Marriage Minded Gays 1. Fundie Christian Court Clerks 0.

[LurkerNoMore]

That's why she's doing this. 

I am not asking why SHE is doing this.  I am asking why does any analysis of finding a "reasonable accommodation" for her have to only analyze gay couples?  She has turned down ALL couples since June.  So if reasonable accommodations are to have someone else sign the homo couple's license, then who is going to sign the hetero licenses?  Because she isn't doing that either.   

Is she just going to stick to signing the licenses of transgenders like she did back in Feb?

[Dos Equis]

Sadly, she can't be fired - although she ought to be. If she had any integrity, she'd resign her office. But she has no integrity which is why she refuses to do her job. She really ought to be removed by the legislature, although there's practically no chance of that happening, because they are likely to miss the forest for the trees, by thinking this has something to do with freedom of religion as opposed to the rule of law.


You forgot to click your heel three times Dorothy.


It's not that I have a different viewpoint. It's not even that the text of Title VII is crystal clear. It's that there's actual case law that addresses what "reasonable accomodation" means and how to go about deciding whether a particular request is reasonable. And under the existing case law, whether you like that fact or not, the number of couples affected by her decision is not relevant.  


No, you have it all wrong. She asked, as a Title VII accomodation, to have her name stricken from the forms (her lawyer said that she "would agree to record licenses issued by the clerk’s office, rather than in the name of the clerk, herself." [link]) but that would require convening the legistature, changing the law and then designing, printing and distributing new forms to all the clerks. The accomodation she requested would take a whole lot of time and a whole lot of money and that makes it prima facie unreasonable under Title VII and existing case law.

But, of course... you're right. Despite having admitted to not knowing a lot about the case, despite refusing to read case law that's on point and refutes statements you made and despite generally having a penchant for talking out of an orifice other than your mouth.

Yes, keyboard/Google warrior, I am right.  You just confirmed it.  The fact she is asking that new forms be distributed, following legislative action, does not sound reasonable.  Why?  Because of the expense involved.  Why is there great expense involved?  In part because of the number of the number of couples seeking licenses. 

Yes the fact legislative action may be required sounds unreasonable, but that is only part of the analysis.  The cost is part of the analysis.  That's why the number of couples seeking licenses matters. 

[Dos Equis]

I am not asking why SHE is doing this.  I am asking why does any analysis of finding a "reasonable accommodation" for her have to only analyze gay couples?  She has turned down ALL couples since June.  So if reasonable accommodations are to have someone else sign the homo couple's license, then who is going to sign the hetero licenses?  Because she isn't doing that either.   

Is she just going to stick to signing the licenses of transgenders like she did back in Feb?

She has turned down all couples solely because gay couples are able to get licenses.  This is all about gay couples. 

[Straw Man]

Sadly, she can't be fired - although she ought to be because she's refusing to do her job and follow the law. If she had any integrity, she'd resign her office. But she has no integrity which is why she refuses to do her job knowing that she can't be fired from her cushy job. She really ought to be removed by the legislature, although there's practically no chance of that happening, because they are likely to miss the forest for the trees, by thinking this has something to do with freedom of religion as opposed to the rule of law.


You forgot to click your heel three times Dorothy.


It's not that I have a different viewpoint. It's not even that the text of Title VII is crystal clear. It's that there's actual case law that addresses what "reasonable accomodation" means and how to go about deciding whether a particular request is reasonable. And under the existing case law, whether you like that fact or not, the number of couples affected by her decision is not relevant.  


No, you have it all wrong. She asked, as a Title VII accomodation, to have her name stricken from the forms (according to link her lawyer said that she "would agree to record licenses issued by the clerk’s office, rather than in the name of the clerk, herself.") but that would require convening the legislature, changing the law and then designing, printing and distributing new forms to all the clerks. The accomodation she requested would take a whole lot of time and a whole lot of money and that makes it prima facie unreasonable under Title VII and existing case law.

But, of course... you're right. Despite having admitted to not knowing a lot about the case, despite refusing to read case law that's on point and refutes statements you made and despite generally having a penchant for talking out of an orifice other than your mouth.

LOL

[avxo]

Yes, keyboard/Google warrior, I am right.  You just confirmed it.  The fact she is asking that new forms be distributed, following legislative action, does not sound reasonable.  Why?  Because of the expense involved.  Why is there great expense involved?  In part because of the number of the number of couples seeking licenses.

