Rowan KY Clerk Sued For Not Issuing Marriage Licenses

I think you'd be right if a non-Christian person refused on religious grounds. That being the case then this woman should be allowed the same latitude. The best thing would be for her to go quietly to her boss and tell them that in the wake of the US Sup Ct decision that her religious beliefs didn't allow her to issue a licence to same-sex couples. Fair enough, someone else can do that part of the job. Every time there's a same-sex couple applying then the other person can issue.

And I think it stops right there. If she refused to issue a licence to, say, Muslim couples, due to her religious beliefs, should she be able to do so? How about if there were Catholic couples and she didn't want to issue a licence to Catholics? Should she hand over that role to someone else?

I suppose it would get to the point where, "I will only issue licences to Protestant couples", would see her get the sack. She would be safe if her particular beliefs focused only on one or two situations (same-sex, Muslims, for example) and the rest of the permutations were not a problem for her. But if she focused only one one category and excluded all the others, she'd be for the high jump.

Now I get to the point where I think to myself, what right does she have to do it anyway? Is she some sort of original authority to decide who gets a licence or who doesn't? Or is she, like most of us, merely a functionary who follows clear procedures and doesn't need to exercise any more fine judgement than making sure there are only two humans in front of her that want a licence?''

After all that I'm okay with her telling her boss she can't issue a licence to a same-sex couple. She should be allowed some latitude but it needs to be carefully circumscribed.

Sometimes working policy out on these things takes a bit of thought.

 

Two Wrongs do not equate to a right oh and because one person breaks the rules does not give everyone else the right to break the. A person working for the government must perform the duties of their job or be fired, the clerk can either perform the duties of heir job or they should find another line of work.

 

So then we must fire this clerk and fire (impeach) Obama, agreed?

 

Obama was essentially hired for a job he's not doing.

I wonder if that clerks position began with a sworn statement before a judge promising to uphold the law.

 

Gotta love it. Here's an insubordinate county clerk in Podunk, KY. Let's all blame Obama!

I'm reminded of the part of Catch-22 about the soldier who saw everything twice. Hold up one finger, he sees two. Hold up 2, he sees 2. Hold up 4, he sees 2. Some people here see Obama no matter what they're looking at. No topic can be too irrelevant to attack Obama.

 

Which is precisely why this SHOULD have been legislated. I blame both parties for this mess, in their inability to be active(except to hypothetically cry out that they "support SSM" when the so-called "tide of public opinion" changed) and if the Court's have to get involved, this was something that needed to be delicately arbitrated, a one-sided ruling either way would not do justice to this issue.

This is the second time(the first being slavery) where the US system systematically failed at all levels.

 

Ok settle down there turbo, you've probably missed the earlier posts.

It's absolutly warranted to invoke Obama into a discussion involving a law and a government official not following it.

Lot of liberals crying for blood over this on the basis that laws have to be followed, which is something conservatives have been asking Obama to do since he took office.

Throughout these years of lawlessness did we have the support of the liberal voter pool saying "hey laws are laws follow them even if your don't agree"?

No we did not.

So even though I first and foremost say that a government official not following the law should be removed from office I'm not just going to sit back and ignore the double standard.

This massive degree of hypocrisy has become the singular defining characterist of liberlism and I'm going to call you people on it at every turn if for no others reason than to watch you all squirm and rant as you deflect very simple questions.

Questions like: IF ONE GOV OFFICIAL IGNORES A LAW WHY SHOUDLNT OTHERS?

 

They refused based on religious belief. So you are ok with forcing a gay baker to make an anti gay cake correct? After all hes getting paid to be a baker right?

 

the SC decision was a great start, but your right, anti-discrimination laws will need to be created to protect them from discrimination

 

NO....they are not. No one is forcing these Christians to do what they get paid to do and work for the state. They have taken on a responsibility and position that comes with certain requirements. They must follow these or find a new position just as a Muslim cashier must sell bacon or they will be replaced.

 

we elected Obama, and he is doing a fine job.... Congress on the other hand.....

clerks are hired and can be fired.....

.

 

No I did not know that....though I do not see how that changes the situation.

 

Sure ok, so you agree with forcing gay bakers to make anti gay cakes right?

 

How's that income inequality thing coming?

Oh and the pay differences for women, specifically in the White House?

How do you like all the NSA spying?

Oh how about that 51% of people who have to live on some form of welfare?

You loving those illegal uses of military against other countries?

And that healthcare access for all, well, except veterans right?

I bet you're just thrilled about the arming of police with military hardware.

Hmm look up in the sky it's a killer drone coming to end your life without due process.

All these items have three things in common.

1. They're all things liberal cry and whine about on a daily basis in one form or another.

2. They're all things your overlord king messiah HRH Barry "Ignore Law Cuz Pen & Phone" Soetoro is responsible for.

3. They're all things you people sit silent on because your liberal media masters haven't instructed you to care.

 

the thing they all have in common is republicans say tax cuts for the rich will fix them, tax cuts for the rich will fix everything they keep saying.....

.

 

How can stamping a license be against a person's religion? Please explain that.

 

When you can provide evidence the the courts have overruled the Obama adminstration for consistantly overstepping his bounds, we'll talk. Until then, your question is empty rhetoric in big letters.

 

No....I do not agree with forcing any citizen or private business to provide services or products they are opposed to providing. in this case however we are dealing with public/government entities that do not meet the criteria in question. Just as I feel not serving a gay person in the DMV who wishes to obtain a drivers license, I see this clerk as an individual who is not doing their job and serving the public. If some baker owns a shop and does not want to serve Gay people, that is his right and his choice...any issues that come about are a product of his own actions and freedom. The elected clerk was put into office to uphold our laws...not to break them.

 

Folks, here is the deal. There are 120 county clerks in Kentucky, one for each county. Of the 120 county clerks, most, if not all of whom are Christians, only three have refused to abide by the SCOTUS ruling, the governor's mandate, and the Attorney General's warning of legal repercussions for not following the letter of the law. Of the three, only one is continuing to refuse to obey the law. Moreover, county clerks in Kentucky are elected officials who have sworn an oath to defend the State and U.S. Constitutions, obey the laws of the Commonwealth, and to serve the people of their respective counties. They have a right to their beliefs. They don't have a right as elected officials to refuse service to ANY citizen of the commonwealth. Refusal to obey the law, and defend the Constitutions can and likely will subject them to legal and civil proceedings against their remaining in office on charges of official misconduct. These are the facts.

 

so you dont support anti discrimination laws?

 

At what point in our discussion did you get this idea, and please point out where I gave this impression because I do not see it. If your intent here is to simply place your own words into my mouth that is not much fun and rather disingenuous. I support legislation that protects our citizenry from arbitrary discrimination but do not feel this should invade the space of personal freedoms. In this case we are dealing with an individual who agreed to certain limitations on these freedoms by accepting and pursuing a position that requires adherence to law....that they disagree with said law is beside the point and they either do the job they accepted or need to be replaced with someone who will.

Religious freedom does not give one the right to break the law!

 

Stamping a marriage license is in no way analogous to baking a cake with anti gay words on it.

 

Not analogous.

 

Im not putting any words into your mouth Im asking you to answer. You cant claim you support anti discrimination laws but want a religious person sued when they refuse to do their jobs based on those beliefs. What about the muslim woman who wanted to burkah up at work when it wasnt the companys uniform? You guys were for her....right? I could go back and see if any of the posters here took place in that thread...that would be interesting.

 

It is even if you disagree.