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

[PaintMyHouse]

She hasn't resigned her position.

And that has what to do with my questions?

She was elected and took an oath of office to be a county clerk that in the state of Kentucky is where couples go to exercise their constitutional right to be married.

She is now denying people their constitutional right.

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

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

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

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

Disobeying the court is illegal. Now you know.

 

[OKTexas]

The question is bogus, it's a matter of conscience, not religion.

Is there a conscience clause in the Constitution that allows an atheist to violate the rights of others if his conscience so dictates?

Not taking an action can never be a violation of anyones rights. Also an atheist has just as much right to claim conscientious objector status as a Quaker.

con·science
[ˈkänCHəns]

NOUN

1. an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior:

Notice there's no mention of religion in the definition.

So religion is just a smokescreen.

Call it anything you want, you will anyway, she told the judge she wasn't issuing marriage licenses as a matter of conscience. A judge is refusing to perform faghadist marriages, I don't see the feds dragging him into court.

No, she didn't. She clearly made it a religious issue. Please, at least have a rudimentary understanding of the facts of the case before you start spouting off about it.

The conscience is informed by many different things, the fact that hers might be religion doesn't alter the fact the are trying to force her to act in a manner contrary to her conscience. She isn't violating KY law and by not issuing any marriage licenses, she isn't breaking any federal law.

 

[OKTexas]

But you don't care that he's violating the law by issuing the work permits, then in post #73 you started giving the same reasons Kim Davis did not issuing marriage licenses. Haven't you been arguing against that kind of reasoning this whole thread?

I would prefer that both of them obey the letter and the spirit of the law, in the final analysis. One is being fought over, and the other is a done deal. If you are for Law and Order, you don't like Obama's actions but you don't like Davis's either? His could be called breaking the "letter of the law" but not the spirit, and hers breaking "spirit of the law" but not the letter, in most cases. As the Executive, has a great deal more breathing room than she does, and she has a couple of ways out, and isn't exercising them...

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

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

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

got to go.

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

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

 

[OKTexas]

And that has what to do with my questions?

She was elected and took an oath of office to be a county clerk that in the state of Kentucky is where couples go to exercise their constitutional right to be married.

She is now denying people their constitutional right.

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

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

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

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

Disobeying the court is illegal. Now you know.

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

 

[OKTexas]

Broken record, she hasn't discriminated against anyone, the feds have no business meddling in State matters.

She's a marriage license issuer in an official capacity. Marriage is a constitutionally protected right in this country.

States cannot ignore the Constitution.

She may issue marriage licenses in her official capacity, is there a law saying she must do so? Or is the court going to invent one?

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

Even with "shall issue", she has a problem. And since by not issuing she is denying the civil rights of the people who pay her salary, she also has a problem.

The law does not require her to issue the license unless the female resides in her county and is under 18yoa. And it's up to the people of her county to decide if they approve of her job performance or not. That's what election are for.

We don't have mob rule here. And if it was necessary to find a female under 18 with permission to marry, who couldn't get a license there because of Davis's stance, which wouldn't be hard, she'd be fucked anyway.

I think that part of KY law would be found unconstitutional if challenged, why does it only apply to underage females, isn't that against the 14th amendment of equal protection, females are being discriminated against, by a law that only applies to them.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

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

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

 

[Silhouette]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law....an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status, despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law....an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status, despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

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

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

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where y'all lefties been? Sodomy has always been an abomination and a sin according to Christian doctrine.The Supreme Court decision didn't change anything. Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they included it in the 1st Amendment. Why can't the sissies have the same consideration for the beliefs of Christians as they do for Muslems and merely go down the road and find an agnostic clerk?

Then again it's freedom to practice your religion, NOT freedom to impose your religion upon others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She was elected and took an oath of office to be a county clerk that in the state of Kentucky is where couples go to exercise their constitutional right to be married.

She is now denying people their constitutional right.

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

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

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

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

Disobeying the court is illegal. Now you know.

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

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would prefer that both of them obey the letter and the spirit of the law, in the final analysis. One is being fought over, and the other is a done deal. If you are for Law and Order, you don't like Obama's actions but you don't like Davis's either? His could be called breaking the "letter of the law" but not the spirit, and hers breaking "spirit of the law" but not the letter, in most cases. As the Executive, has a great deal more breathing room than she does, and she has a couple of ways out, and isn't exercising them...

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

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

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

got to go.

