| Author | Message | ||
     Robertl |
Read more about the story. Her name goes on all the licenses because she is the clerk of court. It doesn't matter who processes the license in the office, her name still goes on it. That was her problem and she refused to issue any licenses; hence, breaking the law. What exactly would she sue over? About 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher. Seems all kind of pointless actually. | ||
| Sifo |
2. Those that disagree with different types of marriages, I ask to you how any of this actually impacts you directly? Does it change your water, food, shelter options? No one said you have to invite them over for a bbq or thanksgiving dinner, but I recommend you include all the nice people you can find. For some, it does impact them directly and profoundly. We are discussing someone who was jailed because of her religious beliefs. That's a pretty direct impact in my book. Seems to be in direct conflict with her first amendment rights too. This should make for a very interesting lawsuit. We also have bakers of wedding cakes being forced to participate in weddings that go against their religious beliefs. They are facing ridiculously large fines for refusing to deliver these wedding cakes. Again, pretty direct impact. For the rest, the impact maybe smaller, but no less direct. Hootowl provided this link to a prior thread on the subject http://www.badweatherbikers.com/cgibin/discus/show .cgi?tpc=4062&post=2314697#POST2314697. His two posts there are spot on. Rereading mine right behind his, still seems to be right on target. The two that follow that address your question though. Oyrider links this... http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civi lmarriage.htm which details the real reason for gays not being willing to accept civil unions instead of gay marriage. It's all about more than 1,049 government benefits that are being forcibly paid for by people who have a religious objection to gay marriage. This is a situation that has been created by an incredibly small minority that were not elected to their position by the people, and who are not there to be creating law. Their actions are creating a constitutional crisis on numerous levels. Why is it that liberal freedom so often involves forcing someone at gun point to do something against their will? That is exactly what is going on here. The solution is to get government out of marriage, not get them more involved in it. Is that so hard to understand? | ||
| Sifo |
What exactly would she sue over? Ummmm, perhaps being jailed for exercising her first amendment rights? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Make a new deputy stamp just for the gay marriages and have the same judge who jailed her, approve it and release her. Bam! | ||
| Robertl |
Sifo, I edited my original post. I respect your views and others. My point was to hopefully separate the issues. She wasn't jailed over her rights. She holds public office and used her position to discriminate against others. Plus encouraged others to follow. This just so happened to be related to religion but that is not why she was jailed. I think we can all agree, we pay for a lot of things we don't agree with or that the government does. Can't we all just get along? | ||
| Airbozo |
"She was NOT jailed for not doing her job. She was jailed for Contempt of Court. " I stand corrected. I meant to say she was jailed for contempt of court but blew it. Sifo, by exercising her first amendment rights, she was denying someone else their rights. The judge decided that was not legal and gave her the option of stepping down or issue the license. She refused. Don't get me wrong, I don't think she should lose her job, but accommodations should be made so others rights (that are just as important) are not trampled on. Her son, who is one of the deputy clerks, is also refusing to issue licenses and is now technically in contempt of court. Nothing has been done to him so far. That whole county stinks of nepotism. BTW: the DMV sign is not correct, it should read: "... we will not be issuing drivers licenses to _anyone_ so we can't be accused of discrimination." The public has forced the government to get involved in marriage due to the legal implications of property rights and children's welfare. That is not going to change, so we need to figure a way to deal with it. | ||
| Sifo |
Robertl, She was jailed for following her religious beliefs. There is simply no way around that fact. Her choices were 1)follow her beliefs that it would be sinful to participate in a gay wedding 2)disregard her beliefs and participate in a gay wedding, or 3)vacate the office that she was legally elected to because she is suddenly being told to violate her religious beliefs. The second two choices are clearly going to violate her rights under the first amendment. She chose the first, and then they jailed her for that choice. Again, her choice was to follow her religious beliefs. She is in jail for that. She discriminated against no one. On that day, she didn't give licenses to straight couples either. She treated the gays, exactly as she treated the straights. That's clearly an attempt to NOT discriminate. When the law requires that you violate your religious beliefs, it's the law that is wrong. It really is that simple. This is very different from paying for things we don't agree with. This is about very precious religious beliefs that people are being forced to violate. There is a way we can all get along. In this case, getting the government out of people's bedrooms would facilitate that. Liberals claim to want that, but their actions prove something different. | ||
| Sifo |
but accommodations should be made so others rights (that are just as important) are not trampled on. Rights of one group, but not the other? This was a situation created by a court that has now jailed someone because they offered no accommodation of their rights. The court is wrong in doing that. | ||
| Sifo |
Seriously, here were her choices... Her choices were 1)follow her beliefs that it would be sinful to participate in a gay wedding 2)disregard her beliefs and participate in a gay wedding, or 3)vacate the office that she was legally elected to because she is suddenly being told to violate her religious beliefs. The second two choices are clearly going to violate her rights under the first amendment. Is there another choice she could have possibly made? One that would satisfy her first amendment rights as well as the right of others to be married? The real question should be, if it's a right, why does it need to be licensed by the government? When you start asking that question, you are getting on the right track. | ||
