Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[Skylar]

Demonstrate how faghadist were being denied equal protection.

They want endorsement and forced servitude, not equality.

Again, bullshit. The only things that gays and lesbians are looking for is what the law requires: that they be issued marriage certificiates. Its your ilk that are using the State power to force them to abide your religious beliefs, establishing religion and denying them their rights.

Just do your jobs and there's no conflict. Its only when you try to use your office to COMPEL others to practice your religion that you run into problems.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death.

Oh, lovely. Threats of death and violence. You imbred hicks are as predictable as clockwork. If you can't treat gays like shit.....well, you'll just have to threaten and hurt them.

No one is threatening to hurt gays. Just being more understanding when they are hurt.

And let the backpedal begin. That's what you say now. This is what you said just a minute ago.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death

Sorry, thug. But we're not turning our people over to be killed by you, your ilk, Mexicans, Muslims or Martians. Your murder fantasies for gays and lesbians will remain that.

No one need be turned over. Gays are capable of attracting that kind of attention on their own. They do it all over the world.

And here we keep your ilk from playing out your murder fantasies. Dream all you want of all the horrible ways gays and lesbians would be murdered in your little fantasy. They're still Americans, still protected by our laws, and still beyond the reach of you and your ilk.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

That gay couple who was whipped with some kind of metal lash. Who could really blame the people who did that? They look at what's happening here and certainly don't want this in their country.

And again, thuggish threats of violence.

This is why you dipshits lost. Because Americans got to know gays and lesbians. They worked with them. They went to school with them. They attended PTA meetings with them. And they're just folks. Not better. Not worse. Just people.

And then there is the hateful, bigoted shit coming from your ilk....the thinly veiled threats of violence, the excuses and justification for the murder, assault and beating of gays and lesbians for no other reason than their sexual orientation.

It was you and your ilk that pushed public sentiment so powerful in favor of gays and lesbians. As your hateful rhetoric is so loathsome. And gays and lesbians are so.....unremarkable. Just folks.

We need Trump to target gays to be deported like wetbacks and 3rd worlders. It't time to purge this country of sodomites and bring it back to what this country was founded for, White people.

 

[OKTexas]

Freedom also isn't 5 lawyers using the conduct of a small minority to forcibly grant rights either.

The courts exist for exactly this reason. As its the rights of the minority are the one's that need protecting from the majority. The majority generally takes care of itself.

And don't bother rejecting the authority of the courts. If the courts override the will of the people of a state in a ruling you agree with, you laud them. Its only when you disagree that you reject the entire concept of a judiciary. And your agreement isn't a condition of legitimacy. The courts are just as authoritative when the say, protect religious freedom or gun rights as when when they recognize the right to same sex marriage.

Faghadist already enjoyed all the same rights as everyone of their ethnic origin, race, age and gender. Show me where they didn't, the law was consistent, they were denied nothing.

That's the exact same argument used in defense of interracial marriage bans. As it applied to both whites and blacks....so it must be 'fair'. Its a bullshit argument. The standards of the law themselves must be reasonable and constitutional. They must serve a legitimate state interest, they must serve a legitimate legislative end, and they have to have a rational reason. Gay marriage bans failed on all fronts.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court of the United States. The body that is, by design, supposed to interpret the constitution. You don't like it? Tough shit. Your State fought for slavery, for segregation, against abortion, for criminalizing sodomy........and those shit kicking chaw slawers can learn one more time why they're always on the wrong side of history.

Of course the court never ever gets anything wrong. LMAO

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

 

[Skylar]

That gay couple who was whipped with some kind of metal lash. Who could really blame the people who did that? They look at what's happening here and certainly don't want this in their country.

And again, thuggish threats of violence.

This is why you dipshits lost. Because Americans got to know gays and lesbians. They worked with them. They went to school with them. They attended PTA meetings with them. And they're just folks. Not better. Not worse. Just people.

And then there is the hateful, bigoted shit coming from your ilk....the thinly veiled threats of violence, the excuses and justification for the murder, assault and beating of gays and lesbians for no other reason than their sexual orientation.

