Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[Seawytch]

He lost...TX clerks are doing their jobs despite what the lawless Cruz told them to do.

A few KY clerks are willfully disobeying the law.

You support illegals, you support your dear leaders executive samnesty and have the gall to call Cruz, expressing an opinion, lawless. Isn't that just a tad bit hypocritical?

I support changing the law, not breaking it. Cruz supports breaking it.

Evidently you don't, as I posted early in the thread, there is no law in TX requiring county clerks to abandon their religious beliefs to issue SSM licenses. The AG said folks can go to a different clerk, simple isn't it.

No, they can't "go to a different clerk" and yes they must issue the licenses. You need to catch up with current events.

You can get a marriage license from any clerk in the State, you can go elsewhere.

Nope. They get to go to any clerks office in the country. Those public servants that choose to abdicate the duties of their positions will suffer the consequences.

County Clerk in East Texas Resigns Over Gay Marriage Ruling NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Hood County clerk s refusal to issue same-sex marriage license costs taxpayers 43 000 Dallas Morning News

 

[JakeStarkey]

The County Clerk is going to pay a very stiff price for willful obstinate disobedience.

 

[Skylar]

She was hired to issue marriage licenses to those legally allowed to marry.

Link? You've seen her contract?

Go **** yourself. Her job is clerk. Her duties are set by statute. There is no "contract"; there is a statute that describes the duties of a clerk.

Dear paddymurphy The Rabbi
If two wrongs don't make a right, then 3, 4 or more wrongs don't either.
The original problem is the legislators and judiciary didn't do their jobs and keep to
the Constitutional contract to protect all beliefs equally. Taking sides doesn't protect the
beliefs of the people with the other beliefs. They never ORDERED or formed a consensus
on the law which is what would be necessary to prevent these violations back and forth,
now we have both sides whose rights are violated because we are in a catch-22,
with both religious beliefs, rights to equality under law, and political beliefs violated left and right.

Had the judges and legislators worked out the conflicts this would not happen.
The judges didn't do their full job, and dumped it back on the people to sort out.
In the meantime, this clerk didn't do her job either.
Similar to how Rosa Parks didn't follow the law that was biased and messed up to begin with.

Either way, even before the issue of gay marriage came up,
marriage laws delved into personal matters and was overreaching by the state.
This has always been a problem, with the state intervening in marriage and child custody
when we give govt this authority. It just wasn't contested to this degree until gay marriage
was added and went against people's beliefs. Similar to denying gay marriage was biased
and caused a conflict. Marriage beliefs are personal and this is what is going to happen,
sooner or later.

The judges didn't resolve the Constitutional issues and how to accommodate all beliefs
equally to prevent discrimination by creed, but passed the buck back to the people.
Why? Because marriage is a personal decision that belongs to the people to begin with.
Had we the people resolved our own issues, this wouldn't have escalated to federal govt
who shouldn't have a say in our personal affairs and beliefs anyway. It isn't the judges job
to decide for us, so that's why the process keeps failing through govt. Taking sides is going to continue violating the beliefs of one side or the other because issues of BELIEFS don't belong in govt at all.

Go back on your meds.

Ppbbfftt!!! If you can't keep up with me, Paddycakes, or where the
country is going with recognizing political beliefs as equal under law, then that's your problem not mine.
Meds will not solve the problem. We need to address the conflicts DIRECTLY
not suppress or blame the symptoms on each other. Personal attacks just add more distractions.
What, are you afraid of addressing the issues directly?
They exist, so why not accept the fact people don't agree and deal with that REALITY.
If you can't handle reality, and I can, then who is emotionally struggling here?
Man up, this ride is heading for Equal Justice Under Law and it is intense.

Emily,

You're working under numerous false assumptions. First, that all beliefs are equally valid. They're not. Second, that all law should be the product of consensus. It isn't. There's going to be disagreement. Law is the product of the majority view, bound by individual rights. Within those boundaries, the majority sets the rule. That's democracy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is illegal to fire someone over their religious beliefs. First Amendment and all that.

How about simply firing her because she refuses to do the job that's she's paid for?

Sure, as Rosa Parks was jailed for violating a messed up law. That is the consequence
of civil disobedience. Even Dr. King ended up in jail and was criticized by fellow ministers
who saw breaking the law as negative and not obeying civil authority. This does happen.

