Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Brooklyn Attitude
That is our legal process and to allow officials to ignore it would result in anarchy.

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.

25 posted on 09/02/2015 7:31:56 AM PDT by MortMan (All those in favor of gun control raise both hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: MortMan

“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.


26 posted on 09/02/2015 8:22:15 AM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (Things are only going to get worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson