The Kim Davis chaos

smerka

So what do you guys think about the Kim Davis mess? The KY clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses because if her religious beliefs.

BlueBirdMB

She's an elected leader who pledged to uphold the law, which she isn't doing.  If she were a private citizen, I'd support her not wanting to be a part of a ceremony that goes against her religious beliefs, but she is a public servant whose job is not to cherry pick which laws she wishes to uphold.  If she doesn't like her job, she should resign.  

vlagrl29

I think she should have just quit her job if she didn't agree with that.  GL to her in prison - she may be there for awhile lol.

MommyLiberty5013

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/09/07/madonna-s-gay-brother-defends-kim-davis-is-it-so-difficult-to-allow-this-woman-her-religion/

I think he has a point.

And then there's the gay Texas judge who refuses to marry straight couples. So people are not given equal "protection under the law."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709

Here's a question: at what line do we accept civil disobedience? The Black Lives Matter movement is inciting violence across the nation, and this is acceptable? Yet, someone peacefully standing up for their religion isn't?

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/373292-gay-baker-message-sex-couples-suing-anti-gay-bakeries-not-friendly/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=

smerka

Well I think Madonna's brother is blatantly wrong. Kim Davis' job description has changed. She now has to issue marriage licenses to gay people. If she can't do her job (for whatever reason), she needs to resign. Or they need to figure out a way where the county issues marriage licenses without her name on them. But honestly, I think that is an undo burden on the tax payers.

MommyLiberty5013

smerka said:

Well I think Madonna's brother is blatantly wrong. Kim Davis' job description has changed. She now has to issue marriage licenses to gay people. If she can't do her job (for whatever reason), she needs to resign. Or they need to figure out a way where the county issues marriage licenses without her name on them. But honestly, I think that is an undo burden on the tax payers.

I agree her job description has changed. What if the SCOTUS makes a ruling to insist that people disclose the locations of certain religious groups so they can be rounded up and shipped off to a concentrated area somewhere? Would that be followed too since it would be the "law of the land?" What if my conscience was violated by that? My point is, when a law or rule violates someone's religious faith and conscience, why should that person give up their religion/faith? And, at what point then, does civil disobedience become okay and acceptable?

Beacsue apparently in this country as long as you're a person who follows Jesus, you have no rights and no regard given to you. But, if you're an atheistic, black, militant, white-hating, violence mongering wacko, who happens to be gay you have every protection afforded to you. 

short+sassy

MommyLiberty5013 said:

smerka said:

Well I think Madonna's brother is blatantly wrong. Kim Davis' job description has changed. She now has to issue marriage licenses to gay people. If she can't do her job (for whatever reason), she needs to resign. Or they need to figure out a way where the county issues marriage licenses without her name on them. But honestly, I think that is an undo burden on the tax payers.

I agree her job description has changed. What if the SCOTUS makes a ruling to insist that people disclose the locations of certain religious groups so they can be rounded up and shipped off to a concentrated area somewhere? Would that be followed too since it would be the "law of the land?" What if my conscience was violated by that? My point is, when a law or rule violates someone's religious faith and conscience, why should that person give up their religion/faith? And, at what point then, does civil disobedience become okay and acceptable?

Beacsue apparently in this country as long as you're a person who follows Jesus, you have no rights and no regard given to you. But, if you're an atheistic, black, militant, white-hating, violence mongering wacko, who happens to be gay you have every protection afforded to you. 

The difference I see with that statement is, at least in this particular scenario, she is not being asked to give up her religion/faith.  Not at all.  But if her job requires her to issue marriage licenses and, she herself feels she cannot do that because of her religion, than she needs to find a more suitable job.

In fact, I personally would have had 1000x more respect for her and her position if she would have resigned because she cannot perform her duties due to her religious beliefs.  I still wouldn't have agreed with her.  But I would have at least admired her and found that very powerful.

As I'm sure you are all aware, there are federal laws in this country that prevent job discrimination based on religion.  However, and this is the big exception, a person still needs to be able to complete the CORE functions of their job.

I'll give you an obvious example of that.  If my Lutheran church wants to hire a new minister, we can REQUIRE all candidates be Lutheran.  Because being Lutheran is a core function of the job.  Whereas in 99% of other jobs, to require an employee to be Lutheran is a huge violation of fair labor laws.

Same with her situation.  If she won't issue marriage licenses AND doesn't allow any of her clerks to issue marriage licenses (because she was doing this also)...than she can no longer complete a core function of her job.  Period.  It doesn't matter if her reasons are religious based.

@MommyLiberty5013, I really appreciate your brining up the idea of civil disobedience.  Because it is a fine line, isn't it?  That just doesn't have a right answer.  Certainly, some acts of historical civil disobedience are now celebrated.  But then, society in general literally exists because we as groups have decided on particular laws and social norms.  And it would turn into a very scary chaos if members of the public decided to just discriminate against whoever they wanted because of religious beliefs.  There are some pretty extreme, but still recognized, religious sects out there.

