Govt workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses -pope

Of course she has the right to believe that.

She does not have the right to claim that belief means she is unable to follow a law.

Her ability to have that belief or go to a church where others may share that belief have not been infringed upon. She is just as free to be a Christian as she ever was. The 1st amendment was never intended to mean that any law that offends a religious person is not constitutional, it was meant to ensure that the government did not try to control religion, which it has not here since legal marriage is not religious, at all. That's why you still need a marriage certificate to have one even if you are married in a church by an ordained minister.

There are limits to religious freedom and they begin when the rights of others are infringed. The fact that the law changed while she was in office is meaningless. The law is the law and she swore to uphold it and the Constitution in the course of her duties as County Clerk. She shirked those duties when she had her office refuse to issue marriage certificates because of her own personal beliefs. Everyone in Rowan County then had their ability to access the government they are lawfully allowed to access denied while this woman had her national hissy fit. She was given her due process and she exhausted her legal avenues of appeal and was ordered to go back to work. When she refused, that's when she went to jail.

It's cut and dry. Your claim of a belief in a religion does not empower you as some kind of higher class citizen who doesn't have to do things that others do. And her religion itself commands her to follow the law of the land(render unto Caeser and secular marriage is most definitely Caeser's) so she doesn't even have a religious defense to point to as to why her beliefs have been violated. Jesus didn't command folks to pout and cry nor to make judgments about who is worthy or unworthy. She has no religious and no legal basis to do what she did.

 

Sally Vater - your side lost in the same sex marriage debate. Get over it.

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs," Bunning wrote. "She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5c33...k-ignores-gay-marriage-order-asks-judge-delay

Davis cannot unilaterally decide to deny Constitution rights to others as a government agent: Because religion.

 

Are you seriously arguing for theocracy ?

 

The new corrupt law violates her beliefs.

 

Quick question: Could this Davis chick place Jesus statues all around the county clerk house?

Can she proselytize to citizens as they come into the County clerks office to do business?

Yes or no?

If you say no - then no - your false notion this government official can have religious accommodations extended to the point she can do whatever she wants because her "free exercise of religion" is being violated, is utterly ridiculous.

If you say yes, you *are* arguing for the Xtian version of Sharia law.

 

Nope. The ruling is corrupt and I agree with Chief Justice Roberts.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Are those quotes I provided evidence that the founders wanted a theocracy?

 

"But if the time should ever come ...when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." - John F. Kennedy

 

The office and a new corrupt law are two different things.

 

They always blame Christianity for banning it when it was always the case for secular reasons

Just because one religion takes something from another does not mean its not the word of god. If anything it shows his word is consistent. That is if you believe in God. Myself I think more like Jefferson

 

Roberts lost.

You're going to have to come to terms with that.

I think the Citizens United ruling was corrupt and I disagree with it. I accept that's

the
way
things
work.

Win some. Lose some.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a law.

It's a ruling that struck down an unconstitutional law.

Learn the difference.

"But if the time should ever come ...when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." - John F. Kennedy

 

Its a crap shoot not what the law is as Jefferson predicted and why SCOTUS was not given that power under the constitution. The only reason they have it is they ruled they do

 

I'm going to help get the law changed. The constitution had nothing to do with the ruling. Justices come and go. This can be fixed and I'll do what I can to help change the corrupt law. Learn that.

 

If what the Pope says about a conflict between the duty and conscience of public officials is wrong, does that not demonstrate the Pope may well be fallible on any given issue?

 

Absolutely they are not. We know for a fact that the founders all signed off on the idea that the US was not to be a Theocracy.

That politicians made public religious statements (to a predominantly religious raging masses) certainly does not mean they wanted theocracy either.

Just because one is a Christian, does not mean that one thinks that laws should be made on the basis of the Bible.

 

He said they SHOULD have the right, not that they do, because he's not qualified to give such an order.

 

Good luck.

I'll give you a heads up right now. The SCOTUS ruling will not be overturned.

Same sex marriage legal nationwide is here to stay.

Learn that.

 

Oh, I don't accept that. Any corrupt law can and should be challenged and changed. Marriage laws are state matters. The court will change and perhaps a constitutional ruling. Prohibition became the law of the land and was repealed. Learn that.

 

There is no new law, and her beliefs are not protected from violation, only from persecution or limitation by the government.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage laws are still state matters. Each state can decide what marriage means in their state and what legal rights and benefits go along with it, they just can't arbitrarily decide what gender combinations are allowed to get one.

 

Davis was elected by the people of her county in Kentucky and can be removed by the same people. Davis is following Kentucky law and per the 10th Amendment, this is a state matter and the feds have no business regulating marriage licenses.

 

Yes, a new definition of marriage has been established by five activists without the constitution. Corrupt. I believe everyone should ignore it.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree.

 

Have fun with your crusade.



Let us now how it works out.

 

Thanks. I like our chances. The USSC is supposed to rule according to the Constitution.

 

They did.

You lost.

Gays and lesbians have Constitutional rights.

Aw.

Tsk.

 

No, they didn't rule according to the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said so. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is and always has been a male and female. You are just going to have to be tolerant of my beliefs.

 

Well, you go ahead and ignore it, and if you're in a position where your ignoring it actually infringes on somebody else's rights, you can take your case to court and end up in jail just like Kim Davis.