//You think her job consists primarily of issuing marriage licenses?
Did she get RSI from that big red rubber stamp with "MARRIED" on it?
I'm sure there were 1000 other duties she was "getting paid for".//

I think her job consists of all the duties she is required to carry out, even the unpleasant ones. If I told my head chef I was happy to do anything in the kitchen unless it involved salad, I'd be sacked. A chef who won't handle salad is a chef who isn't doing his job properly and isn't much use in a kitchen where a lot of the meals get served with salad. You can't just pick and choose what you want to do at work unless are very fortunate and have a cushy job or are wealthy enough not to need the work. Unfortunately most of us live and work in the real world.

//Which they could have done all along.//

But for some reason didn't. Maybe they just didn't like Kim and wanted to see her locked up for a bit? Lots of people hate their bosses.

""when her deputies agreed to start issuing marriage licences."
Which they could have done all along."

Not really, since Kim Davis had instructed her staff not to and would not sign the licences. Both of which requirements were addressed with Judge Bunning's rulings.

Too right, George. "Lucky Australia whose main concern seems to be the right of everybody, male or female, to have a wife or husband, whichever he/she prefers."

Probably not the main concern during finals season, though.

Toni Lavis,
I now recognize you live in a fantasy world, of self importance of bullying others against their conscience.

None of the offenses you charge others of deserve court time, fines of $135,000 or imprisonment. Dismissal or find another cake shop would seem responsible rather than occupying court time.

I couldn't include this earlier, Shockadelic, not having it available in a copy and paste format.

From pages 69 and 70 of the transcript:

"Q. But just so I'm clear, but if your office isn't issuing a marriage license, it's not receiving any funds from marriage licenses, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, Ms. Davis, does any deputy clerk in your office have any authority to issue a marriage license that doesn't come from your authority as the county clerk?
A. No, they do not.
MR. GANNAM: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I just have a couple of follow-ups, and I will try to be as specific as I can. Given your testimony today, it's not your intention on complying with the Court's August 12th, 2015, order which enjoined you from applying your "no marriage license" policy; is that correct? Yes?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. And have you instructed your deputy clerks not to comply with the order as well?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Very well. You may step down. Thank you.

[And after a redirect}

THE COURT: All right. And you testified previously, ma'am, in July that -- and I have my notes; I know the transcript reflects the actual language that was used, but I didn't realize you had seven or eight. You may have hired someone part time in the interim to help with the elections, as you've stated, but several of the deputies shared your belief, and at least one had indicated that they would issue the licenses if you would allow it; is that still the case?
THE WITNESS: It is."

//I now recognize you live in a fantasy world, of self importance of bullying others against their conscience.

None of the offenses you charge others of deserve court time//

I've never charged anyone with an a offence, Josephus. The only person I've sought to have charged with an offence is some thug who coward-punched me.

What a horrible bully I am, seeking to have that guy prosecuted instead of just letting him in accordance with his conscience and punch strangers.

//Dismissal or find another cake shop would seem responsible rather than occupying court time.//

Josephus, I know you have your own unique and creative interpretations when it comes to facts, but there were NO CAKES involved in this case. If you're not interested in the facts of the case then why even bother posting?

Suseonline:

“Really? Tell that to the many single mothers and couples 'living in sin' who were vilified over the years by the holier than thou 'morally superior' married community.”

We are not talking about society as it was but as it is now –the call for a change in legislation is happening now and so what problems that people had in the past are irrelevant unless they are still happening.

“It is still a stigma in many communities to be living together in a defacto relationship.”

That is a problem for those communities. This not about same-sex couples relationship with their communities but their relationship with the government. Governments cannot change legislation because some citizens have problems with their communities. Many homosexual people have problems with their churches but you would not expect governments to interfere with that relationship.

Toni Lavis:

“It's not Parliament's job to amend legislation? Well, I have been sorely misinformed.”

Of course it is their job are you being deliberately obtuse? It is not their job to amend any legislation but only that which seems to them to have good reasons to amend.

//Why do you think they should amend the marriage act?//
“Because it's the right thing to do.”

Why do you think it is right? You seem very keen to change the legislation but very reluctant to give us reasons for doing so. Perhaps you do not have any.

“Davis wasn't just refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, she wasn't issuing them to anyone, and there were equal numbers of same-sex and opposite-sex couples making the complaint against her.”

Why then were the issues of her religious beliefs raised? Did she refuse opposite-sex couples based on religious principles? Why all the fuss if there was no discrimination involved? A county clerk not doing their job is hardly front page news.