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.
She is upholding the constitution. It is the Justices of the Supreme Court who issued this improper legislative decree who are not, and who should resign.
No, she's not. The Constitution expressly forbids the government from establishing or promoting one particular religion. She is trying, as the government, to impose her beliefs on everyone else, and that is a violation of the Constitution.
She is free to practice her religion, but she is not free to impose those beliefs as a representative of the government, which is exactly what she is doing.
It's not that simple. She was working there when the government definition of marriage did not include something that was contrary to her religious beliefs. The definition as changed after she was employed. Thus, the rules changed in a manner that could arguably be discriminatory against her as an employee. It is not justifiable that a long time employee be forced to violate religious beliefs or to quit to be kept from violating them due to a change in law. That would mean that every year spent in her position was wasted, in terms of career advancement. The government imposed their beliefs on her, because she was already employed when the law took effect. Not the other way around. Framing her as 'violating the constitution' or something akin to it (thanks, citydata constitutional scholars) is not accurate due to the sequence of events. The situation is much more complicated than mere broad stroke constitutional defense. Employment law definitely seems relevant here. Besides, it could be argued that the government attempted to 'establish religion' when it coopted the sacrament of marriage as a legal entity in the first place. They should have called it something else, and then this situation would not have existed in the first place, and homosexuals would have likely been able to be legally bound to each other probably decades ago.
Why are there so many posts saying this woman absolutely has to follow the Federal law?
County officials in sanctuary cities violate Federal law on a daily basis and people seem to think that's just fine. So it's apparently not the "violating Federal law" that's the problem so much as the "you're supposed to all celebrate gay people now" that she's not on board with.
As I already explained, she is following a higher law than the US Constitution or the laws of our country here. The court has no jurisdiction over her priorities. She is right to set those for herself.
She can buy her own island and form her very own theocracy. Until then, since we don't use any religion's dogma in the legislative process she'll do her job or find herself fined or in jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
Can she then turn around and deny Hindus marriage licences? Where do her religious liberties end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
Would you support her if she was Muslim and was following Sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
If a Muslim man were in the same position would you support his right to only issue licences to couples who followed by Sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
Would you support her if it were divorced people she was refusing? Would you support a Hasidic judge who only heard cases from men and would not permit women to speak in his court?
Would you care to address any of the above questions put to you and other posters here? If you feel a public servant has the right to refuse to do their job because of a religious belief then you should support all religious belief in the same manner. What you are advocating for will not only apply to Christian's but to all religions. Are you ready for that?
Why are there so many posts saying this woman absolutely has to follow the Federal law?
County officials in sanctuary cities violate Federal law on a daily basis and people seem to think that's just fine. So it's apparently not the "violating Federal law" that's the problem so much as the "you're supposed to all celebrate gay people now" that she's not on board with.
Barack Obama violates the law daily by selectively enforcing the law. He has clearly set the precedent here. If he doesn't have to, why should anyone else?
It's not that simple. She was working there when the government definition of marriage did not include something that was contrary to her religious beliefs. The definition as changed after she was employed. Thus, the rules changed in a manner that could arguably be discriminatory against her as an employee. It is not justifiable that a long time employee be forced to violate religious beliefs or to quit to be kept from violating them due to a change in law. That would mean that every year spent in her position was wasted, in terms of career advancement. The government imposed their beliefs on her, because she was already employed when the law took effect. Not the other way around. Framing her as 'violating the constitution' or something akin to it (thanks, citydata constitutional scholars) is not accurate due to the sequence of events. Besides, as I before alluded to, the situation is much more complicated than mere broad stroke constitutional defense. Employment law definitely seems relevant here. Besides, it could be argued that the government attempted to 'establish religion' when it coopted the sacrament of marriage as a legal entity in the first place. They should have called it something else, and then this situation would not exist in the first place of homosexuals would have likely been able to be legally bound to each other probably decades ago.
She is preventing here office from issuing licences. She could step away and allow someone else to issue them but she won't.
It's not that simple. She was working there when the government definition of marriage did not include something that was contrary to her religious beliefs. The definition as changed after she was employed. Thus, the rules changed in a manner that could arguably be discriminatory against her as an employee. It is not justifiable that a long time employee be forced to violate religious beliefs or to quit to be kept from violating them due to a change in law. That would mean that every year spent in her position was wasted, in terms of career advancement. The government imposed their beliefs on her, because she was already employed when the law took effect. Not the other way around. Framing her as 'violating the constitution' or something akin to it (thanks, citydata constitutional scholars) is not accurate due to the sequence of events. Besides, as I before alluded to, the situation is much more complicated than mere broad stroke constitutional defense. Employment law definitely seems relevant here. Besides, it could be argued that the government attempted to 'establish religion' when it coopted the sacrament of marriage as a legal entity in the first place. They should have called it something else, and then this situation would not have existed in the first place, and homosexuals would have likely been able to be legally bound to each other probably decades ago.
Her job description has not changed. Issue marriage licenses. That is what it says under her duties as county clerk. It doesn't say issue marriage licenses to those that you personally feel that should get them.
Her job description has not changed. Issue marriage licenses. That is what it says under her duties as county clerk. It doesn't say issue marriage licenses to those that you personally feel that should get them.
If she were truly following a higher power, she would refuse to issue licenses to people who are divorced. But that would mean she would have to face her own hypocrisy, and that will never happen.
She is preventing here office from issuing licences. She could step away and allow someone else to issue them but she won't.
She can't. Voluntarily changing her position in the office would weaken her case under employment law, and likely lead to her eventually being either forced to take a lesser paying position or more likely to be forced out without recourse. Her case rests on there being no legal justification for her to vacate her current position. She has a point, given what I explained in my last post.
It's not that simple. She was working there when the government definition of marriage did not include something that was contrary to her religious beliefs. The definition as changed after she was employed. Thus, the rules changed in a manner that could arguably be discriminatory against her as an employee. It is not justifiable that a long time employee be forced to violate religious beliefs or to quit to be kept from violating them due to a change in law. That would mean that every year spent in her position was wasted, in terms of career advancement. The government imposed their beliefs on her, because she was already employed when the law took effect. Not the other way around. Framing her as 'violating the constitution' or something akin to it (thanks, citydata constitutional scholars) is not accurate due to the sequence of events. Besides, as I before alluded to, the situation is much more complicated than mere broad stroke constitutional defense. Employment law definitely seems relevant here. Besides, it could be argued that the government attempted to 'establish religion' when it coopted the sacrament of marriage as a legal entity in the first place. They should have called it something else, and then this situation would not have existed in the first place, and homosexuals would have likely been able to be legally bound to each other probably decades ago.
Nonsense. It doesn't matter what your "personal beliefs" are. She has a constitutional right to believe in what she wants without government persecution, not a right to deny others of their own rights. If she wants to believe that it is sinful or wrong to marry someone of the same sex then she is entitled to that belief, but what she is not entitled to do is to deny others their right to marry. The government has no business using ANY religious doctrine or belief system to effect any law or due process.
The ONLY reason she hasn't been fired is because she was elected to the position and KY has a weird quirky system where she would need to be impeached. But she is absolutely in violation of the requirements of her job.
Plus, just for the record, she is a un-American idiot
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.
