It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Seawytch]

Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe... I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)

Out of "respect" for religious folks, I'm personally willing to change the actual word used (I'm not sure why we /can't/ just do that and out the fucking bigots for what they are - I've heard it's paperwork, but shit how hard is ctrl-f "Marriage" ctrl-v "<whatever new term>"?), but the "idea," the "legal rights" conveyed, and the constitutional right of homosexual's to marry in our country must not be infringed upon by religious bullshit.

Shit like this is pretty much why I'm not, and probably never will be, a Republican; hypocritical bullshit like this is just as fucking bad as the Democrats, and perhaps worse for it's blatant attack on the freedoms of "certain" Americans. Shit has me angry enough this year that I'm prob. going to end up voting Dem., that hurts because we could seriously use some fiscal responsibility right now... Instead of just realizing that their crap is religious and shouldn't be in government, they gotta keep pushing, gotta try to make it illegal - all the while bitching and moaning that the "gay mofia" is pushing. It's total crap and they know it, but do it anyway. Sad.

Our religious freedom is something a lot of secular people simply have indifference to. I have always been in favor of some kind of civil unions to replace traditional marriage as far as government recognizing domestic partnership. I think that resolves the issue for all involved to the best we can hope to ever resolve it. And no, I don't want some "separate but equal" thing for gays, I said a replacement for all things "marriage" related to government or legal matters.

Right...you've "always" advocated for such a thing. "Always" as in as soon as gays started winning.

Nothing stopping you from getting it changed. Everyone will still call it marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

Again... what do we mean when we say "is constitutional"? Does it mean what SCOTUS currently, at the time, has ruled "is constitutional" or is it what actually adheres to the principles of the Constitution?.

Who determines what 'actually adheres to principles of the Constitution?

Sure you can think that State laws against mixed race marriage or same gender marriage were perfectly Constitutional- while others thought they were not. Some people thought state laws banning gun ownership were constitutional- and others felt such laws were not.

The Supreme Court is who determines what adheres to the principles of the Constitution- that is who is entrusted to make that decision in our system because there is ALWAYS disagreement about what is Constitutional.

We may not agree with the Courts decision- but it is always Constitutional at that time. Dred Scott was a horrible decision- but it was Constitutional.

So we changed the Constitution.

If Dred Scott was not Constitutional- we would have had no need to change the Constitution in regards to Dred Scott.

Well... Since Dred died in 1858, we didn't change the Constitution for his benefit. Seems to me I recall a rather massive Civil War that happened after Dred was dead, which was the impetus for change to the Constitution. Then, for the next 100 years, we "relied on SCOTUS to determine constitutionality" and had institutionalized segregation.

We can look back on some really awful SCOTUS rulings and wonder how such things could have been considered "in the spirit of constitutional principles" at all. In fact, in virtually every ruling there is a dissenting opinion which makes an argument against the ruling. This sometimes gives us insight into how a particular case was won or lost, what the other side of the coin was... because there is almost always other constitutional rights in play.

Very often, the SCOTUS is not simply deciding a case based on one specific constitutional right, it involves several and from various perspectives and parties. It would be impossible to have every law on the books never infringe on anyone's constitutional rights ever. The SCOTUS could never issue a ruling if they were charged with ensuring everyone's constitutional rights were respected. Very often, their ruling is a case where constitutional rights collide. You believe you have a right and I believe I have a right, and the SCOTUS determines which one of us has the more important right. It's not guaranteed they get it right.

Sure you can think that State laws against mixed race marriage or same gender marriage were perfectly Constitutional- while others thought they were not.

And SCOTUS rulings don't always resolve these issues. That is my point. Obviously, mixed race marriages were banned for many years after the 14th Amendment and I'm sure SCOTUS rejected many cases through the years contesting this. Some cases may have never made it that far, they were shot down at the appeals level and never reached SCOTUS. That is what makes cases like Dred Scott so important... it represents more than a single case that made it to the SCOTUS where the court made a ruling. It represents hundreds of cases that never made it that far, thousands of cases that were never brought, millions of people who were denied their constitutional rights for many years. It also illustrates how even the SCOTUS, with all it's wisdom and understanding of the Constitution, can still get it totally wrong.

Well I think that what you wrote was lucid- and interesting- and not particularly applicable to my post that you are responding to.

The Supreme Court when it rules on a case is ruling on the law- they are not tasked with convincing society that Americans have the right to access to contraceptives- they address the legal issues of the rights of the plaintiffs.

We have three branches of government - the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary.

Which branch has- or should have- the authority to decide whether a law violates an Americans rights?

If it were the Legislative- well then they would have carte blanche to write laws for instance banning private gun ownership- and gun owners would have no recourse to protect their rights if the voters of that state wanted to ignore the Bill of Rights.

Much the same with the Executive Branch.

That leaves the Supreme Court as the final arbiter- the ultimate legal authority- regarding the Constitution. You and I may disagree with their decisions- but someone has to be entrusted with making the decisions.

And yes- the Supreme Court can get it wrong- just often no one agrees on what they did get wrong.

