Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the funny thing about all this is 5 judges pulled out of their behinds that for over 147 years 50 states were violating the 14th amendment of the constitution for defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman and nobody noticed until now, they all of the sudden discovered this hidden secret in the constitution. LMAO!!!
even the people who wrote the 14th amendment in 1868 didn't know that the states were in violation of the 14th amendment for defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman until 5 judges in 2015.
Talk about making things up in the constitution as you go along.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 06-28-2015 at 12:51 PM..
Who pee'd in your Cheerio's this morning? Come into my office with that kind of attitude and I don't care who you are... you would fall in the rude douche bag category and sorry your not a protected class. You didn't answer my question..... Why are the belief's and rights of one group of people more important than another?
They are not--until one group tries to use their beliefs to deny another group their rights under the law. Such as issuing a marriage license that the second group is entitled to under the law. That's where the first group's rights end.
Seems to me the answer would be no.
Can a DMV clerk refuse to issue a license to a woman because they believe that women shouldn't be allowed to drive?
Not that has ever really happened during the history of the automobile which was co-invented in the US btw, but women can't be discriminated against is covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And today, courts etc would claim also under the 1868 14th amendment. Which is a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment and commerce clause is especially now and has been since about the 1950's and 1960s reinterpreted and abused to mean whatever activist jurist want it to mean, to the determinant of freedom and the 1st amendment.
What you are doing is equating sexual behavior or orientation to a person's race or sex. Gays, feminist and blacks are all following the same m.o. and wanting to ride the same preferential gravy train.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
They are not--until one group tries to use their beliefs to deny another group their rights under the law. Such as issuing a marriage license that the second group is entitled to under the law. That's where the first group's rights end.
And that's the quagmire isn't it. And instead of one group saying "Fine, can you find me someone else in the office that can issue the license I understand you have your religious beliefs." And the clerk saying, "Sure.. I'll find someone else who can help you." The first thing that pops into so many folks heads are Fire them... off with their heads! I just don't get it.... The intolerance of the supposed tolerant.
These could be valid concerns, but I don't think we're at that point yet. I support the SCOTUS's decision, but I would oppose it if it meant government could force churches to perform certain ceremonies. However, I think those who think that's what's going to happen are overreacting. As of now, there isn't much reason to fear such an outcome.
I would think those who don`t expect it to happen don`t know history.
Unlike the abortion issue before it, a majority of the states had held popular referendums in which the people proactively spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage, amended their state constitutions or otherwise defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
It could not have been made more clear to the court that the people had said what they had to say on the issue.
This, unlike Roe, is a direct frontal attack by the Court against the people and their claim to sovereignty.
Never in our history have the people, acting on their own behalf to make their voices heard, been "overruled" by the Court.
By doing so, the Court has declared itself a King and the people its subjects.
In the job description it says the employee is required to issue marriage licenses. If the employee finds the job objectionable, then he should quit. That is his first amendment right to freedom of religion--if he feels the job infringes on his religious beliefs he has the absolute right to no longer work in that job. No one, under the law, can force him to stay.
He doesn't, however, get to define the law. That is the government's job, and they have done so.
And employees and wedding services providers proceed the recent change in law. Government employees are required to accommodate employees 1st amendment rights. Hirees starting today are accommodated by applying for jobs with the benefit of forehand knowledge. So only 5 unelected lifeterm lawyers get to define law and we must all follow it rigidly even when it conflicts with other laws and rights? That for all intents and purposes is a dictatorship.
You are missing the bigger point. What you advocate is not freedom. There are plenty of people who will issue gay marriage licenses or service gay weddings. There's no need to force everyone against their conscience.
aus10, bingo. Things like this along with PC is nothing about equal rights and tolerance. This is about control of thoughts and speech, favoring one group over another, and chopping off heads of those who don't submit to control.
And that's the quagmire isn't it. And instead of one group saying "Fine, can you find me someone else in the office that can issue the license I understand you have your religious beliefs." And the clerk saying, "Sure.. I'll find someone else who can help you." The first thing that pops into so many folks heads are Fire them... off with their heads! I just don't get it.... The intolerance of the supposed tolerant.
What if there is no one else to help them? Then that person is allowed to deny someone their lawful rights? Too bad for you, you cannot have what you are lawfully entitled to because I'm the only one here, and I refuse to give it to you?
If someone cannot perform their job--which includes issuing marriage licenses--then they should not hold that position, but should relinquish it to someone who is capable of performing that job. Seems pretty basic.
the funny thing about all this is 5 judges pulled out of their behinds that for over 147 years 50 states were violating the 14th amendment of the constitution for defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman and nobody noticed until now, they all of the sudden discovered this hidden secret in the constitution. LMAO!!!
even the people who wrote the 14th amendment in 1868 didn't know that the states were in violation of the 14th amendment for defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman until 5 judges in 2015.
Talk about making things up in the constitution as you go along.
Gays attempted to get married over the years and were shot down by local officials who were backed up by the courts. Can you imagine what would have happened in say the 1940's, 1950's or even 1970's if the SCOTUS issued this ruling? All heck would have broken loose. There you would have found open rebellion by states refusing to have anything to do with gay marriage and the POTUS along with Congress would have backed them up.
You also fail to mention that at one time marriage was also restricted to the same race, well at least no mixing of blacks and whites.
By your rationale marriage would still largely be a merger and acquisition where a man took "possession" of a woman and all she had and would get. As wife a married woman was chattel to be used and directed as her husband saw fit.
As Scarlett O'Hara quipped, marriage was "fun for men".
ALL people who have a government job should DO THEIR JOB.
I don;t care what your religion is, what race you are, what sex you are, do your freaking job. I don't ask for the opinion of the gay at the tag agency when getting my car tags, I simply expect to get in line, pay my fee, and get my tag. I don't ask the opinion of the girl at the DMV, I get in line, fill out my forms, and pay for my license. If YOU have an issue with doing YOUR job, then go find another one. It isn't my problem that you can't do your job, I simply expect to go in and get the services offered in an office.
Why are you creating a strawman to attack? What DMV has ever in history refused to issue registration or licenses to women or gays for that reason?
A marriage licenses is a marriage licenses. A liquor licenses is a liquor licenses. A drivers licenses is a drivers licenses. They are all STATE licenses with their own rules and requirements. We are talking about marriage licenses. The US supreme court decided it could redefine and redetermine state marriage licenses.
And what about private property business owners who are in the wedding services business long before marriage included gay marriage? They are indentured to serve gays too against their conscience? That's the real issue here. Gays could've gotten civil unions and more legitimately through the legislature and left marriage and people alone but noooo.
That people are being fired by the government for being caught exercising (even away from work) free speech is a side issue.
To tell the truth you won't find too many conservative/traditionalists working in government agencies anyway. The government cleanses them and selectively hires.
Last edited by mtl1; 06-28-2015 at 01:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
