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

[Contumacious]

Like states should be able to make their own gun laws?

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs


The official posture of the state of Kentucky is that its citizens can get married. While it is true that those clerks who refused may be sanctioned by the state the federal courts can take judicial notice of the fact that 119 counties in Ky issue marriage licenses and one does not. They can an also consider the fact that its chief executive officer considers the clerk' action to be unlawful.

Now if this issue was about imposing the law in a PRIVATE setting then I would share your concern.


.

So the short answer is the State is denying no one. The faghadist and everyone else has 119 places to get a license. The individual performance of an elected official is a State concern, not the feds.

SCOTUS was not concerned about her performance.

It was concerned about the individuals' rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment:

Held
: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same .


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL
.
v

HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
ET AL
.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*

 

[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.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

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?

You mean like the right of the gays to be above the law?

There is NO Constitutional right to marriage, gay or otherwise. You have a court ruling that admonishes the States to stop blocking the gays from a legal fiction of marriage.

If you are going to quote the 14th Amendment to support your argument, then I'll submit to you that the 14th is not part of the Bill of Rights and that the right to the free exercise of religion is the HIGHEST right in the country....

IT supersedes your right to be gay.

However, even that is NOT the issue....

The issue is the right to be free in ones own mind and actions to act according to the persons own conscious.

This right applies to both the religious person and the homosexual.

You fucks are fighting for your right to have a gay moral values system that is free from influence by others.....YET NOW you are denying that same right to those who oppose it.

That makes you and the rest hypocrites and bigots.

SCOTUS rulings determine constitutionality you retard.

 

[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.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

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?

You mean like the right of the gays to be above the law?

There is NO Constitutional right to marriage, gay or otherwise. You have a court ruling that admonishes the States to stop blocking the gays from a legal fiction of marriage.

If you are going to quote the 14th Amendment to support your argument, then I'll submit to you that the 14th is not part of the Bill of Rights and that the right to the free exercise of religion is the HIGHEST right in the country....

IT supersedes your right to be gay.

However, even that is NOT the issue....

The issue is the right to be free in ones own mind and actions to act according to the persons own conscious.

This right applies to both the religious person and the homosexual.

You fucks are fighting for your right to have a gay moral values system that is free from influence by others.....YET NOW you are denying that same right to those who oppose it.

That makes you and the rest hypocrites and bigots.

Then name a law that a religious person objects to that they have no right to legally ignore.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

 

[OKTexas]

Considering she wasn't issuing licenses to anyone, there was no discrimination. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a great piece of propaganda, even if it is BS.

Thus she was discriminating against everyone. That only makes it worse.

Your oxymoron just makes you a moron.

I guess a baker doesn't have the right to stop offering wedding cakes to everyone, just to avoid providing them to gay weddings.

A baker isn't on the public payroll.

The clerk didn't discriminate against anyone either, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Nope...she was also in the position BEFORE the ruling...

I guess conscientious objectors only apply to progressive cowards trying to get out of a war....

We NOW have a religious litmus test for being elected into office in this country...

Go us...

Humm, aren't religious tests for elected officials unconstitutional?

Article 6, Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[OKTexas]

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs


The official posture of the state of Kentucky is that its citizens can get married. While it is true that those clerks who refused may be sanctioned by the state the federal courts can take judicial notice of the fact that 119 counties in Ky issue marriage licenses and one does not. They can an also consider the fact that its chief executive officer considers the clerk' action to be unlawful.

Now if this issue was about imposing the law in a PRIVATE setting then I would share your concern.


.

So the short answer is the State is denying no one. The faghadist and everyone else has 119 places to get a license. The individual performance of an elected official is a State concern, not the feds.

SCOTUS was not concerned about her performance.

It was concerned about the individuals' rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment:

Held
: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same .


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL
.
v

HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
ET AL
.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*

The State is doing that, so what's the problem the feds need to concern themselves with?

 

[OKTexas]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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

So you believe that if Kim Davis were an atheist she'd have the same right to discriminate?

 

[Contumacious]

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs


The official posture of the state of Kentucky is that its citizens can get married. While it is true that those clerks who refused may be sanctioned by the state the federal courts can take judicial notice of the fact that 119 counties in Ky issue marriage licenses and one does not. They can an also consider the fact that its chief executive officer considers the clerk' action to be unlawful.

Now if this issue was about imposing the law in a PRIVATE setting then I would share your concern.


.

So the short answer is the State is denying no one. The faghadist and everyone else has 119 places to get a license. The individual performance of an elected official is a State concern, not the feds.

SCOTUS was not concerned about her performance.

It was concerned about the individuals' rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment:

Held
: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same .


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL
.
v

HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
ET AL
.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*

The State is doing that, so what's the problem the feds need to concern themselves with?

The Supremacy Clause - The Fourteenth Amendment .


.

 

[OKTexas]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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.