| Slaughter |
What of the soldier who took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic but then has a religious conversion as a Quaker or Muslim. Both have happened and have been prosecuted. | ||
| Aesquire |
The Court decision left ambiguity and fails to protect religious rights. Her choices were..... quit, fight, or fold. Iirc the Dred-Scott decision also left many people that choice. It too, upheld the rights of some and denied it to others. ( slave owners and escaped slaves ) I'm not saying they are equivalent. I'm just saying sometimes you have to follow your Gods over the rule of the State. See "Antigone" or other ancient Greek plays on the subject. This is not a new problem. I can easily see myself in a like situation. Different subject. For example, if I'd been alive in the early 1800's I could have been jailed under Dred-Scott. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigone_(Sophocles_play) | ||
| Robertl |
I stand corrected, "Contempt of Court". Thanks Airbozo. Remove religion from the equation temporarily. No one forced her to work in a public office. She refused to provide a service she was elected to provide. Would the choices provided by the judge be any different for someone else that did not use religion as their reason? Not sure her son falls under the same situation. He was hired or elected? If hired, then that might explain why he was treated differently but I suspect could eventually receive the same choices. I believe it said her religious beliefs changed after she took office? Maybe this was not the right job for her? Again, I am not against this person, I just see this issue slightly different. Okay, I am understanding more, I think. Govt being involved at all. I partially agree. There are some things like medical decisions, being listed as parents on adoption papers/birth certificates, and property after loss of life, etc. I remember the clerk telling us we had to wait 3 days for a license and thinking how ridiculous that was. Luckily the judge waived it since we flew in to get married the following day. I missed the sign and should have run like hell. Not really, my wife is pretty awesome, even if she sold her Blast and bought a Ninja. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Did the couple that wanted to be married have a choice I mean, could they have gone to another county or state and got married? In the same way that many a couple eloped to other states to get hitched?? (some states marry faster than others) | ||
| Airbozo |
I can see both sides of this argument and it is tough to decide who is right here. On one hand you could argue that when she took the oath of office to uphold and administer the law of the land, that gay marriage was not officially legal and that the terms of her contract changed. On the other hand you could argue that gay marriage has always been legal and the supreme court just confirmed that argument and no laws were changed, hence her contract did not change. Face it, when you work for the government, your job may require you to uphold laws you may not agree with, but that is not your decision. The oath you take is to uphold the laws of the land, not the laws you agree with. This is specifically why I no longer work for the war machine. I decided a long time ago that I could no longer in good conscious use my talents for the killing of others. It was not a religious decision, just a moral one. Yes I paid for it because I was getting paid much less at other jobs. That's the way things work though. As far as going to another county or state, why should someone be forced to take an undue burden to obtain something others don't have to go through that burden for? A long time ago the Supreme Court ruled that separate is not equal. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I wonder when the Mayor and Sheriff of San Francisco are going to be jailed for not following federal immigration law. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Forget who is right, I think both sides are wrong. She should either do it or quit. Her employer should be trying to reasonably accommodate her stated beliefs so she doesn't have to quit. Steve, we were smarter in WWII. Were you a sincere pacifist? Great, you head to the front line combat unit with a red cross painted on your helmet, and you get to be a hero and expose yourself to enemy fire while rendering aid to wounded allie and enemy alike. | ||
| Aesquire |
Airbozo, you're right. It's not cut and dried. Everyone. Ask yourself. No need to respond. How much is my opinion on the Act of non-violent civil disobedience colored by my opinion of the cause this women is in jail for? Harder one. How would I feel if my opinion of that cause was exactly the opposite? Tough questions. (Message edited by aesquire on September 04, 2015) | ||
| Aesquire |
Reep, I get your point. & agree on WW2. But sometimes quit is the wrong answer. Sometimes there is no right one. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
why should someone be forced to take an undue burden to obtain something others don't have to go through that burden for? Undue Burden? That's just what straight people in love do when they are in a hurry to get hitched. (back in the day anyways... I guess that doesn't apply anymore??) Why do some have to have blood tests? Some have to wait 48 hours, some 72 hours (after the license is issued) before they can get married. Some would say that is undue burden as well?? That reminds me..., Why should I have to travel more than an hour to work?? Why should I have to pay more per month for the same vehicle as someone else?? Why isn't my gf Halle Berry?? (I am not bad looking)  | ||
| Sifo |
IMO, and I would welcome answers to this question, the question that must be asked, when one right is spelled out in the bill of rights, and another right is not spelled out, but the court finds it to be there, when those rights collide, does one person's rights trump the others? If so, which? If not, how do you resolve this while maintaining both person's rights? | ||
| Airbozo |