It was you and your ilk that pushed public sentiment so powerful in favor of gays and lesbians. As your hateful rhetoric is so loathsome. And gays and lesbians are so.....unremarkable. Just folks.

We need Trump to target gays to be deported like wetbacks and 3rd worlders. It't time to purge this country of sodomites and bring it back to what this country was founded for, White people.

Even Trump isn't supporting your hateful shit regarding gays, Stormfront.

Better try David Duke again.

 

[Skylar]

The courts exist for exactly this reason. As its the rights of the minority are the one's that need protecting from the majority. The majority generally takes care of itself.

And don't bother rejecting the authority of the courts. If the courts override the will of the people of a state in a ruling you agree with, you laud them. Its only when you disagree that you reject the entire concept of a judiciary. And your agreement isn't a condition of legitimacy. The courts are just as authoritative when the say, protect religious freedom or gun rights as when when they recognize the right to same sex marriage.

That's the exact same argument used in defense of interracial marriage bans. As it applied to both whites and blacks....so it must be 'fair'. Its a bullshit argument. The standards of the law themselves must be reasonable and constitutional. They must serve a legitimate state interest, they must serve a legitimate legislative end, and they have to have a rational reason. Gay marriage bans failed on all fronts.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court of the United States. The body that is, by design, supposed to interpret the constitution. You don't like it? Tough shit. Your State fought for slavery, for segregation, against abortion, for criminalizing sodomy........and those shit kicking chaw slawers can learn one more time why they're always on the wrong side of history.

Of course the court never ever gets anything wrong. LMAO

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

 

[koshergrl]

There's nothing in the constitution about the 'right to self defense'. There is however, plenty about equal protection under the law. And that's one of the legal bases for same sex marriage.

And 'freedom of religion' is the freedom to practice your faith. Not the power to use the authority to the State to force other people to practice your faith. Your ilk can't comprehend that. Thankfully, the law can.

Demonstrate how faghadist were being denied equal protection.

They want endorsement and forced servitude, not equality.

Again, bullshit. The only things that gays and lesbians are looking for is what the law requires: that they be issued marriage certificiates. Its your ilk that are using the State power to force them to abide your religious beliefs, establishing religion and denying them their rights.

Just do your jobs and there's no conflict. Its only when you try to use your office to COMPEL others to practice your religion that you run into problems.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death.

Oh, lovely. Threats of death and violence. You imbred hicks are as predictable as clockwork. If you can't treat gays like shit.....well, you'll just have to threaten and hurt them.

No one is threatening to hurt gays. Just being more understanding when they are hurt.

And let the backpedal begin. That's what you say now. This is what you said just a minute ago.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death

Sorry, thug. But we're not turning our people over to be killed by you, your ilk, Mexicans, Muslims or Martians. Your murder fantasies for gays and lesbians will remain that.

Turning....wtf are you yammering about? Who said anything about turning you over? Is that a sick sexual come on or something?

 

[koshergrl]

Freedom also isn't 5 lawyers using the conduct of a small minority to forcibly grant rights either.

The courts exist for exactly this reason. As its the rights of the minority are the one's that need protecting from the majority. The majority generally takes care of itself.

And don't bother rejecting the authority of the courts. If the courts override the will of the people of a state in a ruling you agree with, you laud them. Its only when you disagree that you reject the entire concept of a judiciary. And your agreement isn't a condition of legitimacy. The courts are just as authoritative when the say, protect religious freedom or gun rights as when when they recognize the right to same sex marriage.

Faghadist already enjoyed all the same rights as everyone of their ethnic origin, race, age and gender. Show me where they didn't, the law was consistent, they were denied nothing.

That's the exact same argument used in defense of interracial marriage bans. As it applied to both whites and blacks....so it must be 'fair'. Its a bullshit argument. The standards of the law themselves must be reasonable and constitutional. They must serve a legitimate state interest, they must serve a legitimate legislative end, and they have to have a rational reason. Gay marriage bans failed on all fronts.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court of the United States. The body that is, by design, supposed to interpret the constitution. You don't like it? Tough shit. Your State fought for slavery, for segregation, against abortion, for criminalizing sodomy........and those shit kicking chaw slawers can learn one more time why they're always on the wrong side of history.