In this case, the rulings and laws are messed up on both sides.
If they support gay marriage they violate beliefs of opponents who don't approve of those beliefs endorsed by the state; if they deny gay marriage they violate the equal protection and free exercise of beliefs of those who do believe in marriage equality. Either way it is a catch-22 because both sides' beliefs are equal under law.
The Judiciary and the legislators before them messed up by FAILING to recognize both the religious beliefs and the political beliefs at stake here, that all are equal in the eyes of the law. Big fat FAIL and everyone's paying.

I seems that you are always trying to see both sides of the issue and to find ways to accommodate everyone. While that is commendable it is often not realistic or appropriate to do so. Sometimes wrong is just wrong. This is not a matter of civil disobedience to protest an unjust law. It’s a matter of hiding behind the claim of religious freedom in order to discriminate. I have to wonder how many marriage licenses she issued to people who were previously married. Isn’t divorce also against here religion. ? It represents the height of hypocrisy.

The constitution protects the free exercise of religion. All freedoms have their limitations and end where ones behavior in the name of the exercise of that freedom infringes on the rights of others. In addition, religious freedom has no greater value than other freedoms.

The lawmakers and the judiciary did not “mess up” in any way. The clerk still has her religious beliefs in tack and none can take that away from here. She is free to liver HER life according to those beliefs but so is everyone else, including those who believe-on religious or any grounds – should be allowed to marry.


You might want to consider this:

1. Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice. 2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

.

 

[OKTexas]

You support illegals, you support your dear leaders executive samnesty and have the gall to call Cruz, expressing an opinion, lawless. Isn't that just a tad bit hypocritical?

I support changing the law, not breaking it. Cruz supports breaking it.

Evidently you don't, as I posted early in the thread, there is no law in TX requiring county clerks to abandon their religious beliefs to issue SSM licenses. The AG said folks can go to a different clerk, simple isn't it.

No, they can't "go to a different clerk" and yes they must issue the licenses. You need to catch up with current events.

You can get a marriage license from any clerk in the State, you can go elsewhere.

Nope. They get to go to any clerks office in the country. Those public servants that choose to abdicate the duties of their positions will suffer the consequences.

County Clerk in East Texas Resigns Over Gay Marriage Ruling NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Hood County clerk s refusal to issue same-sex marriage license costs taxpayers 43 000 Dallas Morning News

Length Marriage License is Valid Once you have received a marriage license from the state of Texas it is only valid for 30 days. Also, the license can only be used within the State of Texas.

http://sandyoaksranch.com/marriagelaws.pdf

You can get a license anywhere in the State and it must be used within the State. It is filed in the County where the wedding occurs. It's a State license, not a county license.

 

[The Rabbi]

You support illegals, you support your dear leaders executive samnesty and have the gall to call Cruz, expressing an opinion, lawless. Isn't that just a tad bit hypocritical?

I support changing the law, not breaking it. Cruz supports breaking it.

Evidently you don't, as I posted early in the thread, there is no law in TX requiring county clerks to abandon their religious beliefs to issue SSM licenses. The AG said folks can go to a different clerk, simple isn't it.

No, they can't "go to a different clerk" and yes they must issue the licenses. You need to catch up with current events.

You can get a marriage license from any clerk in the State, you can go elsewhere.

Nope. They get to go to any clerks office in the country. Those public servants that choose to abdicate the duties of their positions will suffer the consequences.

County Clerk in East Texas Resigns Over Gay Marriage Ruling NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Hood County clerk s refusal to issue same-sex marriage license costs taxpayers 43 000 Dallas Morning News

You cannot make people suffer for their religious convictions. This isnt Iran, as much as you want it to be.

 

[Skylar]

I support changing the law, not breaking it. Cruz supports breaking it.

Evidently you don't, as I posted early in the thread, there is no law in TX requiring county clerks to abandon their religious beliefs to issue SSM licenses. The AG said folks can go to a different clerk, simple isn't it.

No, they can't "go to a different clerk" and yes they must issue the licenses. You need to catch up with current events.

You can get a marriage license from any clerk in the State, you can go elsewhere.

Nope. They get to go to any clerks office in the country. Those public servants that choose to abdicate the duties of their positions will suffer the consequences.