 

[OKTexas]

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs


The official posture of the state of Kentucky is that its citizens can get married. While it is true that those clerks who refused may be sanctioned by the state the federal courts can take judicial notice of the fact that 119 counties in Ky issue marriage licenses and one does not. They can an also consider the fact that its chief executive officer considers the clerk' action to be unlawful.

Now if this issue was about imposing the law in a PRIVATE setting then I would share your concern.


.

So the short answer is the State is denying no one. The faghadist and everyone else has 119 places to get a license. The individual performance of an elected official is a State concern, not the feds.

SCOTUS was not concerned about her performance.

It was concerned about the individuals' rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment:

Held
: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same .


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL
.
v

HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
ET AL
.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*

The State is doing that, so what's the problem the feds need to concern themselves with?

The Supremacy Clause - The Fourteenth Amendment .


.

Neither have any bearing here, the State is allowing and licensing faghadist marriages. What an individual clerk does is not the feds concern since there is no discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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.

Not serving black people in your restaurant is not discrimination?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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.

 

[OKTexas]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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

So you believe that if Kim Davis were an atheist she'd have the same right to discriminate?

Discrimination by definition requires treating one group or person differently than another, that isn't happening here.

 

[OKTexas]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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.

Not serving black people in your restaurant is not discrimination?

Not if you're not serving anyone.

 

[OKTexas]

Remember, this question is important and no one's tried to answer it:

Why can a religious person claim the right to be above the law but a non-religious person can't...

...for the very same law and the very same disagreement with the law?

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

Like states should be able to make their own gun laws?

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs


The official posture of the state of Kentucky is that its citizens can get married. While it is true that those clerks who refused may be sanctioned by the state the federal courts can take judicial notice of the fact that 119 counties in Ky issue marriage licenses and one does not. They can an also consider the fact that its chief executive officer considers the clerk' action to be unlawful.

Now if this issue was about imposing the law in a PRIVATE setting then I would share your concern.


.

So the short answer is the State is denying no one. The faghadist and everyone else has 119 places to get a license. The individual performance of an elected official is a State concern, not the feds.

I guess that's why the governor released this statement.

Governor Beshear Releases Statement On Clerks Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses
"Our county clerks took an oath, as elected officials, to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky and to provide important duties in their communities. This oath does not dictate what our clerks must believe, but it certainly prescribes how they must act in carrying out their duties as elected officials. Same-sex couples in Kentucky are now entitled to the issuance of a marriage license by every county clerk, based on Friday’s ruling by the United States Supreme Court. While there are certainly strongly held views on both sides of this issue, the fact remains that each clerk vowed to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal beliefs. I appreciate the clerks who are fulfilling their duties, issuing licenses to all couples, and I would expect others to execute the duties of their offices as prescribed by law and to issue marriage licenses to all Kentuckians.” reads the statement by Gov. Steve Beshear.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

BUT...

and this is to those who agree with Davis et al,

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?

Considering she wasn't issuing licenses to anyone, there was no discrimination. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a great piece of propaganda, even if it is BS.

Thus she was discriminating against everyone. That only makes it worse.

Your oxymoron just makes you a moron.

I guess a baker doesn't have the right to stop offering wedding cakes to everyone, just to avoid providing them to gay weddings.

A baker isn't on the public payroll.

The clerk didn't discriminate against anyone either, but that doesn't seem to matter.

The clerk isn't doing the job she was hired to do.

 

[OKTexas]

Deflecting already, she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses so there was no discrimination, meaning the feds had no standing to intervene. If the State had a problem with her it would be their place to take action, period, end of story.

Americans have the right to equal treatment under the law, the State of Kentucky has generally recognized the right to be married , then it can not deny the right to some and not to others..


.

Exactly who is the State of KY denying?

Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs


The official posture of the state of Kentucky is that its citizens can get married. While it is true that those clerks who refused may be sanctioned by the state the federal courts can take judicial notice of the fact that 119 counties in Ky issue marriage licenses and one does not. They can an also consider the fact that its chief executive officer considers the clerk' action to be unlawful.

Now if this issue was about imposing the law in a PRIVATE setting then I would share your concern.


.

So the short answer is the State is denying no one. The faghadist and everyone else has 119 places to get a license. The individual performance of an elected official is a State concern, not the feds.

I guess that's why the governor released this statement.

Governor Beshear Releases Statement On Clerks Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses
"Our county clerks took an oath, as elected officials, to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky and to provide important duties in their communities. This oath does not dictate what our clerks must believe, but it certainly prescribes how they must act in carrying out their duties as elected officials. Same-sex couples in Kentucky are now entitled to the issuance of a marriage license by every county clerk, based on Friday’s ruling by the United States Supreme Court. While there are certainly strongly held views on both sides of this issue, the fact remains that each clerk vowed to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal beliefs. I appreciate the clerks who are fulfilling their duties, issuing licenses to all couples, and I would expect others to execute the duties of their offices as prescribed by law and to issue marriage licenses to all Kentuckians.” reads the statement by Gov. Steve Beshear.

So I guess you're agreeing that it is a State matter?