Have a couple questions
 

As I recall, when Kim Davis refused to sign a marriage license, even though she asked for her name to be taken off and someone else to issue the license, she was placed in jail and made a fool of on national tv.

If my quick synopsis is correct....I have TWO QUESTIONS ON A STORY FROM TODAY.

Here is the story...

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won $240,000 in damages for two Muslim truck drivers after it sued their former employer for religious discrimination for firing the drivers for refusing to make beer deliveries.

The EEOC said that Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated their religious rights by refusing to accommodate their objections to delivering alcoholic beverages."

EEOC wins discrimination case for Muslims fired for not delivering beer | Washington Examiner

So question ONE is what is the difference ???

Question TWO is why this story on the Muslims is only reported on "right wing" sites, and not one mention on any main stream media site.

Oh, you dont like the Examiner.....this is from EEOC themselves..

"CHICAGO - A federal jury in Peoria, Ill., has awarded $240,000 to two Somalian-American Muslims who were fired from their jobs as truck drivers at Star Transport, an over-the-road trucking company, when they refused to transport alcohol because it violated their religious beliefs, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which brought the case. The trial started on Oct. 19, and the jury returned its verdict the next day after 45 minutes of deliberation."

Jury Awards $240,000 to Muslim Truck Drivers In EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

The Kim Davis story was all over the cable networks. It was the lead everywhere. I cannot find this anywhere but right wing sites.

Can someone show me the error of my ways ?

I am not a lawyer so it is just a guess on my part.

The truck drivers were not elected officials. Davis was. Following the civil law was a prerequisite of her job.

Secondly, the decision was made by a jury in the truck driver case.

In Davis's case, she was put in jail for contempt of court.

She was orignally charged with "misconduct." She was later charged with "contempt of court." That was illegal because the court had no jurisdiction.

Kentucky statute on marriages states:

"As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

She was following her job instructions. As far as I can determine she had not received any documentation or instructions on how to proceed with same sex marriages. IMO she would be violating state law if she had proceeded with same sex marriages. She may have a basis for a civil suit.

IMO, she should have resigned if she felt this way, but I can empathize with her concerns on the issue.

I can understand your viewpoints. Yes, an immediate resignation would have been the best option for Davis.

I believe that the Supreme Court decision made same sex marriage legal in all states at the moment the decision was announced so Kentucky state law on same sex marriage was moot at that time.

But...I am not a lawyer.

You still need documentation and statutes, even if the state laws need to be revised. I don't believe you can reference supreme court decisions as statutory law. Supreme court can only decide if a law is legal or not. It can't make law. Just my opinion. It seems that law is not a deciding factor since these last two presidential terms. Obama disobeys supreme court decisions, disobeys his oath of office and makes laws using EO. So, I guess rules and laws no longer apply unless you are the one in power.