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

[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.

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

Well, at least everyone who wanted a marriage license, which is why she was sued by both gay and straight couples.

 

[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.

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

Your oxymoron just makes you a moron.

I guess a baker doesn't have the right to stop offering wedding cakes to everyone, just to avoid providing them to gay weddings.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Firstly, I do not understand why free people must be married by the state. Why recognition of a marital union by a state bureaucrat is so important.


But, be that as it may, Americans have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness. So same sex couples have a right to get "married" and it can only be denied by due process of law. This has nothing to do with religious freedom. A government official can not deny that right using religion as a subterfuge.

Now in a PRIVATELY own church a gay couple has no right to get married. But in a public , tax supported entity they do.

 

[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?

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

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

 

[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?

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?

No, it's not a civil rights violation, there was no discrimination. So how about you quote the law she supposedly broke?

 

[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?

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?

No, it's not a civil rights violation, there was no discrimination. So how about you quote the law she supposedly broke?

You are unaware the Supreme Court ruled on same sex marriage? lol, priceless.

 

[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?

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

So if NYS stopped issuing any pistol permits, thus making any ownership of a pistol in NY a felony,

there is no constitutional violation there?

 

[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.

Your oxymoron just makes you a moron.

I guess a baker doesn't have the right to stop offering wedding cakes to everyone, just to avoid providing them to gay weddings.

She's an elected official assigned to carry out the licensing of marriages.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

No, it's not a civil rights violation, there was no discrimination. So how about you quote the law she supposedly broke?

You are unaware the Supreme Court ruled on same sex marriage? lol, priceless.

And? The faghadist had at least 119 other places to get a marriage license or they could order them on line. Why don't you admit this is about destroying dissenters and nothing more.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

So if NYS stopped issuing any pistol permits, thus making any ownership of a pistol in NY a felony,

there is no constitutional violation there?

Why would anyone need a permit to own a pistol, I own half a dozen and never needed a permit to buy one.

 

[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.

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

Your oxymoron just makes you a moron.

I guess a baker doesn't have the right to stop offering wedding cakes to everyone, just to avoid providing them to gay weddings.

She's an elected official assigned to carry out the licensing of marriages.

And that concerns the feds how?

 

[Anathema]

Very simple..... MORALITY supercedes LEGALITY in all cases.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/k...-clerks-perform-gay-marriages-or-lose-your-jo
Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs


The official posture of the state of Kentucky is that its citizens can get married. While it is true that those clerks who refused may be sanctioned by the state the federal courts can take judicial notice of the fact that 119 counties in Ky issue marriage licenses and one does not. They can an also consider the fact that its chief executive officer considers the clerk' action to be unlawful.

Now if this issue was about imposing the law in a PRIVATE setting then I would share your concern.


.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Your oxymoron just makes you a moron.

I guess a baker doesn't have the right to stop offering wedding cakes to everyone, just to avoid providing them to gay weddings.

A baker isn't on the public payroll.

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs


The official posture of the state of Kentucky is that its citizens can get married. While it is true that those clerks who refused may be sanctioned by the state the federal courts can take judicial notice of the fact that 119 counties in Ky issue marriage licenses and one does not. They can an also consider the fact that its chief executive officer considers the clerk' action to be unlawful.

Now if this issue was about imposing the law in a PRIVATE setting then I would share your concern.


.

So the short answer is the State is denying no one. The faghadist and everyone else has 119 places to get a license. The individual performance of an elected official is a State concern, not the feds.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

You mean like the right of the gays to be above the law?

There is NO Constitutional right to marriage, gay or otherwise. You have a court ruling that admonishes the States to stop blocking the gays from a legal fiction of marriage.

If you are going to quote the 14th Amendment to support your argument, then I'll submit to you that the 14th is not part of the Bill of Rights and that the right to the free exercise of religion is the HIGHEST right in the country....

IT supersedes your right to be gay.

However, even that is NOT the issue....

The issue is the right to be free in ones own mind and actions to act according to the persons own conscious.

This right applies to both the religious person and the homosexual.

You fucks are fighting for your right to have a gay moral values system that is free from influence by others.....YET NOW you are denying that same right to those who oppose it.

That makes you and the rest hypocrites and bigots.

 

[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.

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

Your oxymoron just makes you a moron.

I guess a baker doesn't have the right to stop offering wedding cakes to everyone, just to avoid providing them to gay weddings.

A baker isn't on the public payroll.

The clerk didn't discriminate against anyone either, but that doesn't seem to matter.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Your oxymoron just makes you a moron.

I guess a baker doesn't have the right to stop offering wedding cakes to everyone, just to avoid providing them to gay weddings.

A baker isn't on the public payroll.

The clerk didn't discriminate against anyone either, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Nope...she was also in the position BEFORE the ruling...

I guess conscientious objectors only apply to progressive cowards trying to get out of a war....

We NOW have a religious litmus test for being elected into office in this country...

Go us...