Of course the court never ever gets anything wrong. LMAO

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It didn't come, sicko. No court has the authority to act against the constitution. And we aren't obliged to knuckle under when they do. And we won't.

 

[OKTexas]

Of course the court never ever gets anything wrong. LMAO

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Only because one is an argument you can hide behind.
The truth is government employees, even elected officials, do not give up a single right under the BoR. To fire someone for refusing to follow an order that violates their religious beliefs is forbidden. Especially since the clerk was elected when same sex marriage was illegal.

Very funny, my holy book says gay people are evil so I won't do my job. And you can't fire me because the holy constitution says that's evil too. Now, where's my paycheck?

 

[koshergrl]

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

They don't have the authority to create law, period. But some of them don't let that stop them.

 

[koshergrl]

Only because one is an argument you can hide behind.
The truth is government employees, even elected officials, do not give up a single right under the BoR. To fire someone for refusing to follow an order that violates their religious beliefs is forbidden. Especially since the clerk was elected when same sex marriage was illegal.

Very funny, my holy book says gay people are evil so I won't do my job. And you can't fire me because the holy constitution says that's evil too. Now, where's my paycheck?

You shouldn't drink....you're incomprehensible.

 

[Kondor3]

.....Your offering us a half assed Sovereign Citizen argument. And those are legally baseless.

No, I'm playing on a little broader playing-field than Sovereign Citizen... I'm talking about The People as the ULTIMATE sovereignty.

No government, constitution, law or elected officials exist, without their consent.

Then you run headlong into the part of my post you conveniently omitted: Kim Davis is not 'the people'. She doesn't possess the authority to violate the constitution.

I never said she was, nor acted that way.

 

[Debra K]

You might want to read the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment again.

The freedom to practice your religion doesn't include the power to use State power to impose that religion on the unwilling and compel them to abide your beliefs. Especially in explicit defiance of the law and the constitution.

'Freedom' isn't the power to impose your will on the unwilling. Your entire conception of rights is a wasteland.

You don't get it, there is no religious compulsion or imposition, not when there are other alternatives readily available. No one is bound to get their license from any particular clerk, the license is a State license and can be gotten from any clerk in the State and can be exercised in any county in the State. Has anyone refused to register a completed license or has the State refused to issue a certificate of marriage?

No, you don't get it. Kim Davis doesn't get to establish a religious fiefdom in Rowan County. If she is not held accountable for her official misconduct, then others will be emboldened and will follow in her unlawful footsteps. If petty government officials can do whatever they want without consequences, then we are no longer a nation of laws and everyone's life, liberty, and property will be in peril.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to read the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment again.

The freedom to practice your religion doesn't include the power to use State power to impose that religion on the unwilling and compel them to abide your beliefs. Especially in explicit defiance of the law and the constitution.

'Freedom' isn't the power to impose your will on the unwilling. Your entire conception of rights is a wasteland.

You don't get it, there is no religious compulsion or imposition, not when there are other alternatives readily available. No one is bound to get their license from any particular clerk, the license is a State license and can be gotten from any clerk in the State and can be exercised in any county in the State. Has anyone refused to register a completed license or has the State refused to issue a certificate of marriage?

No, you don't get it. Kim Davis doesn't get to establish a religious fiefdom in Rowan County. If she is not held accountable for her official misconduct, then others will be emboldened and will follow in her unlawful footsteps. If petty government officials can do whatever they want without consequences, then we are no longer a nation of laws and everyone's life, liberty, and property will be in peril.

You don't get it, we are no longer a nation of laws and haven't been for decades. We have a president committing federal felonies daily, with no consequences and with many in the country applauding him, we have courts proclaiming discrimination where none existed. We have judges legislating form the bench, laws and the Constitution be damned, so don't give me "nation of laws" just because it's convenient. If the supreme court only used laws and the Constitution to make decisions, 5-4 decisions would be rare and not the norm. Judges are imposing by judicial fiat their vision of what America should be, not what the Constitution says it should be.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

.

