Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case

Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
First off, you didn't answer the question.
Why do you see it as valid to sue a company official because of how they do their job as compared to an elected official because of how they do their job?



How many times do I have to point out this is not really about "how they performed their duties" and actually about DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS.
You keep ignoring what the true issue is to create this strawman argument that you have gone on and on about... :rolleyes:


We actually agree that citizens should not be able to "seek damages" because of a disagreement on how "elected officials perform their duties".

Moreover, THIS CASE WAS NOT ABOUT DAMAGES. We're talking about compensation for LAWYER FEES.
Not damages.
You keep arguing about things that are not really what's going on...




Again, this is about CIVIL RIGHTS being denied.
There is no trend here for "disagreement" with how "elected officials perform their duties".


I often wonder how many right-wingers (or people who obviously act on their behalf) object to things BASED SOLELY ON FAILING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.
Lord knows that there are too many right-wing talk radio pundits who make a living off of that...




This case never set any such precedent.
a) NO DAMAGES are involved.
b) This is NOT about a "disagreement" on "how elected officials perform their duties".
The courts recognize a civil right.
A government employee blocks that civil right.
Ergo, the lawsuit.

And there was and still is a disagreement that marriage is in fact a civil right and if the federal government has the authority to force a state to recognize this. This debate was going on when this person was elected to office. In fact before SCOTUS decided she was not allowed to sign those documents. Agree w/ this or not is is irrelevant. The argument goes that she believed she was doing what the people who voted for her wanted her to do. The people decided otherwise and she was removed. This is how it is supposed to work.

Damages/ lawer fees is purely semantics. The point is that the case is person who feels wronged VS the state. Not person who feels wronged VS elected official.
 
Likes: Jimmyb
Nov 2005
8,779
3,271
California
And there was and still is a disagreement that marriage is in fact a civil right and if the federal government has the authority to force a state to recognize this. This debate was going on when this person was elected to office.
No.
The precedent for this had been established DECADES ago by SCOTUS.
Just because some people are ignorant of the facts doesn't mean that any nitwit in office can do as they please.

Again, LOOK AT THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS before the court. The people who argued AGAINST gay marriage in court DID NOT argue that marriage was not a civil right.
Ignorance does not justify this woman doing as she pleased.


In fact before SCOTUS decided she was not allowed to sign those documents.
The fact that people's jobs change is not an argument for anything. :rolleyes:
If your job changes and you refuse to do it, then let somebody who will do the job do that job.


Agree w/ this or not is is irrelevant. The argument goes that she believed she was doing what the people who voted for her wanted her to do.
Again, you are putting words in her mouth.
She never argued that in court.
Moreover, such a belief IS IRRELEVANT even if true.
She was sworn into office to uphold the policies of the government. Not to bow to the prejudices and ignorance of the people.


The people decided otherwise and she was removed. This is how it is supposed to work.
You don't seem to comprehend THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT ALLOW UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS
There is no "just wait until the election time, then HOPE the idiot out who is blocking civil rights gets voted out"
A lawsuit IS EXACTLY how this country has handled such things.


Damages/ lawer fees is purely semantics.
No. It's really not.
Because you can't comprehend THE ACTUAL POINT OF THE ORIGINATING LAWSUIT. You whine and mewl that it shouldn't be about suing the politician, but you don't get WHY they are suing the politician. They were not suing Davis for a paycheck. You still refuse to comprehend that.
You refuse to appreciate the WHY is incredibly important here...


The point is that the case is person who feels wronged VS the state. Not person who feels wronged VS elected official.
Again, DID YOU EVEN READ THE DAMN ARTICLE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.

From the article:
But four years later, after a court ordered Kentucky taxpayers to pay more than $222,000 in legal fees for the gay and straight couples who sued, outside lawyers for now Gov. Bevin say former Rowan County clerk Kim Davis broke the law and taxpayers "should not have to collectively bear the financial responsibility for Davis' intransigence."​

Let me repeat that a few times until you can freakin' actually understand the facts instead of this incessant making up crap b.s. that you pull.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.

