Clerk's office defies order; no same-sex marriage licenses

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Do the religious beliefs of an individual take precedence over the basic liberties of the collective in your view?

Because that is what you have just said in a nutshell.

a reply to: markosity1973

If she believes in what she is doing fight, if not walk away. Pretty simple. If she is willing to accept consequences that may come fighting for her beliefs so be it. There have been many times through history when a person or group of people including those in government have defied laws for beliefs. Sometimes good comes from it, sometimes not. People's views on what she is doing of course will come from political/religious beliefs . Not buying for one minute it's simply because it's the law.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Her rights haven't been stripped from her. She can still be a Christian, she can still go to church, and she can still read the Bible.

However, she works for the government not a church or religious institution. She had to take an oath to follow the government's laws when she took the job. She's getting paid by the government to do a government job. That's all there is to it.

Would you say the same things if I, a Muslim, accepted her job position, took an oath to uphold US law, then refused to issue marriage licenses to anyone who didn't have an Islamic wedding?

As long as it all conforms to the government law. Remember invisible cake and tea? Tastes delicious? Just pretend her right hasn't been changed by government. Isn't playtime fun?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Her rights have been stripped from her by the government's law which forces someone to contradict their religion and do something immoral...

What about the rights of those she denied a legal marriage? I don't care what her religious beliefs are. She doesn't get to dictate the rights of others, guaranteed to them by the constitution.

Ok so this lady well yea she will get to have fun in court, and honestly hey its your job do it.

But the hypocrisy in this thread cracks me up. Posts stating that they do not care what her rights are only what others rights are. I find that humorous.

a reply to: Azdraik

But the hypocrisy in this thread cracks me up. Posts stating that they do not care what her rights are only what others rights are. I find that humorous.

Care to be specific? I'm not seeing any post so far that says they don't care what her rights are.

The 'lady' in question is currently on her fourth marriage. She loves Godly hetero marriage so much she's had four of them.

B-but muh religious freedoms.

a reply to: Klassified

Ah yes by using evasive verbiage you are correct. Your post prior to mine specifically used the word "beliefs". To me it appeared you used that word to make her claim lessor then the claims of the couples seeking marriage licenses.

Not saying you did it on purpose just found it humorous.


Would be interesting to see the results of a Title VII case if this went to court.

a reply to: Azdraik

Where are those post? Because I've read both pages and they appear to exist in your head only.

Of course her rights matter, but her rights aren't being infringed. Shes the one doing the infringing.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Do the religious beliefs of an individual take precedence over the basic liberties of the collective in your view?

Because that is what you have just said in a nutshell.

All I am saying is that the government has changed rights by a new law that forces someone to alter their practice of religion and abide by a new standard set by the government, so it is not about beliefs as far as the law goes, it is a change in rights and the government is setting themselves as the rights giver and saying what that right is. Now the new law has changed a right, and so government is now in the business of newly defining that right. Now people practicing a religion must be in accordance with the governments new and changed definition from what it has been for a very long time, and that right did not need government approval before. (Mostly because a right is not something they can give anyways).
Anyone who says these religious practices have not been interfered with are in La-La land since the new law is now filtered by government and "different" as defined by the new law.

The government is now saying "you can practice your religion, but not like you used to do, because we have stepped in and changed it."

Can you see what is happening now? What happens when the government changes another "right" and that change hurts you and your family?

The government is going to keep coming, and they won't stop making "changes" to unalienable (unchangeable) rights (because governments can't dole out rights, they are natural rights that define American citizens) , until they are stopped by force. Just like they stop citizens with force, and that includes violent reprisals.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm fine if the Govt. keeps coming along changing/altering rights like this.. She is so clearly in the wrong here, I'm actually shocked (even for ATS) to see anyone defending this little c***, yea, i reserve the word for people like this lady.. I'm sure she hides behind her religion, not really fully understanding her own religion, because lets be real, Christians love cherry picking from the bible.. The US Govt. deemed gay marriage legal, this lady has no power, and no rights to do what she is doing. If she can't handle her "duties" on the job, then 1 of 2 scenarios must play out, either she complies or she's fired for not fulfilling the duties of her position... I will never see eye to eye with this lady, or anyone that defends her archaic way of thinking...

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Umm... no. You clearly do not understand the ruling.

The government is not allowed to be discriminatory in it's policies. As long as marriage comes with legal and financial benefits, no law can be established that limits marriage to only a subsection of the population. It needs to be an option for all adults. Church recognized marriages were not affected at all by the Supreme Court ruling, only government issued ones.

This woman's rights were not infringed, she is free to practice her religion privately in any way she wishes. As long as she's handing out marriage certificates however she is not allowed to discriminate against others who wish to be married. It doesn't matter if her discrimination is rooted in religious bigotry, racism, or just because she doesn't like someone. It is not allowed. Her religion isn't even a part of this debate because the reason for her discriminatory actions are completely irrelevant.

When the judge ordered her to comply though, he basically threw out the woman's defense, because her defense itself was a violation of the first amendment because it requires recognizing her religion as an official state religion above all others.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

The government is now saying "you can practice your religion, but not like you used to do, because we have stepped in and changed it."

Can you see what is happening now? What happens when the government changes another "right" and that change hurts you and your family?

The government is going to keep coming, and they won't stop making "changes" to unalienable (unchangeable) rights (because governments can't dole out rights, they are natural rights that define American citizens) , until they are stopped by force. Just like they stop citizens with force, and that includes violent reprisals.

So, do you support Islamic Sharia law?

Religious law does not, should not and will not ever take precedence over secular law of a nation. If you want to know how terrible religious rule is, pay a visit to the sunny Islamic State. I hear they are real nice to Christians.

Or if Islam is not your thing, time travel back to Spain at the time of the inquisition and see how benevolent Christian rulers were to non believers.

Perhaps you'd prefer something a little more close to home... How about a trip into the past to see the misery the bearers of the cross brought upon the original people of the Americas?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Show me in the Bible or the Official Christian Book of Rules where it says Denying Marriage Licenses to others is part of their Religious Practices. I don't mean the interpretation of by someone, I mean the official Rule.

Otherwise it's just a made up BS claim of a rule, it's not part of her Religious Practices and she's just doing it to be a bigot, homophobic b*tch. I know this, you know this, we all know this.

Nobody is being fooled by this nonsense. We all tread lightly over it trying not to step on anyone's toes but it's done no good. The Religious Bigots still whine and complain and hide behind their religion to break laws and basically just be AHoles. Well, we've had enough of it. You're still allowed to be Aholes in your personal lives, but when it comes to doing your job you can leave that stuff at home or at church or whatever and just do your job like the rest of us have to do. Or get a job somewhere else. It's that easy.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Show me in the Bible or the Official Christian Book of Rules where it says Denying Marriage Licenses to others is part of their Religious Practices. I don't mean the interpretation of by someone, I mean the official Rule.

You did not see that there? Swear it was right next to the spot in the Bill of Rights stating marriage is a right.

originally posted by: Azdraik
You did not see that there? Swear it was right next to the spot in the Bill of Rights stating marriage is a right.

Marriage is not a right. The government however is not allowed to discriminate, regardless of somethings status as a right or not. That is in the constitution, the 14th amendment. The ruling was that this does apply to marriage because marriage offers legal and financial benefits. As such, a state recognized marriage must be available to all adults regardless of sexual orientation.

with the endless plethora of serious problems to legitimately be concerned about in this world, some still get a bee in their bonnet about this innocous crap. to me such an obsession speaks of the sexual confusion of those that doth protest (too much). get with the 21st century people.

a reply to: Aazadan

>.> That was sarcasm.

originally posted by: Azdraik
Ok so this lady well yea she will get to have fun in court, and honestly hey its your job do it.

But the hypocrisy in this thread cracks me up. Posts stating that they do not care what her rights are only what others rights are. I find that humorous.

Maybe you need to brush up on what "rights" are. She is still free to practice her religion and she still has every other right she had before this.

originally posted by: Azdraik
a reply to: Klassified

Ah yes by using evasive verbiage you are correct. Your post prior to mine specifically used the word "beliefs". To me it appeared you used that word to make her claim lessor then the claims of the couples seeking marriage licenses.

Not saying you did it on purpose just found it humorous.


Would be interesting to see the results of a Title VII case if this went to court.

If this woman's rights were being infringed upon, I would be calling it such. You've been around here long enough to know most ATS members are quick to call foul on such matters, no matter what someones beliefs are. In this case however, she is the one infringing, and to use an ATS meme... Her rights end, where mine begin.