Rowan KY Clerk Sued For Not Issuing Marriage Licenses

It isn't. One is a government employee refusing a couple their right to marry. The other is a private business owner refusing to write hate speech.

They are in no way analogous.

 

Yes it is even if you dont think so. You guys even championed the laws around it and entitled them anti discrimination.

 

It isn't as I just demonstrated.

i didn't champion anything

 

Writing marriage is between a man and a women isnt hate speech even if you say it is 50 more times. The baker is discriminating against religious people.

 

True. And I didn't say it was. Saying "God hates (*)(*)(*)(*)" on a cake is however.

Huh?

 

There's no need, the 1964 Civil Rights act covers sexual orientation. And if it doesn't, the SCOTUS already ruled via this case that it does(Equal Protection extends to all laws, Civil Rights included.). Wanna know what I'm waiting for? Someone claiming that their poverty is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, I want someone to challenge the rules of a private country club.

Because what this rule allows for, and what I despised in the first place is the claim that a privilege is a 'right' then all privileges are nonexistent. The very concept of a privilege, a limited power given to limited individuals is by nature, 'discriminatory'. Rights and privileges needed to be separate. You can't "protect" privileges, but you can protect rights.

To me, Marriage was never a right but a privilege. One can't have the right of refusal(divorce) and the right to marriage co-existing. Rights DO not cancel each other out, privileges on the other hand do.

 

Or else...

You'll threaten to burn the business down, and threaten the lives of his family?

Yeah we've seen the tolerance the pro gay community has for people who don't high five them for being gay.

 

Tax cuts for the rich will eliminate us droning our citizens?

That's interesting.

 

Far more hetrosexual couples have started lawsuits against businesses for refusal of service than gay couples.

Over 10,000 SSM and only a couple of lawsuits. I think the reaction to this particular case has been blown far out of proportion by
both sides.

For 2,000 years, homosexuals have been demonized and persecuted by religious groups. Homosexuals have been imprisoned. They have been stoned. They have been chemically castrated. More recently, they have been fired from their jobs and their military service disrespected. Presently, there is a movement among some Christians to subject them to untested an unapproved psychological experiments in the form of conversion therapy.

This whole outrage about a cake reminds me of the bully kid who torments the neighbor's dog for years and then runs crying to mommy about the mean dog when the dog finally nips back.

Your argument is pretty pathetic.

 

Again with your assumptions and distraction. No one is suing this religious guy, they are firing him...I hope. I can and do support anti discrimination laws and have answered your question in the post you quoted but obviously did not read or understand. The clerk has a job to do and must do it or lose the job. Basically, by preventing everyone else from getting married, the personal opinion of one(1) person is being forced on everyone else.

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

 

Because it is a sin.

 

What does the 14th amendment say..

- - - Updated - - -

Could imagine if someone tried to force a Muslim baker to make a cake with Muhammad on it?

"It's only a cake"

 

Thou shall not stamp government documents? Again, exactly how does it violate a marriage license approval authority's religion to stamp a government document?

Good luck running a society if anytime a government worker doesn't want to do something, they can just say 3 words, "It's a sin."

 

For the purpose of handing out marriage licenses maybe, but not anything else.

 

Yes, if the Muslim would bake the Muhammad cake for some people, but not others, it would be discrimination. However, if the Muslim has a policy of refusing Muhammad cakes to all, then it would not be discrimination for them to refuse. It's not a difficult concept.

 

Sorry, but this religious belief came well before this idiotic law. If the court passes a law requiring you to hand out cigarettes to toddlers, and the public official refused would you show the same vitriol? Meanwhile, engaging in homosexual activity has been shown to be more deadly than smoking. I would rather have my public officials use their best judgement rather than the totalitarian regime you describe. Absolute subservience beneath the law. How ridiculous. Why not stick to the government enforcing 'freedom of religion', and the other rights described in the bill of rights?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2007/04/04/american-scientist-gays-die-younger-than-smokers/

 

The bans on gay marriage had nothing to do with religion.

Here's a clue for you...religion has no bearing on state recognized marriages. Why? Because atheists can marry, and have their marriages recognized. Hindus can. Muslims can. Christians can. Jews can.

The religion of the couples has absolutely no bearing on their marriage rights.

So to try to claim that religions has control of marriage is a base lie.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure they will. That's why the majority of the clerks are already handing out marriage licenses to gays...right?

You know why you're hearing so much about these clerks who refuse? Because they're aren't many of them and they stand in stark contrast to the rest of the nation.

 

SCOTUS officially made marriage now a federal thing.

If you want to get married, then go to your federal government to get the license and pay the fee.

Why should states deal with it anymore????

 

Exactly. I don't think the right wing understands this logic.

 

View attachment 36118

Your freedom of religion only applies to you yourself. It does not give you the freedom to take rights and freedoms from other people.

These individuals swore to uphold the law, not their own ideals. The law. And they are just as much in violation of the law as the clerks who refused to give licenses to interracial couples.

- - - Updated - - -

The SCOTUS did no such thing. This is just more sensationalist crap.

 

Since your post wonders into the improbable of selling cigarettes to minors, let me play the same game.

The OT demands the stoning of prostitutes. If a Believer is not required to follow the law, as you suggest, then should a Believer who stones a prostitute be free to do so under "freedom of religion"? This is what you are arguing for.

 

I assure you that SCOTUS didn't see this as "idiotic" and neither did countless posters who have been arguing against its outcome on here for at least the last ten years.

Smoking is harmful being gay is not.

Engaging in homosexual sex is not intrinsically harmful. Ask George Takei he's been doing that for years and he's outlived Leonard Nimoy who passed away due to a smoking related illness (one which I also have and will doubtless have the same effect on me eventually).

What if they decided it was you they didn't like?

Hyperbole. Absolute subservience would deny the clerk the possibility of resigning and taking up a different job. As it is, this clerk can stroll down the road to Target and get a job there. Of course they probably won't be too happy if their staff decide to stop serving customers based on their own religious beliefs either. How long would you expect them to last in that environment?

Quite!

Exactly when did the US government tell you which religion you could choose to follow?

 

Are you aware that this was a Supreme Court decision?

Are you new to this country?

 

Doesn't matter. You agree to take payment for doing a job, you DO THE DAMN JOB. No excuses.

Exactly right. He's paid to do the damn job, he must do the damn job. Religion is NOT an excuse to break the law.

 

Oh? And please do tell the constitutional basis for your statement. Better yet, who or what decided that performing a legal act in this country required by one's job can be refused because "it is a sin".