Hi ProgressivePatriot
I agree that it is violating the law,
what I am saying is this could have been prevented in the first place.

Similar to not passing ACA mandates penalizing citizens with fines
so that if they don't comply then it CREATES a violation.

If the laws were written properly to begin with this wouldn't happen.

You act like it is impossible.
Well, I listed a number of ways the conflicts could be kept out of govt.
A. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers
B. Agreeing to word the laws so neutrally, they don't involve any reference
to the beliefs in conflict, yet still allow all people to exercise their own equally.
C. Agreeing to accept gay marriage even if it is against people's beliefs,
if references to God, crosses, Bibles, creation etc. is also allowed without
suing either even if it is against other people's beliefs.

It's not impossible. Treating it like it is
is part of the problem. That's like saying
"it is impossible to prevent abortion without banning it"
"it is impossible to avoid the death penalty without banning it"
"it is impossible to ensure gun safety without penalizing law abiding gun owners"
and then justifying one person or group's belief to write laws a certain way
just because THEY believe it is the only way. While others are screaming no it isn't.

That is what is wrong with the ACA mandates also,
which penalize citizens for not buying insurance
when there are other ways to provide for public health care
while keeping insurance an optional choice.

I agree that the violations are wrong,
what I am saying is to AVOID them in the first place
by working out the conflicts in advance.

TheProgressivePatriot you think it is unrealistic,
well, I'm saying it is LEGALLY NECESSSARY.

I have plenty of friends who have worked out these issues
without pushing it to this point. It is not only possible to work out difference
but Constitutionally NECESSARY to prevent violations on both sides.

This is unacceptable.

I find it unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs
because govt requires them or penalizes them, that just makes it worse!

Lastly TheProgressivePatriot
Do you or do you not make a distinction between
people who are TRULY being discriminatory and unfair against gay people
versus people who just don't believe in gay marriage and by their convictions
are not supposed to associate or do business with people who don't recognize this conflict.

Do you understand that not everyone is doing this for
unlawful discrimination reasons. There is a difference.

So as much as it is wrong to deprive others of their equal rights and access,
it is wrongful to condemn, punish or deprive liberties of people who don't have
any abusive, unlawful or ill intent BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS WHO DO.

The same way people who believe in gun rights want a SAY in how laws are written
so they don't overcorrect and impose too much, people who have beliefs against
gay marriage want to have equal say and representation in how laws are
written and implemented so they don't cross the line and impose too much the other way EITHER.

That is not unreasonable, that is just plain ETHICAL to respect
the beliefs and sides equally, or else REMOVE marriage from govt.

Marriage does not need to be through govt.
If need be, just the civil contracts can be handled through govt
and keep all the other language and terms managed locally, statewide or nationally through other means.

If people want their beliefs seriously enough, those people will pay the costs to separate them.

If they don't want to pay the costs, then they might be willing to compromise
and pool all the beliefs together under govt; and it may provide incentive to
offer to allow equal references to God, prolife, crosses, Bibles, creation, etc.
so people don't feel discriminated against for their beliefs while mandating other beliefs.

If we are going to remove OTHER references to beliefs not everyone shares,
it is only fair to remove references to gay marriage as another belief not everyone shares.

Either allow all references, or remove them all, or negotiate how to deal with the differences.
But imposing one way through govt, while others are SCREAMING isn't going to work.
Coercion does not work when it comes to people's inherent BELIEFS at stake on BOTH SIDES.

The only thing I have ever seen work is inclusion and mediation that respects
consent of all parties in an equally mutually agreed upon consensus.

Anything else is going to be contested and cause conflicts, where beliefs are involved.

Thinking this can be overridden by govt is against human nature.
Both sides will keep fighting to defend their interests until ALL
grievances and objections are addressed and resolved. That is human nature.

Nobody I know consents to govt overriding their beliefs!!!

You need to try to get focused and present ideas in a coherent way. You are all over the map with a lot of flowery and lofty language that leaves me wondering how it translates into pragmatic and workable solutions. Just one example of something that you said:

. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers

Will you please translate that into English? Can you explain how it would actually be implemented.? People will pay taxes according to their beliefs? Everyone will cover their own health care without government assistance from taxes. ?? Really?