County Clerk in East Texas Resigns Over Gay Marriage Ruling NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Hood County clerk s refusal to issue same-sex marriage license costs taxpayers 43 000 Dallas Morning News

You cannot make people suffer for their religious convictions. This isnt Iran, as much as you want it to be.

So a Muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia, you'd be cool with that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard

Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to rain on the parade of Texas citizens celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country—it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

Obviously not.

 

[Seawytch]

I support changing the law, not breaking it. Cruz supports breaking it.

Evidently you don't, as I posted early in the thread, there is no law in TX requiring county clerks to abandon their religious beliefs to issue SSM licenses. The AG said folks can go to a different clerk, simple isn't it.

No, they can't "go to a different clerk" and yes they must issue the licenses. You need to catch up with current events.

You can get a marriage license from any clerk in the State, you can go elsewhere.

Nope. They get to go to any clerks office in the country. Those public servants that choose to abdicate the duties of their positions will suffer the consequences.

County Clerk in East Texas Resigns Over Gay Marriage Ruling NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Hood County clerk s refusal to issue same-sex marriage license costs taxpayers 43 000 Dallas Morning News

Length Marriage License is Valid Once you have received a marriage license from the state of Texas it is only valid for 30 days. Also, the license can only be used within the State of Texas.

http://sandyoaksranch.com/marriagelaws.pdf

You can get a license anywhere in the State and it must be used within the State. It is filed in the County where the wedding occurs. It's a State license, not a county license.

So? When you are employed by the state, you don't get to play the "I won't serve "those people" crap. If you can't do your job because of your religious beliefs, it's time for a new job.

That's what we'd tell a Muslim that didn't want to issue licenses to Christians.

 

[paddymurphy]

I support changing the law, not breaking it. Cruz supports breaking it.

Evidently you don't, as I posted early in the thread, there is no law in TX requiring county clerks to abandon their religious beliefs to issue SSM licenses. The AG said folks can go to a different clerk, simple isn't it.

No, they can't "go to a different clerk" and yes they must issue the licenses. You need to catch up with current events.

You can get a marriage license from any clerk in the State, you can go elsewhere.

Nope. They get to go to any clerks office in the country. Those public servants that choose to abdicate the duties of their positions will suffer the consequences.

County Clerk in East Texas Resigns Over Gay Marriage Ruling NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Hood County clerk s refusal to issue same-sex marriage license costs taxpayers 43 000 Dallas Morning News

You cannot make people suffer for their religious convictions. This isnt Iran, as much as you want it to be.

Suffer? By doing the simple task of giving a form to two people?

 

[Syriusly]

. Even Kim Davis, the elected official, could have assigned the duty of issuing marriage licenses to qualified applicants to one of her 6 deputy clerks. Instead, she instituted an unconstitutional official policy that gives supremacy to her own personal religious beliefs.

And that, right there, is where even a semblance of 'religious freedom' just disintegrates. She has no only refused to issue the licenses, she's forbidden anyone else in her office from doing so. She's imposing her religious beliefs on unwilling people using the power of the State.

Twice.

Excellent.

The Supreme Court was wrong to land on the side of sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).

The People will fix that.

Conservatives sure do want Big Brother policing our bedrooms again so that they can mandate exactly what kind of sex they will approve of.

Conservatives sure do want Big Brother policing our bedrooms again so that they can mandate exactly what kind of sex they will approve of

 

[Syriusly]

Except that's not what she's doing. She's intentionally not doing the job she swore an oath to do. She should be fired...just like the Muslim that doesn't issue marriage licenses to infidels.

Wrong. She is issuing marriage licenses. To straight couples. Which is what she was hired to do.

She was hired to issue marriage licenses to those legally allowed to marry.

Link? You've seen her contract?

It's a Class A misdemeanor in Kentucky — first-degree official misconduct — if "a public servant ... refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office."

In Kentucky, misdemeanors are crimes that are punishable by up to 12 months in county or local jail.

In Nazi Germany it was a crime to do business with Jews.
Your pount?

I think his point is that you can't tell the difference between telling a clerk to do her job in the United States- and Nazi Germany pogroms against Jews.

 

[Debra K]

Wrong. She is issuing marriage licenses. To straight couples. Which is what she was hired to do.

She was hired to issue marriage licenses to those legally allowed to marry.

Link? You've seen her contract?

It's a Class A misdemeanor in Kentucky — first-degree official misconduct — if "a public servant ... refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office."

