The nine in black robes turn down the Kentucky county clerk’s plea for protection, claiming it violates her religious beliefs. Right decision?
A Kentucky county clerk must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected contentions that she is being forced to violate her religious convictions.
Why should people be discriminated against because of the clerks personal belifs? Are they hurting anyone? Are they denying rights of other people because they are gay? Are they pushing thier belifs on anyone else?
I don’t think that clerk’s life will change because they pushed some papers…
I think so.
“Her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County clerk,” the judge wrote.
Muslim county clerk refuses to issue marriage license to Christian couples. How would people feel about it then?
ETA: Don’t like serving the public, stop being a public servant.
If she could not handle it she should have resigned.
Dumbasses. Just do it like Chicago and DC did after SCOTUS ruled against them on gun rights. Drag your feet, throw in regulatory hurdles, make it a Byzantine process for gays to get a license. Make people show up and sign the forms in person and if a gay couple walks in, the notary is not available or some similar BS. Don’t tell the truth. See how the left likes it when their processes are put back on them.
I dunno…you may not agree with the lifestyle but if you have religious convictions, don’t work for Caesar.
This queer thing is a fad. A total fad. It’s instantaneous membership into a protected species. It’s more political than anything.
There are people who are legitimately gay. They keep it to themselves and aren’t total rainbows. They don’t want to convert or be recognized. They are content to remain closeted.
It’s pretty fluid. Some people change their minds. Others live with it quietly.
I don’t want anyone legislating my gun rights and if two hays marry, oh well. It’ll either be a lifelong partnership or they’ll divorce.
I can say that there really are not as many actual gay people out there as they would have you think. I don’t like this socialist SCOTUS but I don’t mind giving the baby his bottle here.
Because what if those two people are switched on, pro gun, pro everything decent, and have to get red taped.
Double edged sword
Honestly, I don’t see an issue with this. She’s not promoting the gay lifestyle by signing off on marriage licenses. And let’s turn the tables here: What if gay marriage was not the law of the land and she was a militant lesbian who was refusing to issue marriage licenses to straight people until we had “marriage equality”? And like LowSpeed_HighDrag said, what if it was a Muslim refusing licenses to Christian couples? What if it was a Christian who wrongly believed the Bible prohibited interracial marriage and refused licenses to such couples?
Vacate the position and then there won’t be anyone to issue ANY licenses!
This all day. It’s not the job of a clerk to set policy.
And just to take it further, what if some “clerk” decides guns are immoral and refuses to sign off on a carry permit in a “may issue” state.
If a clerk has such powerful religious beliefs then they shouldn’t accept employment that may require them to sign marriage certificates, fill prescriptions for birth control pills, or any other objectionable action.
I just have to giggle at a woman who has been married four times protesting that gay marriage violates her Christian beliefs.
Maybe I missed it, but I’m pretty sure that there’s nothing good about divorce in the Bible.
Like eating a ham sandwich while claiming that you shouldn’t have to work on Saturday because of your Jewish beliefs (or on Friday because of your Muslim beliefs).
I’m sure that if a Muslim cop refused to investigate a murder and arrest the person responsible because of some fatwa or something (or a Christian cop refusing to investigate an abortion clinic bombing or the assassination of an abortion doctor), they wouldn’t get a day before the Supreme Court, they’d get fired and then (likely) thrown in prison.
That was my point. Lots of locals and states run by leftists don’t follow the law, screw’em and their causes in the reverse. How about trying to get a gun permit in Chicago after SCOTUS ruled? Or how New York doesn’t really care about FOPA. Full contact politics.
Yes, we will give you a license, but tomorrow.
Don’t say no, just say that you’ll say yes later. Fair, no. But when have progressives ever played fair.
Ah yes but what if the good and noble Muslim refused to sell a gay/lesbian couple a marriage license and quoted the Quran?
Just which special interest group is most special and wins out?
Yet how many CLEOs refuse to sign off on NFA forms because of their political convictions?
So if I were a homosexual I could force via SCOTUS and the court of popular opinion a baker to make me a wedding cake and a county clerk to issue me a marriage license but the CLEO in my jurisdiction can still legally refuse to sign off on a suppressor/MG/SBR/etc.?
Yup, 'Merca!
That is a very good point.
There is a clear and categorical difference between bakers (people in private enterprise) and clerks (people in public service). The former can exercise their own discretion much more freely than the latter.
LEO’s fall into the latter category.
Damn good point.
Yes. Hypocrite much?
The clerk is an agent of the government, the SCOTUS ruled that it is legal and otherwise would be discrimination. Ergo, what the clerk did was discrimination and is no bueno.
I do not like the whole gay movement-rainbow-marriage thing, but the moment you start making policy as a functionary of the government, you open the door for ANY functionary government to do the same. Don’t like it? Quit.
Yep. It’s the gov’t issuing the license, elected position or not, you’re just the employee doing the paperwork. Just like anything else, if you don’t want to do the job you were hired for, go find another one…
This. Also I think she tarnishes Christianity in America by forcing her beliefs on others, I have no respect for that. ISIS forces is religious beliefs on people too. I believe in her right to be Christian, I respect her Christianity. I do not believe in her having a right to limit the freedoms of others for any reason, to include her religion. If her religion is so restrictive she should stay out of a public sphere which may conflict with that.
I find it very interesting that in order to gain understanding of the issue, people feel the need to craft hypotheticals and force it into their little partisan box.
This is not a left/ right issue. It’s just simple dereliction.
Don’t want to do your job? NEXT!
It’s not even important if that person’s reason is an incorrect interpretation of Liberty, or they have their own special law, or they want to secede their cubicle from the union.