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
The system of either paying for or crediting for health care through taxes,
can be handled by party-based administration.

Similar to how Vets go through their own VA to handle their health care benefits.
Why not have the Democrats and Republicans set up their own Health Administrations
and members can sign up, fund, participate, and democratically decide what terms they want to be under?

We could separate policies on gay marriage, abortion and prolife, etc. this way.

It is similar to when married couples AGREE what expenses go through their JOINT account,
and when they have personal expenses or projects they want to fund through SEPARATE private accounts
that the other partner does not have any part in.

Why not have SEPARATE tracks or accounts for programs that only ONE party supports but not the other;
and keep PUBLIC and GOVT funding and taxes for programs and policies that all parties agree on as central.

Not everything has to be done this way.
I would reserve it for just the most contentious unresolved issues of conflicting BELIEFS
that otherwise cause such backlash and bullying that the legal actions threaten the rights and beliefs of others.

For example, issues like:
* abortion funding and stem cell/embryonic research that not all people belief in
(alternatives can be offered in funding medical research and development in spiritual healing, for example)
* gay marriage and terms of benefits
* funding the death penalty vs. paying for life imprisonment
* funding war vs. funding benefits and care for Veterans, reconstruction and restitution for collateral damage as part of the military budget
* funding corporate or social welfare vs. funding microloans for business development and education
* mandates requiring paying private insurance companies or federal govt to run exchanges
vs. tax breaks for investing in building teaching hospitals and expanding medical education and internships
to provide public health services

 

[emilynghiem]

You might want to read the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment again.

The freedom to practice your religion doesn't include the power to use State power to impose that religion on the unwilling and compel them to abide your beliefs. Especially in explicit defiance of the law and the constitution.

'Freedom' isn't the power to impose your will on the unwilling. Your entire conception of rights is a wasteland.

You don't get it, there is no religious compulsion or imposition, not when there are other alternatives readily available. No one is bound to get their license from any particular clerk, the license is a State license and can be gotten from any clerk in the State and can be exercised in any county in the State. Has anyone refused to register a completed license or has the State refused to issue a certificate of marriage?

No, you don't get it. Kim Davis doesn't get to establish a religious fiefdom in Rowan County. If she is not held accountable for her official misconduct, then others will be emboldened and will follow in her unlawful footsteps. If petty government officials can do whatever they want without consequences, then we are no longer a nation of laws and everyone's life, liberty, and property will be in peril.

Dear Debra K:
This sounds a lot like the argument that the Justices on the Supreme Court
also don't have authority to establish a national religion for all people in all states.
I agree you have the right to oppose the opposite beliefs being established,
and likewise the people opposed who are arguing the SAME THING AGAINST gay marriage --
that nobody in govt has the authority to mandate or implement a faith-based policy.

That goes for BOTH sides. That's how messed up this whole scenario is.
Neither side should be passing or enforcing laws or rulings in ways
that violates the equal protection of rights, beliefs, and creeds of others.

You can think the Courts or Legislatures should be able to make such a decision;
but if the laws go the other way, and leave your beliefs out, you'd be arguing it is discriminatory
for the govt to do that, and you'd seek correction. Just like was done to correct the bias
when DOMA was passed, or bans on gay marriage were deemed unconstitutional.

Both sides are in the same boat. If both keep rowing in the opposite direction,
both stay stuck, wearing yourselves out going nowhere with this.

This demonstrates the wisdom in barring Govt from making laws that establish a religious belief or bias. In this case, there are beliefs on both sides, so it's causing a double-whammy catch-22.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

...Why not have the Democrats and Republicans set up their own Health Administrations and members can sign up, fund, participate, and democratically decide what terms they want to be under?

We could separate policies on gay marriage, abortion and prolife, etc. this way.....

I thought the south lost some 150 years ago but why not.

Split the US in two parts, one part run by the christian Taliban, gun nuts and the Ayn Rand disciples, the other part by the evil libruls.

Would be interesting to see which part would be more succesfull

 

[koshergrl]

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

.

