Tennessee allows Government Officials to refuse to approve marriages they don’t agree with

[martybegan]

Yes it does
Equal protection under the law

If you officiate a wedding, you are representing the state

You are authorized by the State to witness, you aren't representing them.

If it was so, then Ministers couldn't officiate weddings.

 

[Failzero]

Yes it does
Equal protection under the law

If you officiate a wedding, you are representing the state

If you allow an invasion at the Southern Border your representing the State

 

[marvin martian]

Your friend can discriminate
A Government official can’t

Why do you want the government involved in marriage at all?

 

[White 6]

So they have to give up their religious beliefs entirely?

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The line is at the clerk. They are just issuing the document, not formalizing or solemnizing it as the officiant is.

What is with the left's need to force everyone to believe and act like they do OR ELSE?

I can tell this means a lot to you. I am surprised you have not moved to a state that allows discrimination by public officials in their office duties. Maybe you can get a law of this nature passed where you live.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Show us the law of a Red state that allows 12 year olds to marry. How many boys of 12 got married?

In some states in the US, minors can be allowed to marry with parental consent, with minimum ages ranging from 12-17 years old1. However, in California, Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, there are no minimum ages for minors to be allowed to marry with parental consent1.Children as young as 12 were granted marriage licenses in Alaska, Louisiana and South Carolina2. Thirteen-year-olds were given the green light to marry in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington2.Noblewomen were known to marry as young as 12 years of age3

 

[JLW]

I can tell this means a lot to you. I am surprised you have not moved to a state that allows discrimination by public officials in their office duties. Maybe you can get a law of this nature passed where you live.

If a notary or a state government official does not want to treat people equally, it is a problem of that individual and not the residents of that state. If you don't want to comply with the law, don't become a notary or work for the state. The TN law effectively allows discrimination. It is overbroad and vague and will undoubtedly be ruled unconstitutional in the near future.

 

[Kilroy2]

Gee that has so many loop holes that you can play basketball all day long.

So do government or public officials have the right to refuse ?

They are providing a public service to citizens

mark your calendar's for the court date

Discrimination

Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

It would work for individuals and businesses and the Supreme court has upheld it

So in reality this law has no effect except on public officials.

The Supreme court has already ruled that individuals and businesses can discriminate based on religious preferences

with a 6-3 decision in favor of private companies or businesses can refuse on religious grounds

State is now getting into the picture. Let's see where the court will go on this by opening the flood gates.

 

[rightwinger]

If you allow an invasion at the Southern Border your representing the State

Nice Diversion

Why don’t you talk about Hunter Biden’s Laptop next?

 

[martybegan]

I can tell this means a lot to you. I am surprised you have not moved to a state that allows discrimination by public officials in their office duties. Maybe you can get a law of this nature passed where you live.

Officiating weddings isn't usually anyone's official duty. It's why I'm OK with forcing clerks to issue the licenses regardless of their beliefs, because it is part of their official duties.

Unlike you I can draw the line somewhere. Your side evidently can't compromise.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do you want the government involved in marriage at all?

Because it is a binding legal contract

 

[martybegan]

Gee that has so many loop holes that you can play basketball all day long.

So do government or public officials have the right to refuse ?

They are providing a public service to citizens

mark your calendar's for the court date

Discrimination

Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

It would work for individuals and businesses and the Supreme court has upheld it

So in reality this law has no effect except on public officials.

The Supreme court has already ruled that individuals and businesses can discriminate based on religious preferences

with a 6-3 decision in favor of private companies or businesses can refuse on religious grounds

State is now getting into the picture

For one function, officiating weddings. Not issuing the licenses, officiating.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So a person can't be a mayor, governor or any other elected office at all if they don't bend the knee and agree to officiate same sex weddings?

Sounds like a 1st amendment violation to me.

No, No so. Officiating at weddings is not mandatory for any of those position, nor is it for judges. They can simply decline to marry anyone . They just can't discriminate

 

[martybegan]

No, No so. Officiating at weddings is not mandatory for any of those position, nor is it for judges. They can simply decline to marry anyone . They just can't discriminate

Why not?

Why should the be forced to officiate all weddings if they just want to do certain ones?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why do you want the government involved in marriage at all?

Describe exactly what marriage would look like without gove involvement

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you allow an invasion at the Southern Border your representing the State

But the fools who call it an invasion are intellectually and morally deviant. So normal people just laugh at you.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Why do you want the government involved in marriage at all?

No, not at all, but thats for another thread.

 

[Robert W]

In some states in the US, minors can be allowed to marry with parental consent, with minimum ages ranging from 12-17 years old1. However, in California, Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, there are no minimum ages for minors to be allowed to marry with parental consent1.Children as young as 12 were granted marriage licenses in Alaska, Louisiana and South Carolina2. Thirteen-year-olds were given the green light to marry in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington2.Noblewomen were known to marry as young as 12 years of age3

See, the original post did not mention with parents consent.

18 years of age

The general marriage age (lacking authorization for an exception, so without the ones with the minimum age at 16-17) is 18 years of age in all states except Nebraska, where the general marriage age is 19, and Mississippi, where the general marriage age is 21.

 

[Robert W]

Describe exactly what marriage would look like without gove involvement

Have you ever signed a contract to buy or rent or own or ??

Marriage is between the parties who marry. Not based on permission by the government.

 

[White 6]

So if you oppose same sex marriage you can't run for any government office. got it.

What you get and don't get seems tied to vocabulary shortcommings. There is a difference between "cannot" and "should not" regarding constitutional officers and their office duties.

 

[martybegan]

What you get and don't get seems tied to vocabulary shortcommings. There is a difference between "cannot" and "should not" regarding constitutional officers and their office duties.

What you are failing to see are the practical concerns involving forcing them to officiate or give up their office, or not even run for it. You are confusing issuing the license with officiating the marriage.