A reasonable accommodation for Davis...? Er.... no.

For everyone claiming that Davis should be a granted a reasonable accommodation like any other employee, um... no:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(f) The term “employee” means an individual employed by an employer, except that the term “employee” shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office. The exemption set forth in the preceding sentence shall not include employees subject to the civil service laws of a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision. With respect to employment in a foreign country, such term includes an individual who is a citizen of the United States.

Crazy. An elected official is not considered to be an employee. I would have thought that should be obvious as she does not have an employer who hired her.

So we now have that settled and Davis is not legally entitled to any workplace reasonable accommodation. What excuses are going to be used to persuade people into believing that government officials are allowed to use their elected position and authority to break the law?

If you are going to post "when we send Hilary to jail then we can send Davis" (or something similar), don't bother posting. Either address the issue or move on.

 

And the only accommodation that Kim Davis requested was that her name be removed from those marriage licenses (according to her attorney). That accommodation has been provided.

​

Despite that, Kim Davis attorney is now arguing the department she was supposed to be leading cannot function as it's required to by law. The marriage form now do not bear Davis's name (at her request). Kim Davis has responded to the cour granting her request by contesting the validity of those licenses because her name was removed from them.​

However Kentucky law does not support Davis claim. According to statute 61.035, “Any duty enjoined by law or by the Rules of Civil Procedure upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy.” If Davis can issue licenses, so can her deputies. (link)





​

 

An accommodation she is in no way entitled to. Bowing to such requirements sets a precedent.

 

Basically yeah, there is no basis in custom or law to provide any sort of accommodation so she can avoid doing the job that she actually ran for.

The principled thing to do in this case is to resign, but for some reason that's never been considered...

 

The fact that this incident received so much attention is queer. It reminds me of why I hope my children don't get the urge to have children of their own. The planet is falling apart with wars, rumors of wars, civil unrest, environmental disasters, natural disasters, crazies with their fingers on the little-red button, and billions of people salivating to get their piece of the western pie. But what is the big news? Some drama queen turned born again, won't issue a marriage license to same-sex partners.

 

lol, the YMCA song, how fitting

 

I take it no one wants to argue Title VII? lol

 

If it saves me another media cycle of this, and another pointless federal court proceeding I'd make her the pope if I could. As long as the stays out of the way of the rest of us I'm happy to make accomodations.

 

not much to argue... you proved your point well

elected officials do not have the right to discriminate against their fellow Americans based on their religion...

.

 

Your claim is that she doesn't have a right to a reasonable accommodation. In federal court, no, but in state court, yes. As a general rule, states can allow more rights, but not fewer. The fact that the feds don't recognize a given right doesn't mean that the states are prohibited from doing so.

But there is an odd precedent which meant that she would have basically lost in federal court but won in state.there was some legal expert on SXM124 THE other day talking about it, I don't remember the landmark case, but basically federal courts couldn't enforce state laws like that.

 

Sooooo a state passes a law allowing people to purchase post 86' machine guns, so then that trumps the Federal 86' NFA?

Nope. The Federal law does not allow accommodations for elected officials. Any claim that states can do such would contradict Title VII.

 

Why did she not resign on pripnciple?
Well the coerk earns good money
80,000 oer year is nice in ky
Also it apoears that there is some nepotism in the office
Her mom was clerk before, hired her, then handed her the job
And she has at least one relative working for her
So the job is a sweet deal
Not something to walk away from on principle

 

Are you saying that the function of the Civil Rights Amendment isn't to establish rights, but set limits on rights? ^_-

you jest, right?

 

In any case
There was no court ordered accommodation
The governor or legislature did not accommodate her

As far as i can tell,
She arranged it herself
And everyone was happy to have it over

Which begs the question
If she runs the clerks office
And made the accommodation herself
For her self
Why did she not do this before?
It seems to me she has always had the power to arrange things to accommodate any religious practice objections objections she had.... I mean... Essentially she is her own boss and apparently answers not much to anyone other than the voters about how she does her job. So if she needed an accommodation.....

 

the state can not say a gov official has the right to violate citizens rights though, or a official could say they do not believe blacks or women shoudl be allowed to own businesses and deny them business licenses too

 

It clearly sets a limit on the rights of elected officials in the work place.

 

it's one thing for the clerk to refuse to do it herself, it's another for her to force it on everyone else

 

She didn't do it before because, for whatever odd reason, any license issued by her office by state policy would have said, "in the name of Kim Davis" or something basically to that effect, and she felt that that was essentially the same as if she had just done it herself. If I recall correctly from an interview her lawyer had on the radio, all that she asked for was that her name not be on the doc.

Basically it comes down to this: it's a pretty tall order to ask that the law be changed as a part of a "reasonable accommodation", but there is no good reason (given by the state so far) to require her name to be on the doc unless its some super decentralization thing where they want local officials to basically nullify laws they don't like, and I really, really doubt that that is actually the case.

Which is extraneous because that isn't what was actually asked for.

No, it doesn't. It sets a limit on rights granted by the Civil Rights Act.

 

I've been told that she merely wanted her name removed from the doc.

I've been told that she held up the issuing of licenses (or tried to) AFTER her name was removed from the doc.

I think we need to get our facts straight so that we know what we are defending or opposing.

What's the correct version of events and what source can you bring to support that?

 

actually if you listened to her recent speech, she is complaining that she was forced to allow her employees to issue them even though it's not her name on them, she did not even want to do this

she was forcing her employees not to issue them and would still be doing it if not for the courts

.

 

An employee shall not include elected officials. Sooooooooooo, yep. A reasonable accommodation from her non-existent employer cannot be requested.

 

How did this accommodation happen?
It was not the courts was it?
So who was standing in the way?

Btw
There is no obvious reason other then vanity to have the her name on the document

Issued by county clerks office, xx county, ky... Etc

 

So what or who has now changed?
Has state policy changed?

 

to protect us from future kim davis's, no elected officials name should ever go on any form, it shoudl always be as you say "Issued by county clerks office, xx county, ky... Etc "

it was a privilege for them to do that, because of Kim, that privilege should be revoked for everyone

kinda like chewing gum in class, one bad apple sticking their gum in the door lock ruins it for everyone

.

 

A change in the state's laws regarding marriage licenses would require a Special Session of the Kentucky General Assembly. There is nothing reasonable about expecting the state to spend taxpayer money on a special session of the general assembly to make this change now. And there is nothing reasonable about expecting couples in Rowan County to either wait until January 2016 for the next regular session or go to another County. Kim Davis is wrong.