I am not really sure what your point is- can the Supreme Court make decisions that people may not agree with? Obviously.

Are those decisions still legal, and still the legal interpretation of the Constitution- absolutely.

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.

Well that's a matter of opinion. I think that recognition by government of homosexual marriage is a violation of the religious freedom rights of others..

How?

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. Why don't you care about their religious freedom?

Obergefell does not require that you enter a same gender marriage. It doesn't even require you as an individual approve of same gender marriages.

Well it's obvious. It required Kim Davis to have to issue a license to do something she is religiously bound to reject and condemn. The law is now going to obligate others to be faced with the same problem. If you are a secular who has a very low moral bar, it is difficult to present you with an analogy to compare this to, but people are bound to their religious beliefs as a part of their religious exercise and when you've made laws which impinge on those beliefs there is a problem.

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. Why don't you care about their religious freedom?

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

. For now, it "is constitutional" but that can change and it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment.

There are three ways to change something that you consider unconstutional

1. A constitutional amendment ala Dred Scott and the 13th and 14th Amendments
2. The Supreme Court reversing itself- something that no one can predict or effect or
3. Breaking the law

Finally, the Congress can enact legislation which renders a SCOTUS ruling irrelevant. Let's make a hypothetical using "gay marriage" for example... If Congress passed legislation rendering "marriage" obsolete from a government perspective, no longer recognizing ANY kind of marriage... it's no longer possible to "discriminate against gays" or anyone else, since marriage doesn't exist anymore in the eyes of government. For the record, I think something like this will eventually be what we have.

But that wouldn't make the Supreme Court ruling 'irrelevant' because Americans- regardless of the gender of their spouses- would still be treated equally.

More to the point- there is no law that Congress can pass that would nullify the reality of Obergefel- which prohibited States from having discriminatory marriage bans against same gender couples. Congress cannot tell States what to do in regards to marriage, nor can Congress decide to ignore marriages that are legal in a state. That was what DOMA was all about.

If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.

But it is not going to happen. At most, States will make accomodations so the "I am a Christians when it comes to homosexuals" folk don't have to issue marriage licenses to gays, after the 3 licenses they issued to the divorcees and Hindu's and convicted felons.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe... I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)

Out of "respect" for religious folks, I'm personally willing to change the actual word used (I'm not sure why we /can't/ just do that and out the fucking bigots for what they are - I've heard it's paperwork, but shit how hard is ctrl-f "Marriage" ctrl-v "<whatever new term>"?), but the "idea," the "legal rights" conveyed, and the constitutional right of homosexual's to marry in our country must not be infringed upon by religious bullshit.

Shit like this is pretty much why I'm not, and probably never will be, a Republican; hypocritical bullshit like this is just as fucking bad as the Democrats, and perhaps worse for it's blatant attack on the freedoms of "certain" Americans. Shit has me angry enough this year that I'm prob. going to end up voting Dem., that hurts because we could seriously use some fiscal responsibility right now... Instead of just realizing that their crap is religious and shouldn't be in government, they gotta keep pushing, gotta try to make it illegal - all the while bitching and moaning that the "gay mofia" is pushing. It's total crap and they know it, but do it anyway. Sad.

Our religious freedom is something a lot of secular people simply have indifference to. I have always been in favor of some kind of civil unions to replace traditional marriage as far as government recognizing domestic partnership. I think that resolves the issue for all involved to the best we can hope to ever resolve it. And no, I don't want some "separate but equal" thing for gays, I said a replacement for all things "marriage" related to government or legal matters.

Now if only this had been your OP rather than the rant that was your OP.

 

[Boss]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

 

[Syriusly]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

 

[EverCurious]

Or the religious freedom of anyone frankly, I don't believe in the Christian teachings that homosexuality is a sin or wrong, even if I'd wished to enter into a heterosexual marriage I could not have in that county because of /her/ actions and /her/ religious beliefs. That is a clear infringement upon my rights regardless of my sexual orientation.

 

[Boss]

If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.

But it is not going to happen. At most, States will make accomodations so the "I am a Christians when it comes to homosexuals" folk don't have to issue marriage licenses to gays

You really do believe this is all about some kind of rights for gay couples, don't you? Let me clue you in... this is about legitimizing homosexual behavior. Making accommodations for Christians is contradictory to the objective here. If they ever intended such a thing, they would have taken the "civil unions" approach we discussed earlier. They aren't interested in making things "equal" for gay couples. They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values.

What's even worse and more sinister is this isn't even about legitimizing homosexual behavior for the homosexual. They are merely the pawns being exploited... useful idiots. The overall objective is to destroy America. In order to do that, you have to remove the moral underpinning first.

 

[EverCurious]

...are you really arguing that gay people only want to get married to piss off Christians?

Two words; conspiracy theory.

 

[Boss]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

 

[Boss]

...are you really arguing that gay people only want to get married to piss off Christians?

Two words; conspiracy theory.

No, not to piss off Christians. You didn't read what I wrote.

 

[Boss]

Or the religious freedom of anyone frankly, I don't believe in the Christian teachings that homosexuality is a sin or wrong, even if I'd wished to enter into a heterosexual marriage I could not have in that county because of /her/ actions and /her/ religious beliefs. That is a clear infringement upon my rights regardless of my sexual orientation.

