Kentucky clerk sued for not issuing gay-marriage licenses

a reply to: Annee

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

You're making assumptions that they form their opinions because of religious beliefs . Take the time to read the dissenting opinions. Everyone of them said that the Constitution does not apply in this case.

a reply to: Greathouse

then they lack knowledge of the constitution and should't be allowed to judge on such things

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Do you have an example of gay person standing in the way of some ones civil rights?

That would be the context here.

You mean like shutting down businesses and getting the state involved to fine them hundreds of thousands of dollars because they didnt bake a cake because it was against their religious beliefs? Or trying to shut down a pizza joint?

Id say thats a violation of constitutional rights

Try google

Perhaps you should try google as well. Suing people that break equality laws is not a violation of Constitution rights. If anyone is violating Constitution rights it is the business that refuses service due to the customers sexual preference. Religion only has two places in the persons home and in their place of worship other than that they should keep their religion to themselves.

I completely agree!! Same thing with people's sexuality home and place of worship. Just like I keep my sexuality.
I have had a neighbor friend who I know and occasionally hung out with. I knew him for almost three years before I knew he was gay. I didn't even bother reading much about the stupid cake thing or the hobby lobby thing because I throughout it was plain stupidity on the business owners part however, if the people that wanted the cake went there in search of conflict, then I say shame on them. I go somewhere the attitude or service is bad, I take my business elsewhere.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Annee

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

You're making assumptions that they form their opinions because of religious beliefs . Take the time to read the dissenting opinions. Everyone of them said that the Constitution does not apply in this case.

I can make assumptions on past "rants" and personal opinions.

Here's a question. Why do states have marriage rights? And why should state rights trump Civil Rights?

Have you researched why states have marriage rights and why we have Legal Marriage Licenses?

BOTH based on discrimination. Time to grow up.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
So if a gay person stands up for what they believe in to the point they could lose their job they are an inspiration...

But if another person stands up for their religious beliefs to the point where they could lose their job they are a bigot and should be dealt.......

nice to see all the tolerance going around

If a Muslim refuses to serve pork in a grocery store, I imagine most responses on ATS (including mine) would be that the person is not able to perform the duties of the job.

I do not believe in hurting or killing people so I don't join the military. But if I did join, how far do you think my religious freedom would protect me from punitive actions when I refused to shoot an enemy combatant?

Simply put, many of us have religious convictions, some of which are tested after we have accepted a job or career. In nearly every case (unless it's non-impacting like wearing a yamaka or something), the person has to avoid that sort of work. A clerk who can't do the job of a clerk needs to find different work.

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Do you have an example of gay person standing in the way of some ones civil rights?

That would be the context here.

You mean like shutting down businesses and getting the state involved to fine them hundreds of thousands of dollars because they didnt bake a cake because it was against their religious beliefs? Or trying to shut down a pizza joint?

Id say thats a violation of constitutional rights

Try google

Perhaps you should try google as well. Suing people that break equality laws is not a violation of Constitution rights. If anyone is violating Constitution rights it is the business that refuses service due to the customers sexual preference. Religion only has two places in the persons home and in their place of worship other than that they should keep their religion to themselves.

. . .if the people that wanted the cake went there in search of conflict, then I say shame on them.

They didn't as far as I know, but why should that matter?

I'm sure you've heard of "ignorance of the law". You open a business, it is your responsibility to know the laws relating to your business. Also, any new or updated laws.

a reply to: Greathouse

Of course that's what they're going to say - they pretty much have to. They are not supposed to use religious beliefs as their rationale (even though they do). Don't you think it's rather "convenient" that all the notoriously religious justices were against the ruling?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Greathouse

Of course that's what they're going to say - they pretty much have to. They are not supposed to use religious beliefs as their rationale (even though they do). Don't you think it's rather "convenient" that all the notoriously religious justices were against the ruling?

Yes. Some of them, both sides, have been very vocal on their personal beliefs and opinions of Gay marriage.

Of course, those judges against it for religious reasons can't say that in their reasoning. But, we all know it.

Well, in Decatur County TN...the three clerks have resigned their positions and it appears that the County will NOT issue same sex licenses.
Wonder what's next for them...

WKRN

a reply to: Greathouse

Is everyone's failure to recognize it was a five to four decision . The 4 dissensions said it was none of the governments Business .

Of course they said that because it went against their beliefs.

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 .

Just because a judge dies or retires doesn't change the verdict. Until there is a trial challenging this the decision is set in stone.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Annee

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

You're making assumptions that they form their opinions because of religious beliefs . Take the time to read the dissenting opinions. Everyone of them said that the Constitution does not apply in this case.

I can make assumptions on past "rants" and personal opinions.

Here's a question. Why do states have marriage rights? And why should state rights trump Civil Rights?

Have you researched why states have marriage rights and why we have Legal Marriage Licenses?

BOTH based on discrimination. Time to grow up.

As I've said repeatedly I support gay marriage . I'm just laying facts out before you. If you refuse to acknowledge them that's not my problem it's yours .