For example, if a person's religion says a woman can't be out in public without her husband, brother, or father...does that now make it okay for an employee with that belief to not wait on or help a women that is unescorted?  Sounds so crazy.  But it's actually not any different than what Kim Davis is doing.

Here is my curiousity (sp?) question that I would love to ask Kim Davis.  And I'm not being snarky, I would legitimately be very interested in her answer.  I know of one Christian sect (not Catholicism) that believes, when people get married, they are always married in the eyes of the Lord and cannot be divorced.  If she had gone to get a marriage license for one of her subsequent marriages, and ran into a clerk whose religious beliefs did not allow him/her to issue a marriage license for a divorced person...because in his/her religion they are still married to their first spouse...would she be furious?  Or would she be celebrating that the person stood up for their religious beliefs even when the tables are turned?

Bottom line for me, one of the most fundamental foundations of our country is separation of church and state.  I would fight for any house of worship's right to choose how and for whom they perform marriage ceremonies.  Even though I agree with same sex marriage, I'd be furious if the gov't came down and said XYZ Church has to perform same sex marriages, even if it is against their religion.  That's not currently happening thank goodness, but it would be atrocious.  But I find it equally infuriating when a religious group tries to push their beliefs into our City Halls.

BlueBirdMB

I certainly don't believe in violating ones person beliefs just because the government told me to do so.  As a private citizen, if my government has told me to do something that I find morally objectionable, I would fight.  If I were a public servant being told to do something that violated my moral code, I would RESIGN.

vlagrl29

I heard that she got out of jail last night and is still working there but they are having someone else sign the marriage licenses.

snp605

I too have struggled with the fine line between applaudable civil disobedience and the need to have functions of the government operate under the law. I feel bad for anyone who would take a certain position in government and later have to do something that was probably unforeseeable when they maybe took a job 20 or 30 years ago. I mean when I was growing up for sure, the idea that gay marriage would be legal much less the will of a very vocal segment of our culture was unthinkable.

However, there were people who refused things based on race many years ago and that we know was wrong and I wouldn't want to go back to those types of scenarios. I feel like she might have gone with the compromise that now seems to be happening or at the very least possibly resigned had she not become such a public figure over it. I think she sort of got backed into a corner as the poster child for this position by groups supporting her conviction who were seemingly seeking to protect her from the groups that made her public enemy number one for their own agenda. Such is the crazy course of our social media culture  these days.

Realistically when gay marriage first became legal where I live, there was no way to use the current legislation mandated marriage application form to process the applications properly. Some clerks altered the form or created their own forms contrary to the law until such a time as the law could be amended to allow for a more inclusive form. No one went to jail or was even threatened because their disobedience was coming down on the socially popular side of the current status quo.

I'm glad it seems to have been resolved somehow but if it weren't, there were steps and procedures in place to have her removed and I would have been fine with them doing so. Even if she was doing what she felt was spiritually correct to do, spirituality does not necessarily protect you from the worldly consequence of your convictions. If you truly hold those convictions then you are willing to suffer the worldly consequences.

smerka

And no one outside of her little county in Kentucky would know her name if she had just resigned. And she wouldn't be facing a lawsuit from Survivor for using their song without permission. I am pretty sure Thou Shall Not Steal is pretty clear in the bible whereas God's opinion on gay marriage is little more vague.

BlueBirdMB

smerka said:

And no one outside of her little county in Kentucky would know her name if she had just resigned. And she wouldn't be facing a lawsuit from Survivor for using their song without permission. I am pretty sure Thou Shall Not Steal is pretty clear in the bible whereas God's opinion on gay marriage is little more vague.

As someone who has studied entertainment law a bit, I doubt Survivor has much of a case.  What she did wasn't "stealing"

emily1004

BlueBirdMB said:

smerka said:

And no one outside of her little county in Kentucky would know her name if she had just resigned. And she wouldn't be facing a lawsuit from Survivor for using their song without permission. I am pretty sure Thou Shall Not Steal is pretty clear in the bible whereas God's opinion on gay marriage is little more vague.

As someone who has studied entertainment law a bit, I doubt Survivor has much of a case.  What she did wasn't "stealing"

It was an unauthorized public performance. That is someone else's intellectual property. They absolutely have a case.

BlueBirdMB

emily1004 said:

BlueBirdMB said:

smerka said:

And no one outside of her little county in Kentucky would know her name if she had just resigned. And she wouldn't be facing a lawsuit from Survivor for using their song without permission. I am pretty sure Thou Shall Not Steal is pretty clear in the bible whereas God's opinion on gay marriage is little more vague.

As someone who has studied entertainment law a bit, I doubt Survivor has much of a case.  What she did wasn't "stealing"

It was an unauthorized public performance. That is someone else's intellectual property. They absolutely have a case.

