Kentucky clerk sued for not issuing gay-marriage licenses

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

A persons sexuality has absolutely no bearing on whether they can perform their duties.
A person CHOOSING to refuse to do their job, for "religious" reasons, while being paid by the public to perform that duty, is an embarrassment and a failure, they should be fired.

Please show me one example where an LGBT person was fired for refusing to do their job based on their own opinions about who they want to dictate to.

The fact that you (and those who starred your post) can't see the stupidity in your own comparison shows the level of intellect us intelligent and rational people are fighting against.

All you've done with your post is show that bigotry and stupidity often go together.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Greathouse

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

I wonder if you would say the same thing about Obama and Eric Holder. Eric Holder, the only sitting AG to be held in contempt of court. You'd think that as the lead law enforcement officer in the country would know how to not be in contempt. Go on, Condemn Eric Holder. I'll wait.


Go on. Condemn Him.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
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.

Here is how a court should rule on any instance like this...

Does a requirement to provide service in any way impact upon the health, safety, liberty, treatment or rights of the person required to provide it and wishing not to.
Does the refusal of that service in any way impact upon the health, safety, liberty, treatment or rights of the person seeking that service.

I think we can all see the common sense here.
Serving a cake to a gay couple in no way impacts on the life of the supposedly Christian person serving them. In no way at all are they impacted, harmed, affected, in any way. Their liberties are not damaged, their rights are not infringed, their life will not change in any way. They CHOOSE to be bigots and hateful people simply because they have the excuse to do so granted to them by their religion.

In contrast, the person being refused IS impacted directly by that bigotry, their rights and freedoms are affected by that person, it can be argued that this discrimination directly harms them as an individual.

I'm sure some "Christian" will be along any moment to proclaim that it's intolerant to be intolerant of their bigotry and hatred of others, but I don't really care. I'll say it again here for anyone reading this with that view - if you believe a Christian should have the right to be a bigot to others because of their "faith", you are no better than Taliban cheerleaders, all it is is a different brand of ignorance.

a reply to: chuck258

Why do you assume i will or wont? plus i'm a little confused on your association..

i said if they really believe that this ruling had nothing to do with the constitution than they have a lack of knowledge of it and shouldn't be allowed to jude

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Greathouse

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

Not to mention completely incorrect in your observations . Prove me wrong here is the first time the Chief Justice has descended from opinion. Prove to me it is on religious basis go ahead review his rulings and show me one other time it was on religious basis.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. For the first time in his decade as chief justice, Roberts read a dissenting opinion from the bench. His dissent was particularly biting, one that pilloried the majority for what he stated was an unconstitutional, unprecedented “act of will, not legal judgment.” Roberts quickly and bluntly stated that while arguments of social fairness and equality have “undeniable appeal,” he thought the court was out of its element in trying to decide this issue.

source





But the one overlying theme to our debate. Is you could not name one thing I was factually wrong on so you had to use supposition to make yourself feel better .


Like I said earlier all I did was present actual facts . You can distort them or deny them however you choose to but it will not make you right .

originally posted by: Annee

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.

I honestly hope it is not either. But that is a wish on my part . It is what I desire to happen. But as an adult I realize my opinion has no basis on the actual decision making process of the Supreme Court in the future .


The fact is that the decision can be overturned .

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Annee

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.

I honestly hope it is not either. But that is a wish on my part . It is what I desire to happen. But as an adult I realize my opinion has no basis in reality .


The fact is that the decision can be overturned .

It won't be. It's progressing a Civil Right Equality that the majority want.

It's not worth my time to dwell on it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Annee

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.

I honestly hope it is not either. But that is a wish on my part . It is what I desire to happen. But as an adult I realize my opinion has no basis in reality .


The fact is that the decision can be overturned .

It won't be. It's progressing a Civil Right Equality that the majority want.

It's not worth my time to dwell on it.

Like I said that is my wish also. But I don't claim to be able to predict the future .

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Annee

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.

I honestly hope it is not either. But that is a wish on my part . It is what I desire to happen. But as an adult I realize my opinion has no basis in reality .


The fact is that the decision can be overturned .

It won't be. It's progressing a Civil Right Equality that the majority want.

