FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 08/31/2015 4:58:04 PM PDT by GIdget2004
The Associated Press @AP BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Kentucky gay marriage case, clerk must issue licenses despite religion
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.twitter.com ...
The notion that religion is being forced on others is something I associate with anti-religious propaganda.
Some employers didn’t like employees to ‘force their race’ on them either but the law accommodated them in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I wish we could be a country where religious folks who say ‘gays will go to hell’ can live in peaceful co-existence with those who say ‘religious hypocrites should go to hell’.
But there’s a conflict going on and the anti-religious gay marriage forces are winning the fight with the levers of government.
The balance between the two sides doesn’t exist right now.
One side is shoving it in the others face.
I don’t support the current situation created by the USSC ruling.
There are serious questions when the notion of resistance-disobedience to the USSC gay marriage ruling comes up.
But the political system backed by elite business-corporate contributors want gay marriage and no protection for those who oppose it including the small business owners.
What options are opponents left with???? The Republicans and Democrats will not reverse it.
Opponents of gay marriage are indeed being marginalized and forced out of government employment like this marriage clerk position.
Based on what’s happened in Canada and Europe, it only goes downhill from here.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Yep. She’s going to have to step down or face jail time. It is a time of hard choices, just like 1930’s Germany.
That would be true if she chose to make it a court case.
All she has to do is just simply decline to issue the license, and ignore what any judge says to her.
She's hard to fire. She's an elected official.
I think that it's an important "check and balance" against judicial tyranny that elected officials can follow their consciences and tell the judges to go to hell. If the elected official is out of line IN THE OPINION OF THE PEOPLE, then that elected official can be impeached and removed.
Have enough of this happen, and judges just might decide to stay within the actual confines of their authority.
The employer in this case, are the people who elected her. They will have the opportunity to fire her at the next election. But I have a feeling that the majority of the people who elected her will agree with her.
The current US Supreme Court works FOR the faggots.
She can’t be fired.
If she refuses the court can hold her in contempt and order her arrested. This is the most likely scenario.
Additionally the Attorney General can indict her under several statutes involving performance of public duties. The KY AG is a Democrat running for Governor. He does that and he hands the election to Republica Matt Bevins. It’ll make the McConnell win over Grimes look like a nail-biter.
She can also be impeached by the state legislature. See the AG indicts scenario above for the likely outcome.
The KY Dems really want this to go away. She’s turning into a Robin Hood style folk hero in KY for the “bitter clinger” crowd most likely to determine the statewide elections coming up this Fall.
Please remind me of the last time the Republican establishment put up a fight on anything. It seems to have slipped my mind.
Some days I wish those 9-11 terrorists headed to DC would have hit their target.
Yeah, it sure is a shame that the terrorists didn’t get to hit the Pentagon and get to kill 184 people...
Damn shame...
And, as you note in your other scenarios, that makes her an instant martyr and public hero.
It would be even more interesting if the people ordered to arrest her declined to comply.
This points out both the actual weakness of the Court, and the reality of what they do. The Court has no real inherent power to compel enforcement of its decrees. It only has the power of its ability to get other branches to cooperate. This power evaporates like the dew on the grass on a sunny day, if the other branches really don't like the decision.
What we really have is the Court as a branch of the Elites, giving the orders that the other branches don't dare to, with the other branches cooperating in the game by saying "We really don't want to, but IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND now".
The woman is a County elected official, not a employee of a private employer so references to private employment are not relevant. The Extreme Court decided a case and now a federal judge is ordering a County Clerk to issue a marriage license to the two sodomitenazis, a license which presumably is not authorized by any Kentucky statute.
If the County Clerk disobeys the court order, the ACLU will file a motion for Contempt. A Contempt Order take some time to enforce but eventually the court would order the US Marshall to arrest the Clerk if she continues to disobey the court order.
If Kentucky Governor and that County Sheriff had any regard for the liberty of the people of Kentucky they would, with the means available to them, protect the Clerk from being arrested by the US Marshals who come to arrest her, but I wouldn't put any money on that happening.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
Cordially,
When will congress start impeaching “activist” supreme court justices?
True on that.
The difference is that a contempt citation issued by a judge isn’t as likely to have the political impacts of either an indictment by the KY AG, or an attempt at impeachment.
There’s no way that an impeachment gets off the ground. Jack Conway, the AG) can indict, but the moment he does he loses the governors race. AND there’s an excellent chance that if it goes to trial shell be acquitted via jury nullification.
It was not until 1962 with the Engel v. White decision
Look Again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education
Years ago I read an excellent book on the subject called "The Myth of Separation" by David Barton.
It detailed how we got here from where we clearly were before. Basically it was the consequence of a bunch of Liars, and a lot of help from the 14th amendment.
Obama has shown us that dictatorship is perfectly fine. Let us give the Democrats a good dose of it so they can learn why it is a bad idea to undermine the rule of law.
This is a very thorny issue, but if there is anything that I am certain of it is that none (not one) of our founding fathers believed that public officials and public employees are empowered by the First Amendment to write their own job descriptions. They believed that public officials/employees are public servants and are obliged to perform the functions that they are retained to perform. If a public official or a public employee chooses a religion that does not permit them to perform their public functions, then they need to find another job. If I was a public employees and I was asked to perform a function that conflicted with my religion, I would have the dignity to resign.
I have a feeling that you would feel differently in a case where a public school teacher believed, for religious reasons, that the body is some kind of a spiritual temple and that schoolchildren should be encouraged to be naked in the classroom. I suspect that in that case you would tell the teacher to either quit or comply with the rules that the school has set for child safety no matter what the teacher's religion might teach. Public employees and public officials have to comply with the law like everyone else. They can't use their religious beliefs to write their own job descriptions.
an elected official is an employee of the public. The UUSC voted unanimously. The represent the people in their capacity as one branch of government. Same principle. If you can’t perform the duties of office, resign or disobey and take your chances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.