The cost isn't because they need to print a whole bunch of forms - the number of forms they have to print isn't relevant, because they're already printing them now, so it's essentially a sunk cost. The issue that they need to convene the legislature, which is expensive in itself, to pass a law that changes the information, and then have the State printing office, or whatever printer they use, generate and distribute the new forms which is time consuming.

Yes the fact legislative action may be required sounds unreasonable, but that is only part of the analysis.  The cost is part of the analysis.  That's why the number of couples seeking licenses matters.

You can keep repeating it, but that won't change facts.

P.S.: I also notice that you seem (a) unable to answer or address any of the points I make and (b) keep shifting, like a weasel, to keep from getting pinned down. And while I'm afraid I have no solution for (a) short of "get a brain that has at least 5 working neurons" I can help with (b) by giving you a hint: apply more bacon grease to make yourself more slippery.

[Straw Man]

She has turned down all couples solely because gay couples are able to get licenses.  This is all about gay couples. 

It's actually all about her

[Dos Equis]

The cost isn't because they need to print a whole bunch of forms - the number of forms they have to print isn't relevant, because they're already printing them now, so it's essentially a sunk cost. The issue that they need to convene the legislature, which is expensive in itself, to pass a law that changes the information, and then have the State printing office, or whatever printer they use, generate and distribute the new forms which is time consuming.


You can keep repeating it, but that won't change facts.

P.S.: I also notice that you seem (a) unable to answer or address any of the points I make and (b) keep shifting, like a weasel, to keep from getting pinned down. And while I'm afraid I have no solution for (a) short of "get a brain that has at least 5 working neurons" I can help with (b) by giving you a hint: apply more bacon grease to make yourself more slippery.

Obviously the cost of convening the legislature is unreasonable, as I already acknowledged.  The cost of printing forms is part of the analysis, if she was asking for new forms to be printed without her name.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  lol   

I am trying, unsuccessfully, to educate you.  I know you are stubborn and you have your friend Google to help you, but there is still hope for you.  Keep reading.   

[avxo]

Obviously the cost of convening the legislature is unreasonable, as I already acknowledged.  The cost of printing forms is part of the analysis, if she was asking for new forms to be printed without her name.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  lol

But they're already printing forms anyways... are you seriously suggesting that the cost of printed forms that don't have her name is more expensive than the cost of printed forms that do? And second, if the cost of convening the legislature is unreasonable, then why even worry about whether other costs are, in fact, unreasonable?

I am trying, unsuccessfully, to educate you.

Alas, as of now, I don't need to know how to be an abrasive dimwit. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't learn to be one anyways, but, rest assured, that if I ever needed to try to be one, you would be the first person I'd call.

I know you are stubborn and you have your friend Google to help you, but there is still hope for you.  Keep reading.  

You keep hinting that I copy the information that I post from Google. Do you have any evidence to support that contention or are you, again, talking out of your ass?

[240 is Back]

hearing repubs pander on this issue is disgusting.  it's okay for elected officials to break laws they disagree with, huh?

[240 is Back]

She has turned down all couples

[Dos Equis]

But they're already printing forms anyways... are you seriously suggesting that the cost of printed forms that don't have her name is more expensive than the cost of printed forms that do? And second, if the cost of convening the legislature is unreasonable, then why even worry about whether other costs are, in fact, unreasonable?


Alas, as of now, I don't need to know how to be an abrasive dimwit. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't learn to be one anyways, but, rest assured, that if I ever needed to try to be one, you would be the first person I'd call.


You keep hinting that I copy the information that I post from Google. Do you have any evidence to support that contention or are you, again, talking out of your ass?

If they have to print new forms that don't include her name, then the cost of those forms is part of the reasonableness analysis.  I'm not suggesting the cost of printing forms exceeds the cost of convening the legislature.  Obviously there is no comparison.  This all relates to your contention that the number of gay couples is irrelevant.  Go back and review my comments on that subject, although given your inability to understand this very simple concept, I'm not sure it would matter.   

Who called you an abrasive dimwit?  If anything, I'd call you Morton Downy, Jr. 

I'm not hinting at anything.  You are a keyboard/Google warrior, as I previously stated.  It's ok though.  I'm not judging you.   