It's not worth my time to dwell on it.

Like I said that is my wish also. But I don't claim to be able to predict the future .

If you want to use your time to concern yourself with a maybe 1% chance this will be overturned, you're free to do so.

a reply to: Annee

Actually in another thread hours after the decision. I brought up that it will be challenged by the states. Either by a lack of enforcement or repealing laws.



Everybody claimed I was wrong even when hours later the first announcements of not issuing marriage licenses were given by the state .


It seems that some people because of the passion in their heart overlook actual truth in statement. Because they automatically take it as an affront to their position .


I will tell you the same thing I told those people . If this is truly your belief prepare for the eventual don't hope for the best .

a reply to: Rocker2013

Like any court decision on social impacts, it has many questions that it must ask and consider. The first question that is often asked, is how is this a constitutional problem, and is it something that will affect the country.
Safety, liberty, treatment and rights are often looked at within such questions and debated on.

The courts back in the 1960’s ruled on public accommodation businesses and what was and was not acceptable. This is something different. No laws were written, what was ruled on, was that the court determined that a particular law/ban was not held within the frame work of the Constitution. And ultimately that said bans would be against the Constitution. The hodge podge of laws was creating a mess of the country. Now the courts have ruled.

I would disagree, as the clerk is refusing to do any and all marriage licenses. There is no bigotry, or discrimination at all. And as sad as it is, it will require the state to come in and clean up the mess, or face further court cases. I do not think it will go to court, that the state will work with the county and ultimately then work with the persons affected.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Right, but if they refuse to give out any Marriage Certificates, than they refuse to do their Job and should be replaced anyway

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Annee

Actually in another thread hours after the decision. I brought up that it will be challenged by the states. Either by a lack of enforcement or repealing

Of course it was going to be challenged.

Who told you otherwise?

a reply to: 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

A gay person standing up against inequality and discrimination is different from an anti-gay person standing up for inequality to discriminate. So yes, the person standing up to discriminate would be the bigot.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Annee

Actually in another thread hours after the decision. I brought up that it will be challenged by the states. Either by a lack of enforcement or repealing

Of course it was going to be challenged.

Who told you otherwise?

Yeah I see where this one's going .

Potato

originally posted by: Greathouse

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)

Now that you have changed your statement you are right.

a reply to: Darth_Prime
But county clerks do more than just issue marriage licenses. The county clerk's work with if not for the vital statistics and having to deal with all sorts of statistics. And here is the real point that I do not think that they are thinking right now. While the clerk may decide to stop issuing marriage license's, they will be hard press if say a same sex couple moves into their county and one of them dies, they will still have to deal with same sex marriages, or even births or adoptions.


But that is minor, one county in a state refusing marriage licenses. Here is the real thing we should be looking at. What if a state decides that it will no longer issue marriage licenses within its boarders, then what? Currently three states are weighing that option to stop it fully and completely, then what?

a reply to: buster2010

You're funny lol


Potato to you too .

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Texas AG Over Stance on Marriage Licenses

“It’s irresponsible for an elected official — and a lawyer — to tell other elected officials to break the law,” Maxey said in a prepared statement. “He’s misleading county and state officials based on a false premise that they can discriminate against same-sex couples. This past Friday, the Supreme Court was clear with their decision to let same-sex couples marry. Paxton took an oath to defend and protect the constitution, he must comply with the court’s decision. Paxton is no stranger to shady business. This just gives us another reason to question his legitimacy as a Texas Attorney General, lawyer, and trustworthy individual.”

www.advocate.com...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
What if a state decides that it will no longer issue marriage licenses within its boarders, then what?

That's fine. If a state doesn't offer marriage at all, then everyone is equally protected under the law. No one can get married there. It's certainly an option for a state to choose. IMO, they SHOULD choose that before trying to continue discriminating against a certain segment of society. If they just CANNOT bring themselves to offer marriage to some people, they should stop offering it to anyone. Of course, all the florists, bakers, bridal dress shops, caterers, not to mention the state itself, would suffer financially, but that's their choice.

I believe Oklahoma toyed with the idea for a while when their ban was overturned, and then decided against it.