Kentucky clerk sued for not issuing gay-marriage licenses

Ahh I see it's fine to infringe on her beliefs.

a reply to: MoreBeer

She doesn't have the right to exercise her beliefs over someones rights in her position!

Your rights end where mine begin.

a reply to: MoreBeer

If you serve a public job then you have to leave your religious beliefs out of it. Separation of Church and State.

originally posted by: MoreBeer
Ahh I see it's fine to infringe on her beliefs.

Personal belief vs government mandated non-discrimnation Civil Rights.

Why does this continue?

originally posted by: MoreBeer
Ahh I see it's fine to infringe on her beliefs.

This isn't about infringing on her beliefs. She ran and got elected to a public service job. She is expected to be able to fulfill the requirements of that job. If she can't, she needs to step down, and allow someone who can fulfill its requirements, do it.
Our elected "officials" are expected to do their jobs apart from their beliefs. If they can't do that, they aren't suited for the job. We have a secular government, not a theocracy.

the whole problem with the rise of the evangelical Christian religion, is they have made out god to be a real-life entity that exists, and Jesus was his real-life humanized son, along with the bible being a historical factual book.....I think "the theory of god" is much more appropriate.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Gay marriage does not bother me in the least. What I find offensive about this discussion. Is everyone's failure to recognize it was a five to four decision . The 4 dissensions said it was none of the governments Business .


All it takes is one death or retirement of a Supreme Court justice to change this opinion . I looked at this originally and if I remember right at least three of the five pro decisions were over 75 years old .


To me it looks like this issue is still on very shaky ground .

And that cake baker just got fined $135,000.

Damn time this country remembers and acts on it -- that they are not a theocracy.

I haven't really kept up with this so i could be wrong but im pretty sure the state of Kentucky already legalized gay marriage last year. Why did she wait til now to throw a fit?

Edit: Ok. It looks like they were just forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Gay marriage does not bother me in the least. What I find offensive about this discussion. Is everyone's failure to recognize it was a five to four decision . The 4 dissensions said it was none of the governments business.

As opposed to other 5/4 -- 4/5 decisions?

Civil Rights and non-discrimination is 100% a Federal governments business.

originally posted by: zombicide83
I haven't really kept up with this so i could be wrong but im pretty sure the state of Kentucky already legalized gay marriage last year. Why did she wait til now to throw a fit?

They tried to block it.

I believe it was one of the 4 challenges waiting for the SC final say.

a reply to: Annee

As opposed to other 5/4 -- 4/5 decisions?

Exactly !!!!


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that any of those opinions could change with one appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice .

Civil Rights and non-discrimination is 100% a Federal governments business.

Not according to four out of nine justices.

a reply to: Klassified

Hastings NE (Adams County), has already issued at least one same-sex license to a couple the other day. So, you can take NE off that list.
Local Paper

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

But they had a business in a State that had laws against Discrimination, regardless of Religious beliefs so the Bakery broke the law.

that argument doesn't hold up

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: Klassified

Hastings NE (Adams County), has already issued at least one same-sex license to a couple the other day. So, you can take NE off that list.
Local Paper

Lubbock, TX will start issuing July 6.

They claim they are waiting for new forms

a reply to: Klassified

Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. If your religious beliefs are in conflict with the Constitution of the United States then you need to find a new job. The government is and should be without religion so that all in this country may worship or not worship as they like.

This country ain't no caliphate and it sure as hell ain't ruled by Rome! It's ruled by all, even those without religious beliefs or those without morals.....you know, like them politicians.

Shameful of that clerk to deny someone freedom.

a reply to: Annee

I wonder what would need to be different on the forms...

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: Annee

I wonder what would need to be different on the forms...

sounds like the difference is, the people handing them out that needs to be changed.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Annee

As opposed to other 5/4 -- 4/5 decisions?

Exactly !!!!


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that any of those opinions could change with one appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice .

Civil Rights and non-discrimination is 100% a Federal governments business.

Not according to four out of nine justices.

They shouldn't let their personal religious beliefs influence them either.

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: Annee

I wonder what would need to be different on the forms...

Or why they didn't already have them.