Got it yet?
Now, look at the subject line:
Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case
Doesn't mean he's going to get his way for passing the buck. In fact, the article points out this governor SUPPORTED Davis until he got the bill.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2008
18,823
12,633
Virginia Beach, VA
And there was and still is a disagreement that marriage is in fact a civil right and if the federal government has the authority to force a state to recognize this. This debate was going on when this person was elected to office. In fact before SCOTUS decided she was not allowed to sign those documents. Agree w/ this or not is is irrelevant. The argument goes that she believed she was doing what the people who voted for her wanted her to do. The people decided otherwise and she was removed. This is how it is supposed to work.

Damages/ lawer fees is purely semantics. The point is that the case is person who feels wronged VS the state. Not person who feels wronged VS elected official.
If a cop violates your civil rights you can sue the city AND the cop.
 
Nov 2005
8,779
3,271
California
Sabcat, a couple items you have stated.
# You don't think Kim Davis should have been "sued" in this case where a gay couple was being denied marriage.
# You think voting Kim Davis being voted out of office was actually the correct way to handle this.

To ask the question bluntly...
If a person or group of people are being denied their civil rights, do you think their only recourse should be to just let the government continue to deny the civil rights and try to get somebody else voted into office who will grant the civil rights?

Cause quite frankly, the way civil rights played out in the South for blacks (and other historical examples of civil rights advancement) would have played out very differently under this mindset...
Or is this approach something you only endorse for gays and/or gay marriage?
 
May 2018
6,321
4,212
Chicago
Sabcat, a couple items you have stated.
# You don't think Kim Davis should have been "sued" in this case where a gay couple was being denied marriage.
# You think voting Kim Davis being voted out of office was actually the correct way to handle this.

To ask the question bluntly...
If a person or group of people are being denied their civil rights, do you think their only recourse should be to just let the government continue to deny the civil rights and try to get somebody else voted into office who will grant the civil rights?

Cause quite frankly, the way civil rights played out in the South for blacks (and other historical examples of civil rights advancement) would have played out very differently under this mindset...
Or is this approach something you only endorse for gays and/or gay marriage?
Can't wait to see that reply. It'll be cute.
 
May 2018
3,951
2,920
USA
Sabcat, a couple items you have stated.
# You don't think Kim Davis should have been "sued" in this case where a gay couple was being denied marriage.
# You think voting Kim Davis being voted out of office was actually the correct way to handle this.

To ask the question bluntly...
If a person or group of people are being denied their civil rights, do you think their only recourse should be to just let the government continue to deny the civil rights and try to get somebody else voted into office who will grant the civil rights?

Cause quite frankly, the way civil rights played out in the South for blacks (and other historical examples of civil rights advancement) would have played out very differently under this mindset...
Or is this approach something you only endorse for gays and/or gay marriage?
Sabcat is just a RW shill, he doesn't think whatsoever when he posts his blather.
 
May 2018
6,321
4,212
Chicago
Sabcat is just a RW shill, he doesn't think whatsoever when he posts his blather.
That's why we have an ignore button. I know a lot of people think that's a cop out, but I am not interested in dealing with people who will not listen to reason or facts and want to live in their idealistic dreamworld. I am too old and do not have time to entertain people like that.

Idealism for success, requires that everyone adheres to that specific ideal. The people who espouse such views typically claim that "If everyone did what I say they should, everything would be OK." Well, no shit, Sherlock. But that's not how the world works. There will always be disagreement. One size does not fit all. If one thing worked for everyone, we would not have debate sites.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
No.
The precedent for this had been established DECADES ago by SCOTUS.
Just because some people are ignorant of the facts doesn't mean that any nitwit in office can do as they please.

Again, LOOK AT THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS before the court. The people who argued AGAINST gay marriage in court DID NOT argue that marriage was not a civil right.
Ignorance does not justify this woman doing as she pleased.



The fact that people's jobs change is not an argument for anything. :rolleyes:
If your job changes and you refuse to do it, then let somebody who will do the job do that job.



