Rowan KY Clerk Sued For Not Issuing Marriage Licenses

The employee is employed to do a job....do it...or be sacked....

 

100% agree, even if the employee works for the government

- - - Updated - - -

and if she refuses to do the job, she needs to find another job... one she can do.... simple

.

 

Correct. The First Amendment does not give a civil servant the right to refuse to do their job because
of their religious beliefs...this is too wide an interpretation of the First Amendment...way to wide......

 

One is refusing to do as the constitution requires and Supreme court stated.....the other is doing as required by creating a new way.

 

Does this mean you agree to sue other bigots who refuse to work?

 

If they violate the law yes.

 

Wrong...
The clerk is refusing to do their job that they are employed to do because of their far too wide interpretation of the First Amendment......
The other is simply making an application for a marriage license which they are entitled to do....
The clerk is acting outside the jurisdiction of their office......they are clerks for christs sake...they are not
Judges...they are not marrying the couple...they are simply a cog in the civil service machine...
If they were told to come in and work on sunday and refused because they dont work on sunday ...they cant rely on the first amendment...they should get a new job...the first amendment does not help these civil clerks paid to do a job.....

- - - Updated - - -

They are paid to do a job...if they dont want to....resign......

 

So, if you were hired 10 years before a law was even thought of, you are saying you agree with forcing that person to violate religious beliefs at the threat of lawsuit....correct?

 

Yes absolutely.

 

You cannot rely on the First Amendment to do so......

 

So, you want to sue people who accepted a job on different terms....correct? Does that apply to everyone?

 

Yes it does.

 

Ohhh be sensible...that is way too vague to even consider answering.......

 

So if I walk into a gay bakery and demand an anti gay cake you will support my lawsuit under my states anti discrimination laws if the baker refuses my service correct?

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently it wasnt. Montoya seems to be doing just fine answering. Im quite enjoying his matter of fact answers it is quite a refreshing change from many people on the left.

 

No because you will likely only do it to provoke and be obscene. Which you have no right to. Gay people how ever have every right to have a normal wedding cake made just like every other person. After all they have a constitutional right to marry.

 

If you read, she's not serving any licences at all. So she did precisely that: Quit. It's up to Kentucky to find a new licensor. But yeah, that was another problem with the SCOTUS ruling: You're going to force individuals, vested in this whole thing to all of a sudden become a robotic rubber stamper? ROFL. Guess again. Even if you sue them to Hades, they're still not going to do it.

The religious-spiritual component won't go away just because the government says "please", or because some think it shouldn't be a part of it. It IS. The nonexistent component is government. There shouldn't be any federal rights or any need for "state recognition of marriage". Separate Church from State, as it always had been and always will be.

 

Im not on the left <Rule 2>...I dont even live in America...Im just saying do your job...and dont fall back on the First Amendment because its not applicable....

 

I never said it would be obscene, here, the cake will simply say, "marriage is between a man and a woman." Its for his religious retreat weekend or whatever it is religious people may want to have a cake for. We arent talking about gay people we are talking about a person wanting a cake made that says the above. The gay baker is violating my states anti discrimination law same as your marriage license provider.
Why do you want to sue one person but not the other?

 

There would be no discrimination since declining would be based on a message not the person or their sexual identity. <Rule 3>

 

It's very applicable. The freedom to exercise one's religious faith, also includes the ability to not do something that violates those same tenants. Such as granting a licence to a same-sex couple. The court was utterly stupid in issuing this ruling, it'd have to nullify the first amendment to actually get it to work.

If you're a foreigner and you're surprised that the Court's ruling contradicts itself, don't be. The SCOTUS is now considered a walking joke by all, the only difference is which recent cases we define to show the Court's pitiful downfall into a political cesspool.

 

The baker is self employed <Rule 2> the civil servant is not....any self employed person can serve or not serve
anyone he choses...just like any person from any walk of life....
If I was a lawyer, and did not want to have a gay person as my client..thats my right......no-one tells me
who will be my client........

<Off-topic/Replies>

 

The gay baker violated my states anti discrimination laws. You stated you agreed that this applied to anyone who did this, four posts later that was proven to be a false statement.
Why wont you force the gay baker to violate their beliefs under anti discrimination laws but want to sue the other person for the same exact thing?
From my chair, Im winning youve already contradicted your own statements.
I am illustrating that you only really believe in suing people who disagree with your point of view and NOT applying the same law fairly against people who you happen to agree with.

 

MA has anti-discrimination laws. Im not sure what its like where you live but here laws apply to everyone and not just selected people the left wants to persecute for their beliefs.

 

if they work for the government and they are using religion to discriminate against citizens... yes, they should be fired too or the city sued if they wont fire them

 

We have Anti Discrimination laws...but no-one tells me who my client shall be....if legal action occurred...it wouldnt get to first base my friend......