Posted on 09/02/2015 2:56:20 AM PDT by markomalley
I get that the intention is to destroy her. If someone else signing their fake license allows them to go ahead and “marry”, it should give them no case. I don’t see how they can insist on her prosecution if they have another way around.
The two issues are completely different.
The stewardess knew about the requirement coming in. Customers are responsible for their consumption, and she does not have to authorize the consumption under her signature.
The clerk had a federal interpretation of law changed, without updating the KY laws she is beholden to, that requires her to personally authorize the marriage in her own name.
There are no parallels here.
No.
You are advocating that anyone who holds Christian values must capitulate to anyone who wishes to destroy them.
Given that this situation is wholly a construct of judicial activism, do you really want to specifically give the left the power to destroy any semblance of godliness in the government?
“No. You are advocating that anyone who holds Christian values must capitulate to anyone who wishes to destroy them.
Given that this situation is wholly a construct of judicial activism, do you really want to specifically give the left the power to destroy any semblance of godliness in the government?”
Like it or not the SC made a decision and all appeals have been denied. That is our legal process and to allow officials to ignore it would result in anarchy. Do you think Muslims working in a pork store should be allowed not to do their job because touching pork is against their religion? No one is forcing her to violate her religion, she can always quit if they cant find another job for her.
Inventing "rights" that specifically run afoul of enumerated rights in the constitution is not a valid legal process under the constitution.
Do you think Muslims working in a pork store should be allowed not to do their job because touching pork is against their religion? No one is forcing her to violate her religion, she can always quit if they cant find another job for her.
That is a false equation. First, muslims who apply for a job in a pork store know when they apply that handling pork is a requirement of the job. The KY legal definition of marriage is unchanged.
Second, the SCOTUS mandate to deliberately misinterpret the existing law requires a Christian to forsake the free exercise of their religion - that is, the clerk must personally authorize the marriage on the state form - in order to occupy an elected position. Religious tests for office are also explicitly unconstitutional, including a test that requires one to forswear the tenets of one's religion. Added to the fact that the change is post-facto, occurring after she was duly elected, it is doubly bogus.
Third, being an elected official doesn't allow the state to "find another job for her".
Under your stance, you will stand aside while the judicial system destroys the government's acceptance of fundamental rights enumerated in the supposedly governing document of our nation. If creative interpretation can negate fundamental rights of business people and elected officials alike, then none of us have ANY rights at all.
This is a fight worth having.
“Inventing “rights” that specifically run afoul of enumerated rights in the constitution is not a valid legal process under the constitution.”
I dont like the decision either but it currently has the force of law until a Constitutional amendment is ratified or a new SC decision. Neither is happening soon.
“That is a false equation. First, muslims who apply for a job in a pork store know when they apply that handling pork is a requirement of the job. The KY legal definition of marriage is unchanged.”
How about a Muslim working in a store that suddenly decides to sell pork or alcohol? Selling and handling the items wasn’t originally a condition of the job but it is now. Is the owner violating the rights of his clerk?
“Second, the SCOTUS mandate to deliberately misinterpret the existing law requires a Christian to forsake the free exercise of their religion - that is, the clerk must personally authorize the marriage on the state form - in order to occupy an elected position. Religious tests for office are also explicitly unconstitutional, including a test that requires one to forswear the tenets of one’s religion.”
White gay marriage is an absurdity, there is no commandment, against nor is it a sin to authorize a marriage licence for gays. Has she authorized marriage licences for divorced people, adulterers, those who dont go to church? Signing the form for a sinner is not the same as committing the sin.
“Third, being an elected official doesn’t allow the state to “find another job for her”.”
Federal law overrides KY law. She was elected to do the job and there is no clause that guarantees the job wont change. She has free will to quit her job if she morally objects to it.
“Under your stance, you will stand aside while the judicial system destroys the government’s acceptance of fundamental rights enumerated in the supposedly governing document of our nation. If creative interpretation can negate fundamental rights of business people and elected officials alike, then none of us have ANY rights at all.”
It is arguable whether she is being forced to violate her religion. No one is forcing her to marry a woman, perform gay sex acts, take birth control or have an abortion. It depends on whether you think enabling someone else’s sin is the same as committing that sin. I don’t think it does.
By your stance Muslims are free not to give cab rides to people with seeing eye dogs, refuse to sell alcohol, etc. Just because something violates your religious beliefs does not entitle you to force others to comply with them. If you work in a drug store its not a sin to sell condoms to an unmarried guy.
The question is just the first in what will ultimately become, “ Should Christians be allowed to work for any government?” And the purge will begin, presaging the reeducation camps.
The trend we are seeing in this country, in both the public and private sectors, is that (to paraphrase your sentence):
Just because something violates your their religious beliefs does not entitle entitles you to force others to comply with them.
This clerk is being specifically singled out for upholding the law as written. With the KY law being set aside by the SCOTUS ruling, she has no authority to issue licenses for marriage at all. Which is exactly what she is doing.
Thank you for engaging in this debate honestly, without resorting to attacking. I hope I can claim that same distinction in your eyes, FRiend.
It’ll only get more difficult.
“...where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage”
When no-fault divorce became universally enshrined in civil marriage law, were there clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses because of it?
Freegards
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.