Hi ProgressivePatriot
I agree that it is violating the law,
what I am saying is this could have been prevented in the first place.

Similar to not passing ACA mandates penalizing citizens with fines
so that if they don't comply then it CREATES a violation.

If the laws were written properly to begin with this wouldn't happen.

You act like it is impossible.
Well, I listed a number of ways the conflicts could be kept out of govt.
A. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers
B. Agreeing to word the laws so neutrally, they don't involve any reference
to the beliefs in conflict, yet still allow all people to exercise their own equally.
C. Agreeing to accept gay marriage even if it is against people's beliefs,
if references to God, crosses, Bibles, creation etc. is also allowed without
suing either even if it is against other people's beliefs.

It's not impossible. Treating it like it is
is part of the problem. That's like saying
"it is impossible to prevent abortion without banning it"
"it is impossible to avoid the death penalty without banning it"
"it is impossible to ensure gun safety without penalizing law abiding gun owners"
and then justifying one person or group's belief to write laws a certain way
just because THEY believe it is the only way. While others are screaming no it isn't.

That is what is wrong with the ACA mandates also,
which penalize citizens for not buying insurance
when there are other ways to provide for public health care
while keeping insurance an optional choice.

I agree that the violations are wrong,
what I am saying is to AVOID them in the first place
by working out the conflicts in advance.

TheProgressivePatriot you think it is unrealistic,
well, I'm saying it is LEGALLY NECESSSARY.

I have plenty of friends who have worked out these issues
without pushing it to this point. It is not only possible to work out difference
but Constitutionally NECESSARY to prevent violations on both sides.

This is unacceptable.

I find it unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs
because govt requires them or penalizes them, that just makes it worse!

Lastly TheProgressivePatriot
Do you or do you not make a distinction between
people who are TRULY being discriminatory and unfair against gay people
versus people who just don't believe in gay marriage and by their convictions
are not supposed to associate or do business with people who don't recognize this conflict.

Do you understand that not everyone is doing this for
unlawful discrimination reasons. There is a difference.

So as much as it is wrong to deprive others of their equal rights and access,
it is wrongful to condemn, punish or deprive liberties of people who don't have
any abusive, unlawful or ill intent BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS WHO DO.

The same way people who believe in gun rights want a SAY in how laws are written
so they don't overcorrect and impose too much, people who have beliefs against
gay marriage want to have equal say and representation in how laws are
written and implemented so they don't cross the line and impose too much the other way EITHER.

That is not unreasonable, that is just plain ETHICAL to respect
the beliefs and sides equally, or else REMOVE marriage from govt.

Marriage does not need to be through govt.
If need be, just the civil contracts can be handled through govt
and keep all the other language and terms managed locally, statewide or nationally through other means.

If people want their beliefs seriously enough, those people will pay the costs to separate them.

If they don't want to pay the costs, then they might be willing to compromise
and pool all the beliefs together under govt; and it may provide incentive to
offer to allow equal references to God, prolife, crosses, Bibles, creation, etc.
so people don't feel discriminated against for their beliefs while mandating other beliefs.

If we are going to remove OTHER references to beliefs not everyone shares,
it is only fair to remove references to gay marriage as another belief not everyone shares.

Either allow all references, or remove them all, or negotiate how to deal with the differences.
But imposing one way through govt, while others are SCREAMING isn't going to work.
Coercion does not work when it comes to people's inherent BELIEFS at stake on BOTH SIDES.

The only thing I have ever seen work is inclusion and mediation that respects
consent of all parties in an equally mutually agreed upon consensus.

Anything else is going to be contested and cause conflicts, where beliefs are involved.

Thinking this can be overridden by govt is against human nature.
Both sides will keep fighting to defend their interests until ALL
grievances and objections are addressed and resolved. That is human nature.

Nobody I know consents to govt overriding their beliefs!!!

You need to try to get focused and present ideas in a coherent way. You are all over the map with a lot of flowery and lofty language that leaves me wondering how it translates into pragmatic and workable solutions. Just one example of something that you said:

. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers

Will you please translate that into English? Can you explain how it would actually be implemented.? People will pay taxes according to their beliefs? Everyone will cover their own health care without government assistance from taxes. ?? Really?

