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

[frigidweirdo]

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....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?

Is atheism a religion? No? Then the 1st Amendment just answered your question. You might want to brush up on the 9th Amendment too while you're at it..

So you're taking the position that the 1st Amendment grants a certain group of people the special status of being able to ignore laws that apply to everyone else, such as non-discrimination laws,

if those people claim they want to ignore those laws because their religion tells them to?

It actually grants all people the same.

Rights work like this. You can do whatever you like as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

This woman is infringing on the rights of others. They're not infringing on her rights.

She is using her position in government to attempt to force others to follow her religion. That's pretty close to a government establishing a religion.

Problem is that people seem to be able to ignore this. The only way they can't ignore it is if you make it inclusive of all rights, then they have to choose between rights or no rights, then they lose their guns.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Religion is a 'waffling behaviour'.

btw, there is nothing in the Bible condemning same sex civil marriage.

And religious people in this country are given the right to practice their religion, not the right to force others to practice their religion.

I just explained to you that Jude 1 isn't waffling. In fact it was reaffirmed ancient law brought up specifically to be included in the New Testament. There is in fact something in the Bible condemning gay marriage. It's called Jude 1. Marriage is the hub of any culture. Allowing gays to take it over and make a mockery of it is exactly the crime against God described in Jude 1.

Passive resistance to participate in a gay marriage isn't forcing anything on anyone. However, jailing someone for passively refusing to participate, only allowing they can get out when they reject their strong commandments of faith is forcing someone to practice the gay religion. For that's what it is. It's a deviant sex cult. We can just put that out there. It's OK. Everybody knows this now.

1. There is no condemnation of civil same sex marriage in the Bible

2. It doesn't matter anyway

3. She is not being 'passive'. She is using her position in GOVERNMENT to actively deny citizens the government paperwork they NEED to exercise their right to be married.

4. Your personal views on homosexuals are not relevant here.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Why should five judges on a nine-judge court get to ignore the Constitution and all relevant precedent and get to impose their immorality on everybody else?

Probably because they're the majority

This issue highlights the growing divide between Americans who still believe in God and who take the Bible seriously and Americans who reject God and who couldn't care less what the Bible says on an issue.

Funny, that's exactly what the Taliban says about the Koran and the people of Afghanistan.

 

[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....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?

Is atheism a religion? No? Then the 1st Amendment just answered your question. You might want to brush up on the 9th Amendment too while you're at it..

So you're taking the position that the 1st Amendment grants a certain group of people the special status of being able to ignore laws that apply to everyone else, such as non-discrimination laws,

if those people claim they want to ignore those laws because their religion tells them to?

It actually grants all people the same.

Rights work like this. You can do whatever you like as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

This woman is infringing on the rights of others. They're not infringing on her rights.

She is using her position in government to attempt to force others to follow her religion. That's pretty close to a government establishing a religion.

Problem is that people seem to be able to ignore this. The only way they can't ignore it is if you make it inclusive of all rights, then they have to choose between rights or no rights, then they lose their guns.

Imagine a government official deciding to deny gun permits to Republicans, lol.

 

[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....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?

Is atheism a religion? No? Then the 1st Amendment just answered your question. You might want to brush up on the 9th Amendment too while you're at it..

So you're taking the position that the 1st Amendment grants a certain group of people the special status of being able to ignore laws that apply to everyone else, such as non-discrimination laws,

if those people claim they want to ignore those laws because their religion tells them to?

It actually grants all people the same.

Rights work like this. You can do whatever you like as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

This woman is infringing on the rights of others. They're not infringing on her rights.

She is using her position in government to attempt to force others to follow her religion. That's pretty close to a government establishing a religion.

Problem is that people seem to be able to ignore this. The only way they can't ignore it is if you make it inclusive of all rights, then they have to choose between rights or no rights, then they lose their guns.

http://time.com/4018494/kentucky-marriage-clerk-loving-virginia/

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is atheism a religion? No? Then the 1st Amendment just answered your question. You might want to brush up on the 9th Amendment too while you're at it..

So you're taking the position that the 1st Amendment grants a certain group of people the special status of being able to ignore laws that apply to everyone else, such as non-discrimination laws,

if those people claim they want to ignore those laws because their religion tells them to?

It actually grants all people the same.

Rights work like this. You can do whatever you like as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

This woman is infringing on the rights of others. They're not infringing on her rights.

She is using her position in government to attempt to force others to follow her religion. That's pretty close to a government establishing a religion.

Problem is that people seem to be able to ignore this. The only way they can't ignore it is if you make it inclusive of all rights, then they have to choose between rights or no rights, then they lose their guns.

Imagine a government official deciding to deny gun permits to Republicans, lol.

But this is the thing. The govt decide to not allow Republicans guns is the same as the govt not allowing gay people to marry.

 

[Silhouette]

Religion is a 'waffling behaviour'.

btw, there is nothing in the Bible condemning same sex civil marriage.

And religious people in this country are given the right to practice their religion, not the right to force others to practice their religion.

I just explained to you that Jude 1 isn't waffling. In fact it was reaffirmed ancient law brought up specifically to be included in the New Testament. There is in fact something in the Bible condemning gay marriage. It's called Jude 1. Marriage is the hub of any culture. Allowing gays to take it over and make a mockery of it is exactly the crime against God described in Jude 1.

Passive resistance to participate in a gay marriage isn't forcing anything on anyone. However, jailing someone for passively refusing to participate, only allowing they can get out when they reject their strong commandments of faith is forcing someone to practice the gay religion. For that's what it is. It's a deviant sex cult. We can just put that out there. It's OK. Everybody knows this now.

