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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,930,909 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Good to see that the law of the land is applied in Broward County, Florida. Just because your favorite hobby means something to you, doesn't mean you can impose it on others. That is what secular rule of law is all about.
3IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS11.Ms. Parker is a Christian believer and adherent of the Christian faith and is a member of and regular attendeeat Faith Deliverance Tabernacle, located in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. 12.Ms. Parker is herself a Minister.13.Ms. Parker has a sincerely held religious belief, based upon the tenants of her faith and biblical teaching, such as Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9-10; and I Tim 1:9-10, that it is a sin for persons of the same sex to engage in sexual relations and, based upon Genesis 2:18-25, and other biblical authority, that persons of the same sex cannot and should not be morally or legally recognized as husband and wife, and that God will judge individual Christians, as well as the society of which they are a part, who condone or institute same sex marriages
Great spelling, isn't it, in a legal document? For the lawyer, it is "tenets" not "tenants". Of course, perhaps it's those critters dwelling in the plaintiffs head, then perhaps "tenants" is correct. Wonder how much rent they pay?
Quoting "biblical authority" as a basis of a law suit? Wonder if the plaintiff would want Koranical authority quoted?
Good to see that the law of the land is applied in Broward County, Florida. Just because your favorite hobby means something to you, doesn't mean you can impose it on others. That is what secular rule of law is all about.
3IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS11.Ms. Parker is a Christian believer and adherent of the Christian faith and is a member of and regular attendeeat Faith Deliverance Tabernacle, located in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. 12.Ms. Parker is herself a Minister.13.Ms. Parker has a sincerely held religious belief, based upon the tenants of her faith and biblical teaching, such as Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9-10; and I Tim 1:9-10, that it is a sin for persons of the same sex to engage in sexual relations and, based upon Genesis 2:18-25, and other biblical authority, that persons of the same sex cannot and should not be morally or legally recognized as husband and wife, and that God will judge individual Christians, as well as the society of which they are a part, who condone or institute same sex marriages
Great spelling, isn't it, in a legal document? For the lawyer, it is "tenets" not "tenants". Of course, perhaps it's those critters dwelling in the plaintiffs head, then perhaps "tenants" is correct. Wonder how much rent they pay?
Quoting "biblical authority" as a basis of a law suit? Wonder if the plaintiff would want Koranical authority quoted?
Nothing but a violation of the 1st amendment here. The government is now punishing people for exercising their religious freedom. America is a dying country.
Nothing but a violation of the 1st amendment here. The government is now punishing people for exercising their religious freedom. America is a dying country.
Suppose that my religious document told me directly that if my child died I was free to take a child from one of my neighbors and consider that child my own. If I did that of course I would be arrested and charged with kidnapping, which, according to you, would be a violation of my first amendment rights.
Nothing but a violation of the 1st amendment here. The government is now punishing people for exercising their religious freedom. America is a dying country.
Looks from my quick in internet search that any employer in Florida as in Texas can fired anyone for religious reasons or for being gay as well in this case for refusing to not do all their duties. When you have limited protections under the law those that you might agree with can be fired just as quickly as those you disagree with. In over half the States one can be fired simply for being gay. Should someone who refuses to serve gays have more protection than someone who is gay?
I do not know your Constitution that well, does the First Ammendment give all employees the right to use their religious beliefs while at work? It sounds though that unlike the Kim Davis situation, this clerk was notpreventing others from doing their duties in issuing licenses.
Nothing but a violation of the 1st amendment here. The government is now punishing people for exercising their religious freedom. America is a dying country.
You can't impose *your* religious beliefs on other people. That's where your freedom stops. You are still free to obey your religious beliefs and try not to be homosexual, but you can't impose those beliefs on other people and try to stop *them* from being homosexual. Too bad.
Nothing but a violation of the 1st amendment here. The government is now punishing people for exercising their religious freedom. America is a dying country.
Your profound ignorance of Constitutional principles is revealing itself again.
No one has the right to employment in which they refuse to perform the required tasks of that employment - even if they have a religious excuse. That's as ludicrous as claiming that a pacifist, whose pacifism is borne of religious conviction, must be allowed to serve in the infantry.
The bottom line is that you're whining because special exemptions aren't made for people who cry 'religion!' when they don't want to follow the rules everyone else has to follow.
Suppose that my religious document told me directly that if my child died I was free to take a child from one of my neighbors and consider that child my own. If I did that of course I would be arrested and charged with kidnapping, which, according to you, would be a violation of my first amendment rights.
Obviously there would be exceptions if your religious beliefs involved criminal behavior. Refusing to endorse SSM is not a criminal act.
Nothing but a violation of the 1st amendment here. The government is now punishing people for exercising their religious freedom. America is a dying country.
There is a well established exception from free speech protections for government employees when it comes to matters of employment requirements. This was litigated decades ago.
We recognize a similar dichotomy between free speech and employer rights with respect to intelligence and military secrets. I don't want to get too political, but this is the basis of the argument about Edward Snowden's and Hillary Clinton's actions.
As a government employer who supervises people, I have the rights and responsibilities to direct my staff. I can stop them from being rude to clients.
It is terribly easy to cite dozens if additional examples. As a practical matter, this isn't even a close call. If you choose to pursue a certain career path, you voluntarily give up some of your rights. There simply isn't a conflict here.
Obviously there would be exceptions if your religious beliefs involved criminal behavior. Refusing to endorse SSM is not a criminal act.
A worker or even a business owner is not being asked to endorse SSM, they are only being required to not discimate agaist a section of society that has the right to that goods or services.
If you owned a business you are not endorsing the life or action of each of your customers, you are simply providing a legal goods or service to someone who has a legal right to purchase those goods or services. A government employee should not be able to refuse to provide a government service to anyone that has the legal right to that government service based on the employee's religious or personal beliefs. When I worked for governments we were required to treat each person with fairness and respect, neither of which would allow us to pick and choose who we would serve and those we would not other than those trying to do something unlawful.
And worse off your target SSM as the one service that should be allowed to have discrimination against. If the religious belief is that homosexuality is immoral, refusing to issue the marrage licence will not have prevented an act of homosexuality, all it does is allow the clerk or baker to virtually tell the customer that they are scum and not worthy of being treated like a person of this society. This clerk is not being asked to endorse SSM, just that now it is legal to treat it the same as all other marriages. I doubt she personally endorsed many of the other marriages for which she issued licenses.
Unless there is evidence that this clerk has always refused to issue marriage licenses to each and every couple who violated any part of her religion such as to couples who had sex prior to getting married, or if one of the couple was divorced then to me anyways , this clerk comes across as a person who simply dislikes gays and is using her religion as a weapon. A clerk issuing a license is not giving her endorsement, simply stating that the pair are legally allowed to get marry. And her religion does not get to decide the law.
I know we will never agree on this as you are very anti SSM and anti gay whereas I see this a case where someone is using their religion to state that some people deserve to be treated as inferior beings.
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.
