Like for instance when worship of Obama prevents journalists from doing their job?
Good article. It clearly defines the legal issues involved without advocating, although it does suggest legal solutions.
In most business circumstances there is no so such thing as “legal to not do your job”. You agree to work and your employer agree to pay you. If you don’t like the work for some reason you can reach an accommodation with your employer or quit. He can agree to accommodate you or fire you. Either way is “not illegal” except formsomemgovernment defined protections.
The stewardess and the clerk are two completely different cases. The stewardess should be SOL. I should be entirely up to her employer. The clerks case is not a contract between two private parties.
Let’s ask the Muslims.
As a nurse, or a doctor, a catholic cannot administer not take part in birth control.
What does that mean?
Avoiding ob gyn? And family practice?
In Davis’ case it’s easy. Her job is yo administer marriage licenses
As soon as the Supreme Court legalized and sanctions homosexual marriage, it reduces it’s own stature as well as marriage law
If davisvwants to keep her job she looks at the law carefully and decides but she has to go by the rules even when they’re stupid
A catholic priest performing a marriage such as this? Easy. no
Just change employer. Stop disturbing the world around you.
Why is it the “job” of the government to license marriages?
There have always been protections for sincere conscientous objections to FORCED acts by the government.
Religion is not the only basis for legitimate civil disobedience.
Gays have never been discriminated against in getting married. Marriage, by definition, is between one man and one woman, not related(parent/sibling), above the age of consent.
I suppose there is now nothing preventing a clerk to issue a marriage license to father/daughter or to multiple partners, etc.
The writer clearly is writing about Hilarious and her failure to discharge her responsibilities as SecState.
Like the SS guards at Aushwitz-Birkenau? Because it’s your job, it’s okay? Or okay because you only marched them to the shower? Or poured the Zyklon through a hole in the roof? Or collected the clothing and personal effects afterward? Who gets to draw the line? Some bureaucrat? Isn’t a personal matter of conscience?
To begin with, note that not only did the Founding States establish the federal government and draft the federal Constitution to deliberately limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers, but the rights protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Right (BoR) originally did not apply to the states.
In other words, even after the Constitution and the BoR were ratified, the states could still make laws to limit our 1st Amendment-protected rights for example, regardless that the feds had no constitutional authority to make such laws.
So even if the Founding States had included an amendment in the BoR which expressly protected the so-called right to gay “marriage,” only the feds had respect such a right, the states having the 10th Amendment protected power to ignore that right and prohibit gay marriage.
It wasn’t until the northern states ignored the Constitution’s Article V amendment process and forced the southern states to agree to ratify the post-Civil War 14th Amendment that the states required themselves to likewise respect any rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
The question is, given that the states need to amend the Constitution to expressly protect a given right, how is the Supreme Court finding rights pertaning to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution if the words “abortion” and “marriage” aren’t in the Constitution?
The bottom line is that activist justices have not only been stealing legislative powers to create new PC rights from the bench for decades, but they’ve been breaching the Founding States' division of state and federal government powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment, stealing state legislative powers to establish such rights.
More specifically, activist justices are wrongly ignoring that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendmnent applies only those rights to the states which the states have amended the Constituion to expressly protect.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
Again, by declaring things like having an abortion is a constitutional right, likewise for saying that gay marriage is a constitutional right, activist justices are blatantly ignoring that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect such rights, obligating themselves under the 14th Amendment to respect such rights if they had done so.
Again, constitutional rights are established only when the states ratify proposed amendments which expressly protect such rights as evidenced by the personal rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
But an even bigger problem than activist ustices stealing state powers to legislate things like gay marriage from the bench is the following. The Founding States had given Congress the power to impeach and remove justices who ignore the Constitution. The problem is that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate is not doing its job to protect the states as the Founding States had intended for it to do.
More specifically, given the problem of justices legislating PC rights from the bench, the Senate is refusing to work with the House to impeach and remove such justices from the bench.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and the activist justices that they confirm along with it.
Muslims v. Christians.
Well, let’s see now ... The Muslim knew going into her job that she would be expected to serve drinks, while the Christian never suspected she might be required to issue “marriage licenses” to homosexuals pretending to be married?
Just take the state completely out of the marriage business if the homos are going to insist upon this degrading and spectacular charade.
Didn’t Muhammad Ali state religion was the reason he wouldn’t do the job he was supposed to be assigned to.
No doubt these laws have certainly held back our Muslim pResident from doing HIS!! Book ‘em Dano, The creature is just as guilty as Kim Davis. So there is an unwritten law: - ones for thee and not for ME.
Let them all have their exemptions. We do believe in freedom of conscience, don’t we?