Here We Go Again - Kentucky Clerk Refuses To Give Gay Couple Marriage License
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Now, now . . . remember the parable of talents. It's probably against the religious beliefs of the club owner to pay for services not rendered. God requires all employees to give full effort.
We could take it to the courts to decide which religious belief trumps the other one, but any judge worth his salt would say it violates the constitution for him to choose one particular religious belief over another.
"Theanarchy" - [like theocracy but substituting anarchy for ocracy] - The condition that obtains when all religious beliefs are permitted and no action or inaction based on a religious belief can be overruled or can be invoked to overrule any other.
This is not an employment issue - the club owner doesn't determine how much they make in tips. If the club owner denied her a job because she wanted to keep her clothes on based on religious grounds is a different argument.
Now that would be a fun case to follow. She wants to strip inside her burka. Can't fire her. Religious freedom!
Based on the Abercrombie & Finch decision she would win. Now she would not make any money but she would have a job.
Really? The constitution says you can shirk your contractual obligations and violate laws on religious whim?
Yeah, because she was probably hired before the unconstitutional rule change, so she cannot be fired from her job over religious disagreement.
Maybe she's just following the precedent set by our Commander in Chief who makes a habit of enforcing only the rules he likes. Interesting to hear the howling from the libbies who are incensed by this but love Obama for doing the same thing.
It's just another example of liberal hypocrisy.
And for the record because I am not a hypocrite I believe this women should lose her job over this.
It's just another example of liberal hypocrisy.
And for the record because I am not a hypocrite I believe this women should lose her job over this.
The POTUS has ignored and violated a direct federal order? Well, shit, impeachment must be soon.
It was Unconstitutional before the ruling too, there wasn't an onset date.
Yes, she can, when it directly interferes with a reasonable purpose of the job.
I know it is hard on a message board but you take some of my posts way to seriously.
I know it is hard on a message board but you take some of my posts way to seriously.
Do you believe a strip club would be penalized for not hiring a non-stripping stripper?
Being from Kentucky, there is a good chance she doesn't eat lobster because she doesn't have enough teeth to do so.
Under the law you must consider religious accommodation's so firing them would surely cost the employer dearly.
I'll give her a limited defense: She can appeal and seek stay, or file for reconsideration, or maybe a more novel filing of new action along with stay/injunction request. Was Jindahl's approach for a week or so based upon order not yet being "final."
Could well be a dupe or a poser or a publicity whore or purveyor of bs or whatever, but I have no problem with mechanisms in the system for her to consider legal avenues prior to compliance. Giving her an extreme benefit of the doubt likely, but consider the possibility that she does actually have sincere religious beliefs that in fact prevent her compliance. In that case reasonable reaction is I'm gonna quit before I do this, can I at least talk to my lawyer first?
Answer is and should be yes ma'am, you may get some more bad advice regarding how to further your wrongheaded position. Hurry though, clock is ticking.
Don't know enough about the case, depends. This little issue is a pimple on the rear of real issue, mostly overblown PR dramatics on both sides and largely uninteresting.
Ok looked, quote from the article: "Bunning said state law does not allow the county judge-executive to issue marriage licenses unless Davis is absent from her job, and Bunning refused to deem Davis absent because she has a religious objection." Apparently she is the only official authorized legally if present, so no, not unless she is out of the office. The Plaintiffs will just have to live with their tears and either wait a likely short while or drive 30 miles to get a license. The horror!
Tidbits: Judge Bunning no doubt appointed federal judge due to his legal acumen and having last name as Senator Bunning is a coincidence. Also note she is represented by Liberty something or other, affiliated with Falwell U, so she is a shill.
I see, so you are concerned about her religious, First Amendment rights...but then ridicule the applicants 14th and Marriage, Constitutional rights. Makes sense.
Hopefully the Courts will decide this so controversial issue soon so that we know how to act.
nowhere in the constitution does it say we must go against our religious beliefs and , in fact, it says we must shun such fake laws which would go against our beliefs. marriage is one man, one woman, period.
I would say quitting is a good alternative. quit before they make you wed a child to a man or a goat to a woman, or several women to one man. but why should somebody have to quit a job over a fake, made up law? that makes no sense. .
Ok OiT, let's set aside gay marriage.
Should a "Catholic" Clerk of whatever public agency be allowed to refuse marriage certificates to non-Catholics?
This isn't difficult.
I talk to people every day who I find to be objectionable. I have a simple choice. Deal with them, or work somewhere else. For someone on the public payroll this woman needs to start pumping out the marriage licenses or be unemployed come Monday.
yes. they should be able to not do it, not a catholic clerk of court but a catholic priest
see, the courts should not be involved, now that the supremes think they are all involved, let Clarence Thomas sign off on the darn certificate
exactly. tell Clarence Thomas or Sotomayor or somebody to go down there and start pumping out those fake licenses, not blessed by god.
God's law is God's law, I did not make it up, it's not up to me or you to say he's wrong.
Please provide tangible evidence proving your assertion that some god supplied you with this supposed law.
So, you're admitting you're an idiot without the capacity to evolve in your thinking.
Nice to know.
ummm, that a man and a woman are needed to make a baby, one of each, and the fact that he says so in the bible, that only one man and one woman can be married and become one flesh, he said so through people like moses. but that's ok, keep clinging to man's fake laws of non-nature
What Constitutional right is the President openly defying? (This should be good from this brainiac)...
Also, it's not just ONE person in the party, but this has been in the news all over the Conservative south. Seems pretty mainstream in the GOP to most logical people.
You really have a high 6 on the MMPI don't you?
You can't provide tangible evidence that 'God' mandates marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
I think the problem is that you don't know what 'tangible' means.
I'll give you a clue, the Bible doesn't count as 'tangible' evidence. If you think it does then you are either ignorant or too stupid to have a reasonable discussion about the topic.
Try again, this time using evidence that's considered tangible by intelligent people.
marriage is not a constitutional right, despite what the black robes of death will tell you, Obama uses the constitution as toilet paper