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
The system of either paying for or crediting for health care through taxes,
can be handled by party-based administration.

Similar to how Vets go through their own VA to handle their health care benefits.
Why not have the Democrats and Republicans set up their own Health Administrations
and members can sign up, fund, participate, and democratically decide what terms they want to be under?

We could separate policies on gay marriage, abortion and prolife, etc. this way.

It is similar to when married couples AGREE what expenses go through their JOINT account,
and when they have personal expenses or projects they want to fund through SEPARATE private accounts
that the other partner does not have any part in.

Why not have SEPARATE tracks or accounts for programs that only ONE party supports but not the other;
and keep PUBLIC and GOVT funding and taxes for programs and policies that all parties agree on as central.

Not everything has to be done this way.
I would reserve it for just the most contentious unresolved issues of conflicting BELIEFS
that otherwise cause such backlash and bullying that the legal actions threaten the rights and beliefs of others.

For example, issues like:
* abortion funding and stem cell/embryonic research that not all people belief in
(alternatives can be offered in funding medical research and development in spiritual healing, for example)
* gay marriage and terms of benefits
* funding the death penalty vs. paying for life imprisonment
* funding war vs. funding benefits and care for Veterans, reconstruction and restitution for collateral damage as part of the military budget
* funding corporate or social welfare vs. funding microloans for business development and education
* mandates requiring paying private insurance companies or federal govt to run exchanges
vs. tax breaks for investing in building teaching hospitals and expanding medical education and internships
to provide public health services

Ha that is BRILLIANT! Unfortunately, Dem systems would quickly go bankrupt and they would find a way to blame us, then pay their way.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

.

Hi ProgressivePatriot
I agree that it is violating the law,
what I am saying is this could have been prevented in the first place.

Similar to not passing ACA mandates penalizing citizens with fines
so that if they don't comply then it CREATES a violation.

If the laws were written properly to begin with this wouldn't happen.

You act like it is impossible.
Well, I listed a number of ways the conflicts could be kept out of govt.
A. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers
B. Agreeing to word the laws so neutrally, they don't involve any reference
to the beliefs in conflict, yet still allow all people to exercise their own equally.
C. Agreeing to accept gay marriage even if it is against people's beliefs,
if references to God, crosses, Bibles, creation etc. is also allowed without
suing either even if it is against other people's beliefs.

It's not impossible. Treating it like it is
is part of the problem. That's like saying
"it is impossible to prevent abortion without banning it"
"it is impossible to avoid the death penalty without banning it"
"it is impossible to ensure gun safety without penalizing law abiding gun owners"
and then justifying one person or group's belief to write laws a certain way
just because THEY believe it is the only way. While others are screaming no it isn't.

That is what is wrong with the ACA mandates also,
which penalize citizens for not buying insurance
when there are other ways to provide for public health care
while keeping insurance an optional choice.

I agree that the violations are wrong,
what I am saying is to AVOID them in the first place
by working out the conflicts in advance.

TheProgressivePatriot you think it is unrealistic,
well, I'm saying it is LEGALLY NECESSSARY.

I have plenty of friends who have worked out these issues
without pushing it to this point. It is not only possible to work out difference
but Constitutionally NECESSARY to prevent violations on both sides.

This is unacceptable.

I find it unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs
because govt requires them or penalizes them, that just makes it worse!

Lastly TheProgressivePatriot
Do you or do you not make a distinction between
people who are TRULY being discriminatory and unfair against gay people
versus people who just don't believe in gay marriage and by their convictions
are not supposed to associate or do business with people who don't recognize this conflict.

Do you understand that not everyone is doing this for
unlawful discrimination reasons. There is a difference.

So as much as it is wrong to deprive others of their equal rights and access,
it is wrongful to condemn, punish or deprive liberties of people who don't have
any abusive, unlawful or ill intent BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS WHO DO.