1. There is no condemnation of civil same sex marriage in the Bible 2. It doesn't matter anyway 3. She is not being 'passive'. She is using her position in GOVERNMENT to actively deny citizens the government paperwork they NEED to exercise their right to be married. 4. Your personal views on homosexuals are not relevant here.

1. Jude 1 says to only reach out to an individual homosexual with compassion "making a difference" to them. As to an organized group of them using a vehicle such as marriage to overtake a culture like Sodom (It mentions Sodom specifically), it says the exact opposite. It says Christians should apply every ferocity to resisting that within their personal power. Kim Davis is doing exactly that.

2. The 1st Amendment and one's eternal soul's destiny does, in fact, matter.

3. Yes, she is being passive. She simply refused to participate. She didn't pick up a club and beat the people. She didn't hold their granny hostage. She just said "no, my convictions won't allow me to participate in advancing your cult throughout my society using the hub of it (marriage)" (paraphrased)

4. My personal views on homosexuals is that they falsely claim a static "racial" status when in fact they're a waffling conglomerate of deviant sexual behaviors as a cult. So my views do count because the question of whether or not a cult can behave like a race for legal purposes to force a Christian to participate in their rites (under delivered threat of being jailed) is exactly the question of law here.

 

[OKTexas]

The court can't compel her to do something that is not required by KY law. Now you know.

Obviously they can, that's why the religious nut is in jail.

A judge can do anything it wants, until an appeals court hears the case.

 

[OKTexas]

That's a lie. They can get a license anywhere in the State, the link PMH posted says she is not required to issue the license, it says she may.

Got to go, you lefties are entertaining losers, been fun.

If the female is 18 or older, or a widow, she can get a license from another country, there's just no need for her to do so. That is why Davis sits in jail...

Right, for doing nothing illegal, she just pissed off the wrong unelected lawyer by not bending over for him.

Disobeying the court is illegal. Now you know.

The court can't compel her to do something that is not required by KY law. Now you know.

The Kentucky marriage law is now unconstitutional. Of course the courts have the power to act against that law.

The courts also have an obligation to now uphold the civil rights of gays that have been confirmed by the SCOTUS ruling.

Sorry bubba, wrong again. I wasn't referring to KY marriage law, but the law that says who MAY issue a marriage license.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the female is 18 or older, or a widow, she can get a license from another country, there's just no need for her to do so. That is why Davis sits in jail...

Right, for doing nothing illegal, she just pissed off the wrong unelected lawyer by not bending over for him.

Disobeying the court is illegal. Now you know.

The court can't compel her to do something that is not required by KY law. Now you know.

The Kentucky marriage law is now unconstitutional. Of course the courts have the power to act against that law.

The courts also have an obligation to now uphold the civil rights of gays that have been confirmed by the SCOTUS ruling.

Sorry bubba, wrong again. I wasn't referring to KY marriage law, but the law that says who MAY issue a marriage license.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36473

 

[OKTexas]

Davis, unlike your dear leader is not violating any law, you provided proof of that, well unless a female under 18 is involved, how often is that the case? Maybe KY should change the law, then you would have an argument.

What she violated was a court order, that's why she's in jail...

A court order must be based in law, this one wasn't.

got to go.

It's based on a Supreme Court ruling, which is lawful...

Ky law says, except in rare circumstances, she may issue marriage licenses, not shall issue. According to Ky law she has an option, did the court pull a "shall issue" out of its ass?

Couples need a marriage license to marry in Kentucky. Marriage is a right. As county clerk Davis is a person you go to to exercise that right.

blah, blah, blah, not if her offices elects not to issue any marriage licenses, there are at least 119 locations to get one.

 

[OKTexas]

Right, for doing nothing illegal, she just pissed off the wrong unelected lawyer by not bending over for him.

Disobeying the court is illegal. Now you know.

The court can't compel her to do something that is not required by KY law. Now you know.

The Kentucky marriage law is now unconstitutional. Of course the courts have the power to act against that law.

The courts also have an obligation to now uphold the civil rights of gays that have been confirmed by the SCOTUS ruling.

Sorry bubba, wrong again. I wasn't referring to KY marriage law, but the law that says who MAY issue a marriage license.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36473

Yep, says if the female is 18 the license MAY be issued by any clerk. Doesn't say any clerk shall issue.

 

[chikenwing]

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[/QUOT.
Wow !!

 

[NYcarbineer]

What she violated was a court order, that's why she's in jail...

A court order must be based in law, this one wasn't.

got to go.

It's based on a Supreme Court ruling, which is lawful...

Ky law says, except in rare circumstances, she may issue marriage licenses, not shall issue. According to Ky law she has an option, did the court pull a "shall issue" out of its ass?

Couples need a marriage license to marry in Kentucky. Marriage is a right. As county clerk Davis is a person you go to to exercise that right.

blah, blah, blah, not if her offices elects not to issue any marriage licenses, there are at least 119 locations to get one.

And if one neighborhood says, we don't want black people living here, then black people should buy a house somewhere else,

correct?

 

[OKTexas]

A court order must be based in law, this one wasn't.

got to go.

It's based on a Supreme Court ruling, which is lawful...

Ky law says, except in rare circumstances, she may issue marriage licenses, not shall issue. According to Ky law she has an option, did the court pull a "shall issue" out of its ass?

Couples need a marriage license to marry in Kentucky. Marriage is a right. As county clerk Davis is a person you go to to exercise that right.

blah, blah, blah, not if her offices elects not to issue any marriage licenses, there are at least 119 locations to get one.

And if one neighborhood says, we don't want black people living here, then black people should buy a house somewhere else,

correct?

So you've ran out of all legitimate arguments and now result to deflection. Surrender noted.