In Kentucky, misdemeanors are crimes that are punishable by up to 12 months in county or local jail.

In Nazi Germany it was a crime to do business with Jews.
Your pount?

Her point is this ***** for Jesus should have already been fired, for not obeying the laws of this nation and not doing her goddamned job. Since she is breaking the law when they do fire her, she won't get dime one from the county, including unemployment. Just watch, a bit longer...

Because Kim Davis is an elected official, she cannot be "fired". She can, however, be removed from elected office for official misconduct through impeachment procedures. The state legislature may take action to impeach her, but it is not scheduled to convene until January 2016.

In Employment Div. v. Smith, citing [URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html']Reynolds v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote that requiring a religious exemption under the First Amendment to generally applicable laws “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”[/URL]

[URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html'][URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html']
[URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html']In this nation, we have many thousands of state and local government officials who are sworn to uphold the law. If these petty government officers were permitted to ignore the law and force their personal religious beliefs upon the public they serve, then we would no longer be a nation of laws.[/URL][/URL][/URL]

 

[Kondor3]

...Conservatives sure do want Big Brother policing our bedrooms again so that they can mandate exactly what kind of sex they will approve of

Nahhhhh... Conservatives just don't want the United States legitimizing and mainstreaming sexual deviancy and perversity (homosexuality).

 

[Debra K]

She was hired to issue marriage licenses to those legally allowed to marry.

Link? You've seen her contract?

It's a Class A misdemeanor in Kentucky — first-degree official misconduct — if "a public servant ... refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office."

In Kentucky, misdemeanors are crimes that are punishable by up to 12 months in county or local jail.

In Nazi Germany it was a crime to do business with Jews.
Your pount?

Her point is this ***** for Jesus should have already been fired, for not obeying the laws of this nation and not doing her goddamned job. Since she is breaking the law when they do fire her, she won't get dime one from the county, including unemployment. Just watch, a bit longer...

It is illegal to fire someone over their religious beliefs. First Amendment and all that.

If she was an employee rather than an elected official, then her employer would have an obligation under Title VII to provide reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs so long as her employer was not substantially burdened. An example of a reasonable accommodation might be assigning the duty to another employee who did not object. But an elected official is NOT an employee. An elected official's personal religious beliefs are not superior to the law of the land. An elected official does not have a "First Amendment" right to promulgate an official policy that imposes her religious beliefs on the people she serves.

 

[Debra K]

Arrest her. Emily, the clerk's belief is not protected under the Constitution.

The clerk's beliefs (i.e., that marriage is between a man and a woman) are protected ... she has the right to believe whatever she wants. It's her CONDUCT (noncompliance with the law) that is not protected.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Arrest her. Emily, the clerk's belief is not protected under the Constitution.

The clerk's beliefs (i.e., that marriage is between a man and a woman) are protected ... she has the right to believe whatever she wants. It's her CONDUCT (noncompliance with the law) that is not protected.

That hasn't been decided just yet, the 6th Circuit Court is hearing the appeal

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Arrest her. Emily, the clerk's belief is not protected under the Constitution.

The clerk's beliefs (i.e., that marriage is between a man and a woman) are protected ... she has the right to believe whatever she wants. It's her CONDUCT (noncompliance with the law) that is not protected.

That hasn't been decided just yet, the 6th Circuit Court is hearing the appeal

Do you have a link to that case?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Arrest her. Emily, the clerk's belief is not protected under the Constitution.

The clerk's beliefs (i.e., that marriage is between a man and a woman) are protected ... she has the right to believe whatever she wants. It's her CONDUCT (noncompliance with the law) that is not protected.

That hasn't been decided just yet, the 6th Circuit Court is hearing the appeal

Do you have a link to that case?

U.S. judge stays order for Kentucky clerk on gay marriage licenses - Yahoo News

 

[Seawytch]

Arrest her. Emily, the clerk's belief is not protected under the Constitution.

The clerk's beliefs (i.e., that marriage is between a man and a woman) are protected ... she has the right to believe whatever she wants. It's her CONDUCT (noncompliance with the law) that is not protected.

That hasn't been decided just yet, the 6th Circuit Court is hearing the appeal

Yes, it was decided. She's appealing the decision, but it was decided.

She's gonna lose....again.