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Greathouse

Of course that's what they're going to say - they pretty much have to. They are not supposed to use religious beliefs as their rationale (even though they do). Don't you think it's rather "convenient" that all the notoriously religious justices were against the ruling?

I see obviously I was mistaken you are clairvoyant and can read people's minds .

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Greathouse

Is everyone's failure to recognize it was a five to four decision . The 4 dissensions said it was none of the governments Business .

Of course they said that because it went against their beliefs.

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 .

Just because a judge dies or retires doesn't change the verdict. Until there is a trial challenging this the decision is set in stone.

Of course just because a judge dies or retires it doesn't change the verdict. But if a new justice can rule on the case if it's submitted again and if he rules on the side of the dissenters it will change the verdict .


Tell me how I'm wrong about that buster ? ( sigh)

a reply to: Greathouse

But if a new justice can rule on the case if it's submitted again and if he rules on the side of the dissenters it will change the verdict .

Does that happen though?

I understand your point, but is there a history of judges going against what past judges have ruled on?

a reply to: Sremmos80

First one that comes to mind is the death penalty yes it happens .


Edit;


Here is a very small part of the list of Supreme Court decisions that were later overturned by another Supreme Court decision .

Commerce Clause
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941)
Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. State Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 90 (1937) Department of Revenue v. Washington Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (1978)
Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co., 330 U.S. 422 (1947) Department of Revenue v. Washington Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (1978)
Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, 340 U.S. 602 (1951) Complete Auto Transit v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977)
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35 (1966) Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324 (1989)
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976)


source

When I first saw this article, I took a look at it, as it is a sign of things to come as a last ditch effort by the religious right to try to stop same sex marriage in their states:

For better or worse, the clerk is taking the path that is the least controversial and following the laws and rules that apply to said state. We should not dispute that everyone has the right to religion; it is a fundamental right as put forth in the highest law of the land. There are several laws that protect and seek to affirm this. However, with this one social issue, the question must be asked, as to where does personal religious belief end and the rest of society being. It is an issue that the country is dancing around steadily. Can a person use religion to deny services in a public accommodation kind of organization, the answer is no. That is not valid as that question was answered long ago, in the mid 1960’s by the US Supreme Court. Religion is not a valid reason to deny services, however in some cases it can be a reason. As the courts have stated time and time again, non-public accommodation organizations have the right to restrict if not outright deny services to those that do not fall within its beliefs or that would violate its tenants.
Now you come to the clerk. The county clerk is a public office, whose duties are to uphold and give full service to all who come through that door. They do not have the luxury or the right to deny services, within reason, to anyone, as long as said services are legal. The clerk feels very strongly about this issue, as do many. The LGBT community won the fight and now should be tolerant of those that are not comfortable with accommodating them in areas, such as same sex marriage. The clerk had three choices in this case: 1) Follow the ruling and give permits to same sex couples. 2) Deny said same sex couples marriage licenses, or 3) Stop giving them out altogether.
The clerk did not do option 1, as the clerk has a strong belief. This could be a dangerous door to open as now it raises the questions, as to which belief is stronger, and has more weight in the public sector. It is one that the courts would not want to take or get involved with. If the clerk went with option 2, then the clerk would have been found guilty of discriminating against same sex couples, sparking a civil rights case that would have been fought to the US Supreme Court, and could have lost and ended up costing the tax payers of that state millions of dollars. The clerk chose the safest step and that was to refuse to do such right now to all. That way there is no question of discrimination.

The clerk is partially at fault in this case, the greater fault lies with the states. Many of the states that did not want such, the leaders, such as the Attorney Generals and other officials are creating a chaos in their words and rulings, stating that the clerks can refuse and other such things. That is where the problem lies, not with the clerks and low level government officials, but those at the state level.

The question I would have is this: Are the other counties that are around that one county, are they issuing marriage licenses to all? If so, while it may be an inconvenience, it would probably have been wiser and easier to go there and do such, letting the proverbial dust settle.

first they laughed at us because they never believed we had a chance. and now that we have proven our strength in legal battle, they will fight us. be careful out there folks, the zealots have been backed into a corner and wont easily be subdued. they dont go away, they just get quiet enough for you to lose interest. but also remember that violence isnt the answer. if you dont bloody them, you take away their victim card. rob them of their anger and hatred by giving none back.

a reply to: Greathouse

Nah, it's called being observant and fairly intelligent.

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
Well, in Decatur County TN...the three clerks have resigned their positions and it appears that the County will NOT issue same sex licenses.
Wonder what's next for them...

WKRN

They've had no requests for a same sex license.

The clerks will be replaced with new ckerks that will comply with the law.

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Annee

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

You're making assumptions that they form their opinions because of religious beliefs . Take the time to read the dissenting opinions. Everyone of them said that the Constitution does not apply in this case.

I can make assumptions on past "rants" and personal opinions.

Here's a question. Why do states have marriage rights? And why should state rights trump Civil Rights?

Have you researched why states have marriage rights and why we have Legal Marriage Licenses?

BOTH based on discrimination. Time to grow up.

As I've said repeatedly I support gay marriage . I'm just laying facts out before you. If you refuse to acknowledge them that's not my problem it's yours .

This decision is not going to be overturned.