[Skeletor]

She refused to do her duty and authorize marriage licenses to those who could legally obtain them, based on her religious belief. She instructed others in her office not to do so. When asked by the judge if she promised not to interfere with her employees issuing licenses, she refused, citing her Christian beliefs. She defied a lawfully issued court order (not by a crazy lib activist judge but by a GWB appointee who opposes gay marriage). She is in jail for contempt of court. Simple (but maybe not simple enough for paranoid religious extremists who cry "christian persecution").

[avxo]

If they have to print new forms that don't include her name, then the cost of those forms is part of the reasonableness analysis.  I'm not suggesting the cost of printing forms exceeds the cost of convening the legislature.  Obviously there is no comparison.  This all relates to your contention that the number of gay couples is irrelevant.  Go back and review my comments on that subject, although given your inability to understand this very simple concept, I'm not sure it would matter.   

Who called you an abrasive dimwit?  If anything, I'd call you Morton Downy, Jr. 

I'm not hinting at anything.  You are a keyboard/Google warrior, as I previously stated.  It's ok though.  I'm not judging you.   

A Google warrior... LOL. You're just upset that you have the intellectual capacity of a shrimp.

[Dos Equis]

A Google warrior... LOL. You're just upset that you have the intellectual capacity of a shrimp.

I guess that's better than having the brain power of a rock.  Or the temperament of a five-year-old who had his ice cream cone taken away.   

And that's "keyboard/Google warrior."  Get it right.   

[avxo]

I guess that's better than having the brain power of a rock.  Or the temperament of a five-year-old who had his ice cream cone taken away.

I'll defer to your obvious expertise when it comes to the brain power of rocks and the temperament of five year olds.

And that's "keyboard/Google warrior."  Get it right.  

Seeing how I teach computer science and write code for a living, I don't take offense to "keyboard warrior." Also, it helps me have great lumbrical muscle definition!

[Dos Equis]

I'll defer to your obvious expertise when it comes to the brain power of rocks and the temperament of five year olds.


Seeing how I teach computer science and write code for a living, I don't take offense to "keyboard warrior." Also, it helps me have great lumbrical muscle definition!

Well duh.  You're part of the daycare center that I help moderate, so of course I have some expertise. 

I'm glad you are not offended.  No one should be offended by comments made by an internet stranger. 

[avxo]

Well duh.  You're part of the daycare center that I help moderate, so of course I have some expertise.

 
Well, what with the requirements for moderatin' being so dang high and all...

[Dos Equis]

 
Well, what with the requirements for moderatin' being so dang high and all...

You know it.  Had to submit my CV.  Several rounds of interviews.  Credit check.   

[LurkerNoMore]

She has turned down all couples solely because gay couples are able to get licenses.  This is all about gay couples. 

No it isn't.  This is all about her.  Just like Straw stated.

If it were all about gay couples, how do you explain the transgender marriage license she signed and issued BEFORE gay marriage became legally in her state?

[LurkerNoMore]

She refused to do her duty and authorize marriage licenses to those who could legally obtain them, based on her religious belief. She instructed others in her office not to do so. When asked by the judge if she promised not to interfere with her employees issuing licenses, she refused, citing her Christian beliefs. She defied a lawfully issued court order (not by a crazy lib activist judge but by a GWB appointee who opposes gay marriage). She is in jail for contempt of court. Simple (but maybe not simple enough for paranoid religious extremists who cry "christian persecution").

[Straw Man]

I guess that's better than having the brain power of a rock.  Or the temperament of a five-year-old who had his ice cream cone taken away.    

And that's "keyboard/Google warrior."  Get it right.  

says the most childish person on this board

tell us all again what rule Al broke so that the rest of us will be sure not to also break it too

[George Whorewell]

Good for her. If shes willing to pay the price professionally, god bless her.

[The Ugly]

Good for her. If shes willing to pay the price professionally, god bless her.

Yes, good for her. And good for the future whomever, who denies your second amendment and disarms you. Or the next, who strips you of your freedom to worship.

God bless them, too, yes?

[LurkerNoMore]

Yes, good for her. And good for the future whomever, who denies your second amendment, and disarms you. Or the next, who strips you of your freedom to worship.

God bless them, too, yes?

Imagine the uproar if she were denying gun licenses because killing other people with guns were against her religious views.  They would be gathering wood to burn her at the stake already. 

[TuHolmes]

Imagine the uproar if she were denying gun licenses because killing other people with guns were against her religious views.  They would be gathering wood to burn her at the stake already. 

This is very true.