Why should calling an otherwise illegal practice a religious practice make it legal?

[NYcarbineer]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status,

despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.

How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why should calling an otherwise illegal practice a religious practice make it legal?

It doesn't, and shouldn't in most cases.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should calling an otherwise illegal practice a religious practice make it legal?

It doesn't, and shouldn't in most cases.

True, but as we see time after time, this is exactly what the sort of people who defend Kim Davis are insisting upon,

autonomous systems of laws for those who profess to be religious.

 

[Valerie]

no one is keeping her from her religious beliefs...she's a control freak nut case.

this woman and her defenders need to realize that she simply does not have a right to not do her state job.

she is free to disagree with the law and find another job where she doesn't feel conflicted.

the state might even find a way allow her to refrain from the act itself while still keeping her job in another capacity... so long as the act is performed and sealed by another clerk in the office, her religious belief is not an obstacle which infringes on the rights of others who are seeking a legal document from the office...

imo the conflict with Christianity is only in her diseased mind but even religious rights activists can see how wrong she is.









Prominent conservative activist and author Ryan T. Anderson, one of the most prolific thinkers opposing the redefinition of marriage, thinks the Supreme Court made the right decision Monday in refusing to hear a case from a Christian Kentucky clerk who is denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

After the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges in June established that states could no longer refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses, Kim Davis, the elected clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky announced that her office would no longer be handing out any marriage licenses so that she could stay true to her Apostolic Christian faith.

After a federal court ruled in August that Davis' clerk office could no longer refrain from issuing marriage licenses because of her Christian objection to same-sex marriage, Davis and her lawyer filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court seeking exemption from the district court's ruling until her appeal process can be completed. However, the court struck Davis' application down. Despite her Supreme Court loss, Davis was still not issuing any marriage licenses...

Anderson, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and the author of the newly released book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, said during a Tuesday Heritage Foundation discussion that he thinks Davis overstepped her power by ordering her entire office to not issue marriage licenses. However, he is much in favor of granting individual court clerks the right to refrain from marrying same-sex couples.

"When it comes to public actors, I do think the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] balancing test is necessary. That's why I think the Kentucky clerk office was overreaching to a certain extent," Anderson said. "Because, what was at stake in the Kentucky case was that it wasn't just an individual county clerk who was saying 'I need to have an accommodation. I can't issue licenses for same-sex couples.' She was ordering her entire office not to issue these licenses."

Kentucky Clerk Is Wrong to Deny Gay Marriage Licenses, Says Same-Sex Marriage Opponent

 

[NYcarbineer]

Slowly but surely this thread will prove that the conservative position on religious freedom is indefensible,

if only from exposing the lack of attempts to defend it.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Slowly but surely this thread will prove that the conservative position on religious freedom is indefensible,

if only from exposing the lack of attempts to defend it.

The conservative position on religious freedom is very defensible, just look at the Taliban or ISIS. All it takes is a lot of guns and some real faith.

 

[whitehall]

Where y'all lefties been? Sodomy has always been an abomination and a sin according to Christian doctrine.The Supreme Court decision didn't change anything. Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they included it in the 1st Amendment. Why can't the sissies have the same consideration for the beliefs of Christians as they do for Muslems and merely go down the road and find an agnostic clerk?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Where y'all lefties been? Sodomy has always been an abomination and a sin according to Christian doctrine.The Supreme Court decision didn't change anything. Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they included it in the 1st Amendment. Why can't the sissies have the same consideration for the beliefs of Christians as they do for Muslems and merely go down the road and find an agnostic clerk?

They DO have the same consideration for Christian beliefs as they do Muslims. Both are bullshit.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they included it in the 1st Amendment.

The First Amendment was the third proposed, and all ten that eventually passed came about two years after the Constitution did. It was hardly important. The fact that it was an Amendment should tell you that eh?

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Where y'all lefties been? Sodomy has always been an abomination and a sin according to Christian doctrine.The Supreme Court decision didn't change anything. Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they included it in the 1st Amendment. Why can't the sissies have the same consideration for the beliefs of Christians as they do for Muslems and merely go down the road and find an agnostic clerk?

It's clear the Founding Fathers screwed up with the constitution, if they had simply declared that the bible was the law of the land you wouldn't have had all this trouble now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where y'all lefties been? Sodomy has always been an abomination and a sin according to Christian doctrine.The Supreme Court decision didn't change anything. Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they included it in the 1st Amendment. Why can't the sissies have the same consideration for the beliefs of Christians as they do for Muslems and merely go down the road and find an agnostic clerk?

So to be clear and to stick to the topic,

you are of the belief that religious people in America are entitled to their own set of laws, separate from and superior to the Constitution,

to which non-religious people in America are not entitled.

Yes? No? Why? Why not?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Do drugs go to jail, do drugs and claim your religion demands it just fine.......Libs had no trouble with that

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do drugs go to jail, do drugs and claim your religion demands it just fine.......Libs had no trouble with that

This is not about what you think liberals think.

It's about what it is right and what is wrong. You forgot to state your opinion on that.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Just your avg hypocrite thread

 

[OKTexas]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status,

despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.

How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

Considering she wasn't issuing licenses to anyone, there was no discrimination. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a great piece of propaganda, even if it is BS.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status,

despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.

How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

Considering she wasn't issuing licenses to anyone, there was no discrimination. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a great piece of propaganda, even if it is BS.

Not issuing to anyone means she wasn't doing her job, and therefore in Contempt of Court and breaking her oath of office. Why you'd support her illegal actions I have no idea, but you shouldn't.

 

[OKTexas]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status,

despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.

How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

Considering she wasn't issuing licenses to anyone, there was no discrimination. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a great piece of propaganda, even if it is BS.

Not issuing to anyone means she wasn't doing her job, and therefore in Contempt of Court and breaking her oath of office. Why you'd support her illegal actions I have no idea, but you shouldn't.

That would be a State concern, not federal, wouldn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status,

despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.

How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

Considering she wasn't issuing licenses to anyone, there was no discrimination. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a great piece of propaganda, even if it is BS.

Thus she was discriminating against everyone. That only makes it worse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status,

despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.

How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

Considering she wasn't issuing licenses to anyone, there was no discrimination. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a great piece of propaganda, even if it is BS.

Not issuing to anyone means she wasn't doing her job, and therefore in Contempt of Court and breaking her oath of office. Why you'd support her illegal actions I have no idea, but you shouldn't.

That would be a State concern, not federal, wouldn't it?

Like states should be able to make their own gun laws?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status,

despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.

How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

Considering she wasn't issuing licenses to anyone, there was no discrimination. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a great piece of propaganda, even if it is BS.

Not issuing to anyone means she wasn't doing her job, and therefore in Contempt of Court and breaking her oath of office. Why you'd support her illegal actions I have no idea, but you shouldn't.

That would be a State concern, not federal, wouldn't it?

That depends. Since this is a Civil Rights violation, it goes up the chain. Regardless, like the law or not, why are you backing someone doing something illegal?