You don't need permission to play a publicly released recording.  He literally wouldn't have been able to deny her permission.  By publicly releasing a recording, the songwriter gives up the ability to deny permission of it's use.  Doesn't mean he doesn't get paid, he just can't deny the use.

His only case I could think of was because it was televised, he could argue she needed a synchronization license, which is something that he could have chosen to deny had she actually tried to get a license, which I'm sure she didn't.  Typically in situations like these though, there isn't a synchronization license in play, but it's a technicality.  Synchronization licenses are for putting music to film, which is something the songwriter can choose to deny.  They are used for film, TV, commercials, not really something that's playing in the background when a news station happens to be filming a news-worthy event. 

Artists have gotten upset about the use of their songs at non-filmed, political rallies before simply because they don't support the candidate.  I don't think anyone has successfully sued a politician for using the song at a rally though because they can't actually deny the use of the song.  It's just the way the law is written.  Typically politicians stop using the song if the artist makes a big thing of it, but it's just because they chose to back off.

emily1004

The Talking Heads, Jackson Browne, Don Henley and Heart have all sued politicians for unauthorized use of their music. The suits were filled because they did not get permission in the first place. All settled out of court. 

In this case, Ms. Davis, Mike Huckabee, and the other politicians at this rally did not get permission and did not pay licensing fee's. If anyone of them used this as a fund raiser, they can also be sued for that because they were profiting off of the performance.

My husband works for the professional sports teams in Detroit. We have the Detroit Tigers. If they want to use "Eye of the Tiger" at the stadium, they have to pay licensing fees. It is not in the public domain. You need permission to use it.  

BlueBirdMB

emily1004 said:

The Talking Heads, Jackson Browne, Don Henley and Heart have all sued politicians for unauthorized use of their music. The suits were filled because they did not get permission in the first place. All settled out of court. 

In this case, Ms. Davis, Mike Huckabee, and the other politicians at this rally did not get permission and did not pay licensing fee's. If anyone of them used this as a fund raiser, they can also be sued for that because they were profiting off of the performance.

My husband works for the professional sports teams in Detroit. We have the Detroit Tigers. If they want to use "Eye of the Tiger" at the stadium, they have to pay licensing fees. It is not in the public domain. You need permission to use it.  

You are confusing the issue.  Licensing is different than permission.  Yes, a venue must pay a licensing fee, but they can't be denied permission to gain the license.  We actually don't know if Kim Davis paid a licensing fee or not and that doesn't seem to be the actual issue.

emily1004

I disagree. Licensing and permission go hand in hand, when it comes to copy written material. All I'm saying is the owner of the music does have a case against her if they chose to file suit.

BlueBirdMB

emily1004 said:

I disagree. Licensing and permission go hand in hand, when it comes to copy written material. All I'm saying is the owner of the music does have a case against her if they chose to file suit.

Once a musical work is publicly released, a songwriter cannot refuse permission to use the work in any capacity other than film, but they do get paid for it's use.  It may not seem fair to you, but it is how the laws are written.  The artists never even gets asked for permission.  It's literally called a COMPULSORY license.

emily1004

It's not about fairness. I know the law. And, yes, IF they were to get the license then they can do with the music as they please. If you don't want pay for the license the other option is to get permission for the owner of the music. Sometimes that is the cheaper way to go. You need one or the other if you want to use copy written music in a public setting. 

What I disagree with is, that you said, "I was confusing the issues." There are several issues at play here, not just one. 

BlueBirdMB

emily1004 said:

It's not about fairness. I know the law. And, yes, IF they were to get the license then they can do with the music as they please. If you don't want pay for the license the other option is to get permission for the owner of the music. Sometimes that is the cheaper way to go. You need one or the other if you want to use copy written music in a public setting. 

What I disagree with is, that you said, "I was confusing the issues." There are several issues at play here, not just one. 

Both options are compulsory.  He can't deny permission just because he doesn't like her.  We have no idea, btw, if she applied for the license as that doesn't seem to be the issue.  The issue is that he doesn't want her using the song.

BlueBirdMB

I just read that Trump is in a similar dispute with R.E.M., but of course, they have nothing because Trump did get a license, he simply didn't have the artist's permission.  But he didn't need permission, he just had to pay.  Trump has made it known that he did pay.  They are still freaking out though and threatening to sue, but Trump rightly says there is no case.  This is the same thing, we just haven't established if there was a license in play, but that doesn't seem to be the issue.  The issue is permission, but an artist doesn't have to grant permission.

emily1004

It also happened with Neil Young and Trump. While Mr. Trump had the license, Neil Young, still sued him on right of publicity. You can sue anyone for anything. It just depends on the judge and if he or she wants to hear the case. However, I highly doubt Ms.Davis or Mike Huckabee or any of the other politicians got a license. Most take about six weeks to grant. Ms. Davis was only in jail for six days.