The same way people who believe in gun rights want a SAY in how laws are written
so they don't overcorrect and impose too much, people who have beliefs against
gay marriage want to have equal say and representation in how laws are
written and implemented so they don't cross the line and impose too much the other way EITHER.

That is not unreasonable, that is just plain ETHICAL to respect
the beliefs and sides equally, or else REMOVE marriage from govt.

Marriage does not need to be through govt.
If need be, just the civil contracts can be handled through govt
and keep all the other language and terms managed locally, statewide or nationally through other means.

If people want their beliefs seriously enough, those people will pay the costs to separate them.

If they don't want to pay the costs, then they might be willing to compromise
and pool all the beliefs together under govt; and it may provide incentive to
offer to allow equal references to God, prolife, crosses, Bibles, creation, etc.
so people don't feel discriminated against for their beliefs while mandating other beliefs.

If we are going to remove OTHER references to beliefs not everyone shares,
it is only fair to remove references to gay marriage as another belief not everyone shares.

Either allow all references, or remove them all, or negotiate how to deal with the differences.
But imposing one way through govt, while others are SCREAMING isn't going to work.
Coercion does not work when it comes to people's inherent BELIEFS at stake on BOTH SIDES.

The only thing I have ever seen work is inclusion and mediation that respects
consent of all parties in an equally mutually agreed upon consensus.

Anything else is going to be contested and cause conflicts, where beliefs are involved.

Thinking this can be overridden by govt is against human nature.
Both sides will keep fighting to defend their interests until ALL
grievances and objections are addressed and resolved. That is human nature.

Nobody I know consents to govt overriding their beliefs!!!

You need to try to get focused and present ideas in a coherent way. You are all over the map with a lot of flowery and lofty language that leaves me wondering how it translates into pragmatic and workable solutions. Just one example of something that you said:

. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers

Will you please translate that into English? Can you explain how it would actually be implemented.? People will pay taxes according to their beliefs? Everyone will cover their own health care without government assistance from taxes. ?? Really?

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
The system of either paying for or crediting for health care through taxes,
can be handled by party-based administration.

Similar to how Vets go through their own VA to handle their health care benefits.
Why not have the Democrats and Republicans set up their own Health Administrations
and members can sign up, fund, participate, and democratically decide what terms they want to be under?

We could separate policies on gay marriage, abortion and prolife, etc. this way.

It is similar to when married couples AGREE what expenses go through their JOINT account,
and when they have personal expenses or projects they want to fund through SEPARATE private accounts
that the other partner does not have any part in.

Why not have SEPARATE tracks or accounts for programs that only ONE party supports but not the other;
and keep PUBLIC and GOVT funding and taxes for programs and policies that all parties agree on as central.

Not everything has to be done this way.
I would reserve it for just the most contentious unresolved issues of conflicting BELIEFS
that otherwise cause such backlash and bullying that the legal actions threaten the rights and beliefs of others.

For example, issues like:
* abortion funding and stem cell/embryonic research that not all people belief in
(alternatives can be offered in funding medical research and development in spiritual healing, for example)
* gay marriage and terms of benefits
* funding the death penalty vs. paying for life imprisonment
* funding war vs. funding benefits and care for Veterans, reconstruction and restitution for collateral damage as part of the military budget
* funding corporate or social welfare vs. funding microloans for business development and education
* mandates requiring paying private insurance companies or federal govt to run exchanges
vs. tax breaks for investing in building teaching hospitals and expanding medical education and internships
to provide public health services

Why don't we just go back to having slave states and free states.? All of these other things will most likely fall into place along those same lines.

Let's try an exercise. Since this thread is about same sex marriage in the great state of Texas, where it is still a hot issue, what would your system look like there, in concrete, operational and practical day to day reality? Please be very specific as to how conflict can be avoided and how everybody can be accommodated/

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not when there are less restrictive means to meet the requirement. Hint, you little fuckers won't be allowed to destroy the lives of everyone who disagrees with you. Remember pendulums swing both ways.

You little fuckers, OK, will obey the law. You will not destroy lives any more. You don't have the power. And neither does the clerk under the 1st Amendment. She can believe anything she wants. But she cannot enforce her religious opinion in her official role on others.