Go run for county clerk in Kentucky! Maybe you'll win?

 

[Syriusly]

If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.

But it is not going to happen. At most, States will make accomodations so the "I am a Christians when it comes to homosexuals" folk don't have to issue marriage licenses to gays

You really do believe this is all about some kind of rights for gay couples, don't you? Let me clue you in... this is about legitimizing homosexual behavior. .

Well this whole thread is about your rant about homosexual behavior becoming legitimized and how it pisses you off.

See, unlike you- I have real friends who happen to be gay. Therefore, I don't start threads attacking people who include my friends because I am not threatened by their having equal legal rights.

I don't know what you really believe. This thread is all over the place with you comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, predictions that gays are going to be requiring straights to have sex with them.

What do you think was the purpose of your thread?

Have you shown it to your 'gay friends'?

 

[Syriusly]

If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.

But it is not going to happen. At most, States will make accomodations so the "I am a Christians when it comes to homosexuals" folk don't have to issue marriage licenses to gays

Making accommodations for Christians is contradictory to the objective here. If they ever intended such a thing, they would have taken the "civil unions" approach we discussed earlier. They aren't interested in making things "equal" for gay couples.

Frankly you are either ignorant- or a liar.

Christians were the ones who insisted on imposing their religious beliefs on homosexuals by banning same gender marriage. But they went beyond that- they also were concerned about homosexuals who were starting to get civil unions in some states- so they passed laws forbidding not only same gender marriages but also forbid recognition of civil unions

Take a look at Georgia's law- banned gay marriage and civil unions. If Christians were only opposed to gays using the term 'marriage' then they wouldn't have passed laws forbidding the recognition of civil unions.

And when I say 'Christians' I mean Christians who suddenly find their faith when it comes to denying equal rights to homosexuals.

Now lets look at the gay couples who actually did file law suits arguing they deserved to be treated equally.

Case #1- DOMA- Christian politicians passed laws forbidding federal recognition of same gender marriages- even when states legalized them- Edith Windsor and her spouse were together for 40 years. Ms. Windsor and her wife legally married a few years before Ms. Spyer died and then cared for her for her remaining years as Ms. Spyer slowly died from a debilitating disease.
The Federal government however refused to recognize their legal marriage so Ms. Windsor had to pay inheritance taxes that she would not have had to pay if her spouse had been a man.

She was looking for equality- nothing else. And after fighting hard she got it.

Case #2- Obergefell- similar situation- they were together I believe 30 years. Never did they ever attack Christians for passing the laws forbidding them marriage in their state- eventually when his partner was so ill he could barely move, they flew to a state where they could legally marry.

They were looking for equality- I can only hope that my wife and I have that kind of devotion to each other when our health fails.

These are the couples you think its okay to legally discriminate against- so that some Christians aren't offended.

 

[Syriusly]

If States decide that due to gays being allowed to marry- they want to deny all of their citizens legal marriage- then they can do so- just so long as it applies to everyone.

But it is not going to happen. At most, States will make accomodations so the "I am a Christians when it comes to homosexuals" folk don't have to issue marriage licenses to gays

What's even worse and more sinister is this isn't even about legitimizing homosexual behavior for the homosexual. They are merely the pawns being exploited... useful idiots. The overall objective is to destroy America. In order to do that, you have to remove the moral underpinning first.

The only idiot I have seen in this thread was the one who started the OP.

I find those of you who have so little faith in America and Americans getting what you deserve- the paranoia and frustration.

Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to embrace and enjoy America.

You can gnash your teeth and pull your chest hairs and bemoan that gays are getting married.

The rest of us will celebrate how wonderful America is.

 

[Syriusly]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

Homosexual couples have been getting married in churches for years. Various churches recognize same gender marriage- when they seek to marry their religious rights are actually as equally valid as Ms. Davis'.

You want the State to deny them their religious belief- but the state cannot do that anymore- but you were okay when the State could.

Which goes to show how deep your concern for 'religious freedom' is.

Basically it begins and stops with 'homosexual'.

 

[EverCurious]

...are you really arguing that gay people only want to get married to piss off Christians?

Two words; conspiracy theory.

No, not to piss off Christians. You didn't read what I wrote.

Pretty sure I did, but apparently "They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values." doesn't mean the same thing in your world...


Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

 

[Montrovant]

...are you really arguing that gay people only want to get married to piss off Christians?

Two words; conspiracy theory.

No, not to piss off Christians. You didn't read what I wrote.

Pretty sure I did, but apparently "They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values." doesn't mean the same thing in your world...


Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

I think the 'they' he was referring to are the mysterious, sinister someones who are the real force driving for marriage equality. So 'they' only want gay people to get married to piss off Christians, apparently as part of a plan to destroy America.

That may sound even sillier now that I've typed it out.

 

[Montrovant]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

Well then, Mrs. Davis' rights are not being denied because she can go to any number of other employers that don't require her to sign off on same sex marriages.

Do you think separate but equal was a reasonable accommodation?