didn't get to bar interracial dating among its students and keep its federal monies flowing in. Amish business owners must pay Social Security taxes of their employees. No one abut about ten Native Americans is permitted to use peyote. Muslims may not have more than one wife here.

Our xstain talibangelicals are ignorant, theocratic liars about "religious" rights and the limits on them when they conflict with other rights.
Wisdom

Florence, KY

#25 Dec 8, 2017
Legal rights of religious freedoms extend to all religions that allows for moral, philosophical and religious practices. It is NOT just a Christian thing, sorry to burst your narrow minded homocentric theories.
Wisdom

Ashland, KY

#26 Dec 8, 2017
Wisdom wrote:
Legal rights of religious freedoms extend to all religions that allows for moral, philosophical and religious practices. It is NOT just a Christian thing, sorry to burst your narrow minded homocentric theories.
Yep, FORCING religious beliefs on others is an abomination! Good luck pussyfoot grabber Trump supporter! What does your bible and morals say?
1 post removed
Marco R s Secret Spouse

Philadelphia, PA

#28 Dec 8, 2017
Wisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Legal rights of religious freedoms extend to all religions that allows for moral, philosophical and religious practices. It is NOT just a Christian thing, sorry to burst your narrow minded homocentric theories.
Hey retardate, I gave examples from several religious traditions who have had their "religious" rights curtailed.

Good to know you're not one of those ignorant, Southern scum who wants laws barring the building of any more mosques...because you say, i.e., jeesus lie, that rights are not just a Christian thing....
1 post removed
Wisdom

Florence, KY

#30 Dec 9, 2017
So would you infringe on their rights over your supposed right to a Christian religious ceremony?
Is one right greater than another, or is one entitled to air their grievances, to be legally heard, judged and adjudicated before being forced and compelled to comply with activist judges rulings?

If the sodomites were soooo in love, why did they not drive 30 minutes away to the next county to seal their "manly love" and get on with their lives, or were they more intent on pushing an agenda and getting their 15 minutes of fame and ultimately costing Ky tax payer around $300,000.

Answer me that one.
Christian Fumblementalist

Philadelphia, PA

#31 Dec 9, 2017
Wisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
So would you infringe on their rights over your supposed right to a Christian religious ceremony?
Religious ceremonies are not at issue, halfwit. Your house of worship of hate does not have to employ as religious workers or marry anyone it doesn't wish to.

The issue is whether some freeek's hypocritical religious beliefs trump their job as a civil servant in this non theocracy. They do not. A muslim clerk could not refuse a marriage license to a couple on the basis that the woman did not wear a head covering, you sick cretin. A quaker or pagan clerk could not refuse a marriage license to a couple because one or both served in the military. A jewish clerk could not refuse a marriage license to a couple because the couple didn't keep kosher or didn't keep kosher during Passover.

Also, why don't these fundie filth similarly announce they will not issue marriage licenses to co habitaitng or cheating or divorced couples? That involves a _Commandment_. Fundies are sick, lying, misogynistic bigots.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#32 Dec 9, 2017
Wisdom wrote:
So would you infringe on their rights over your supposed right to a Christian religious ceremony?
Is one right greater than another, or is one entitled to air their grievances, to be legally heard, judged and adjudicated before being forced and compelled to comply with activist judges rulings?

If the sodomites were soooo in love, why did they not drive 30 minutes away to the next county to seal their "manly love" and get on with their lives, or were they more intent on pushing an agenda and getting their 15 minutes of fame and ultimately costing Ky tax payer around $300,000.

Answer me that one.
If Davis had done her job there would have been NO cost to the Ky tax payers. Why they did not drive 30 minutes away..........b/c they didn't have to! Any more stupid questions?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 min Quivering Lip Lib... 115,551
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min John Galt 1,859,184
News Trump says he answered written questions in Mue... 9 min General Kabaka Oba 17
News The numbers show we just can't get to '100% ren... 21 min Solarman 1
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) 21 min positronium 6,621
News News Recount adds to Florida's reputation for b... 30 min Used to be a Demo... 2
News As usual, Trump turns to lies, misrepresentations 40 min Big Al 223
News Trump sparks California wildfires debate on cle... 45 min Solarman 214
News Ocasio-Cortez says her constituents are "outrag... 1 hr SirPrize 68