Again, you are putting words in her mouth.
She never argued that in court.
Moreover, such a belief IS IRRELEVANT even if true.
She was sworn into office to uphold the policies of the government. Not to bow to the prejudices and ignorance of the people.



You don't seem to comprehend THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT ALLOW UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS
There is no "just wait until the election time, then HOPE the idiot out who is blocking civil rights gets voted out"
A lawsuit IS EXACTLY how this country has handled such things.



No. It's really not.
Because you can't comprehend THE ACTUAL POINT OF THE ORIGINATING LAWSUIT. You whine and mewl that it shouldn't be about suing the politician, but you don't get WHY they are suing the politician. They were not suing Davis for a paycheck. You still refuse to comprehend that.
You refuse to appreciate the WHY is incredibly important here...



Again, DID YOU EVEN READ THE DAMN ARTICLE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.

From the article:
But four years later, after a court ordered Kentucky taxpayers to pay more than $222,000 in legal fees for the gay and straight couples who sued, outside lawyers for now Gov. Bevin say former Rowan County clerk Kim Davis broke the law and taxpayers "should not have to collectively bear the financial responsibility for Davis' intransigence."​

Let me repeat that a few times until you can freakin' actually understand the facts instead of this incessant making up crap b.s. that you pull.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.
The fees ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE STATE.

Got it yet?
Now, look at the subject line:
Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case
Doesn't mean he's going to get his way for passing the buck. In fact, the article points out this governor SUPPORTED Davis until he got the bill.

Sigh... i am fully aware that the state was charged the fees. But is that what the theme of the thread is?

This is exactly like something Trump would do.

Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case
As a candidate for governor in 2015, Matt Bevin said he "absolutely supported" a Kentucky county clerk who stopped issuing marriage licenses because of her opposition to gay marriage.​
But four years later, after a court ordered Kentucky taxpayers to pay more than $222,000 in legal fees for the gay and straight couples who sued, outside lawyers for now Gov. Bevin say former Rowan County clerk Kim Davisbroke the law and taxpayers "should not have to collectively bear the financial responsibility for Davis' intransigence."​
"Only Davis refused to comply with the law as was her obligation and as required by the oath of office she took," Bevin attorney Palmer G. Vance II wrote in a brief filed with the court.​
Bevin has been a staunch supporter of Davis, who spent five days in jail for refusing a court order to issue marriage licenses following the historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized gay marriage. Davis even switched parties, registering as a Republican because she said the Democratic Party abandoned her. But now, Davis and Bevin will oppose each other in federal court on Thursday as lawyers argue who should have to pay for the lawsuit that stemmed from Davis' actions.​

Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case
She absolutely should have to pay thise fees. She broke the law!
Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case



This moronic idea is what i am arguing against. Not the actual outcome.

SMH
 
Jul 2008
18,823
12,633
Virginia Beach, VA
Sigh... i am fully aware that the state was charged the fees. But is that what the theme of the thread is?



Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case



This moronic idea is what i am arguing against. Not the actual outcome.

SMH
Why is it a moronic idea?
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
Sabcat, a couple items you have stated.
# You don't think Kim Davis should have been "sued" in this case where a gay couple was being denied marriage.
# You think voting Kim Davis being voted out of office was actually the correct way to handle this.

To ask the question bluntly...
If a person or group of people are being denied their civil rights, do you think their only recourse should be to just let the government continue to deny the civil rights and try to get somebody else voted into office who will grant the civil rights?

Cause quite frankly, the way civil rights played out in the South for blacks (and other historical examples of civil rights advancement) would have played out very differently under this mindset...
Or is this approach something you only endorse for gays and/or gay marriage?
First i supported the "marriage equality" movment.

This was the correct way to handle Davis's role in this situation. That is what we are talking about.

I love when people try and equate people getting married w/ slavery or jim crow laws. They are not the same. The real solution marriage debacle was to completely remove the state from the whole situation. The state should have no say whatever.

A major problem w/ society today, especially w/ leftists is you people want to believe you are part of some grand movment. You are not. And because of this you seem to not only greatly over inflate situations but your own self importance simultaneously.



20190209_105219.png