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

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once you make religion a get out of jail free card for every law on the books you end up with chaos.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law....an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status, despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

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

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

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

Yes if they do so passively, like Kim Davis and the bakers in Oregon. If they hurt no one, then they can object. Hurt feelings don't count.

Here's why:

Heirarchy of law:

Supreme Law of the Land: US Constitution.

1st Amendment: Freedom of exercize of religion, freedom of speech.

Problem for gays: "Gay" is a waffling behavior, not a static race. Keep that in the front of your mind because it is pivotal here.

Kim Davis is doing exactly what Jude 1 of the Bible tells her she must do or face eternity in the pit of fire. Jude 1 is a funny passage. It isn't ambivalent, it's very specific and dredges up an ancient Biblical law that God seems apparently fixated upon preserving even into the New Testament through the words of Jesus. Jude was Jesus's daily companion and in a position to really know what Jesus had in mind here. Jude said that Jesus taught "compassion" for gays, "making a difference" reaching out to them as individuals.

However, Jude 1 was VERY CLEAR on making a distinct line between that and promoting their movement en masse as a new social trend. There a Christian must draw a very vivid line and refuse. To not do so isn't just a boo boo that your local priest can remedy at confession. It is a massive transgression against God so antithetical to God's plan that the transgressor's immortal soul is doomed forever.

When it comes to behaviors gaining foothold as a cult, God is pretty cut and dry on the remedy. Kim Davis, the bakers in Oregon and many others doing the same thing as Christians have made exactly the right choice. Putting someone in jail because they hurt someone's feelings is a doubled-edged sword that slices the Constitution to ribbons.

Because Kim Davis went to jail for her passive refusal to disobey God's very clear words on this subject of a homosexual cult gaining ground, means that she has secured her place in Heaven no matter what previous venial sins she has done.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why should redefining "marriage" to include deviant behavior make it illegal to refuse to recognize that perverse redefinition?

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law....an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status, despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

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

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

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

Yes if they do so passively, like Kim Davis and the bakers in Oregon.

Here's why:

Heirarchy of law:

Supreme Law of the Land: US Constitution.

1st Amendment: Freedom of exercize of religion.

Problem for gays: "Gay" is a waffling behavior, not a static race.

Kim Davis is doing exactly what Jude 1 of the Bible tells her she must do or face eternity in the pit of fire. Jude 1 is a funny passage. It isn't ambivalent, it's very specific and dredges up an ancient Biblical law that God seems apparently fixated upon preserving even into the New Testament through the words of Jesus. Jude was Jesus's daily companion and in a position to really know what Jesus had in mind here. Jude said that Jesus taught "compassion" for gays, "making a difference" reaching out to them as individuals.

However, Jude 1 was VERY CLEAR on making a distinct line between that and promoting their movement en masse as a new social trend. There a Christian must draw a very vivid line and refuse. To not do so isn't just a boo boo that your local priest can remedy at confession. It is a massive transgression against God so antithetical to God's plan that the transgressor's immortal soul is doomed forever.

When it comes to behaviors gaining foothold as a cult, God is pretty cut and dry on the remedy.

Religion is a 'waffling behaviour'.

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

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

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Slowly but surely this thread will prove that the conservative position on religious freedom is indefensible,

if only from exposing the lack of attempts to defend it.

The conservative position on religious freedom is very defensible, just look at the Taliban or ISIS. All it takes is a lot of guns and some real faith.

Yes, and in every way that counts, this is a group of people who want sharia law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law....an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status, despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

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

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

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

It actually grants all people the same.

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should redefining "marriage" to include deviant behavior make it illegal to refuse to recognize that perverse redefinition?

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

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

Despite your point being irrelevant, the Bible actually says nothing about civil same sex marriage. It never comes up;
it's opposition is merely a madeup belief that people later added to their personal set of beliefs and called part of their own personal Christianity.

 

[Silhouette]

Religion is a 'waffling behaviour'.

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

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

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay Americans now have the legal constitutional right to marriage equality, thus making it an illegal act of discrimination to deny them that right, but,

Kim Davis and others are claiming that since their disagreement with the establishment of that right is a religious disagreement,
they are entitled to a special status, a right of their own to be above the law....an atheist, for example, whose personal belief might also be that gays should not have that right, cannot make a legal claim to the same special status, despite having exactly the same opinion as Davis and all who claim their opinion is religion.How can the exact same opinion (or more precisely, actions on that opinion) be legal in one case and illegal in another, simply because of where the person claims the opinion comes from?

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

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

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

It actually grants all people the same.

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

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

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