Yes, undue burden. You _choose_ to go to another state to elope because you are in hurry. Those time and blood test restrictions are state mandated and apply to everyone not just one specific set of folks. Requiring a gay couple to go to another county (not the one they live in) is quite different than all couples being required to wait 48 hours. You also _choose_ to work an hour away from home (as do I because I like where I live) and don't blame others because you got a crappy deal on your car. (really sifo?) Show me where in the constitution that it grants someone the right to discriminate against another individual based on their religious belief? There is however a separation of church and state. This lady not only didn't want her name on the license she refused to let her deputies issue those licenses. Now she lawyer is saying a compromise would be to not have her name on them (which IMO is a good compromise). You have a good point though, Who's rights ultimately trump another? In this case the person in question is tasked with doing the governments business and the government is not allowed to have any religious convictions when performing that business so it should not even be a question of what should be done. How to do it while being fair to all parties is the million dollar question. As a person of faith, working for the government, you must know that there will be conflict exactly because the government must be blind to your religious convictions or it appears to be supporting your convictions. Stop an think about the earlier posted fake DMV letter. What if it was not fake and the DMV administrator who's name appears on the form took that exact stance? How would you react? Do you think it would be OK to have all women drive to another county to get a license or to have them stop issuing all drivers licenses in the state because the persons name on the forms believes women should not drive due to religious convictions? The SO is a Constitutional Law aficionado and is amazed it has even gone this far. The courts have been _very_ amicable to this lady and her beliefs. The Supreme court felt they decided this already and that is why they turned her down and let the lower court ruling stay in place. This has only dragged on for this long because of the political climate and political correctness. | ||
| Sifo |
You also _choose_ to work an hour away from home (as do I because I like where I live) and don't blame others because you got a crappy deal on your car. (really sifo?) I'm actually very happy with the deal I got on at least the last 3 cars. I think it's Xdigitalx who has gotten the bad deal.  Show me where in the constitution that it grants someone the right to discriminate against another individual based on their religious belief? That's the kicker though, isn't it? You are doing exactly that when you say she must either ignore ignore her religious convictions or find another job. Who's rights trump the others? Why? How do you resolve it? Are you really claiming that an unstated right trumps a right explicitly stated in the first amendment? | ||
| Slaughter |
What if somebody's religious beliefs do not support use of deadly force? If she refused to clear somebody for a concealed carry permit? Same office, her signature. Were she a Quaker, this could have been a very real situatiion. http://kentuckystatepolice.org/ccdw/qualifications .html | ||
| Sifo |
What if somebody's religious beliefs do not support use of deadly force? If she refused to clear somebody for a concealed carry permit? Same office, her signature. Were she a Quaker, this could have been a very real situatiion. Is there a religion that doesn't believe in the use of self defense? Even if you come up with one, issuing a license to carry is completely different than using that weapon in a lethal manner. The person issuing the license is far removed from those actions. The marriage license is quite different. There is clear intent for the couple to get married, and the license is part of that process. The clerk is in effect involved in that process. If you were asking the clerk to issue a permit to go and shoot a named person, then the clerk would be just as involved in the "self defense" issue that you bring up. Clearly though, this would not be considered self defense. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
You _choose_ to go to another state to elope because you are in hurry. You also _choose_ to work an hour away from home... They _CHOSE_ to get married...wtf? Now I choose to pick my freakin nose. | ||
| Sifo |
Not without a permit from the EPA! | ||
| Airbozo |
"I'm actually very happy with the deal I got on at least the last 3 cars. I think it's Xdigitalx who has gotten the bad deal." Hehe, guess I read it wrong then. I admit I suck when I negotiate for cars. I take a wing man. And I agree with the who's right's trump others rights. Usually doesn't it come down to choice and access? By adhering to her religious beliefs in a government position that is supposed to be providing a service to the general public, She is an agent of the government and cannot be seen as promoting one religion over another. By denying all licenses because she does not believe in same sex marriage she is espousing her beliefs by authority of her position. The Courts have previously ruled that "Freedom of Religion" can be seen as "Freedom from Religion". So my argument is that both are stated rights, Freedom OF and Freedom FROM. Still, even though I am not a religious person, I support her convictions, but there should be a mechanism in place to allow that provision of service while not conflicting with her religion. If her only issue is with her name being on the license, then move the "authority" higher up the food chain. That would probably take a passage of a law or re-writing the responsibility charter. Or much easier, hire a co-clerk. | ||
| Airbozo |
"They _CHOSE_ to get married...wtf?" As did many other people. Why should someone have to drive to another county to perform the same government business that you can perform in the county you live in? Now I choose to pick my freakin nose." Ewww! TMI TMI (did it taste good? "Not without a permit from the EPA!" They would probably end up having him save them in a containment locker and then allow them crusties to be added into a natural stream to enhance the food chain. Ewww! | ||
| Sifo |
And I agree with the who's right's trump others rights. Usually doesn't it come down to choice and access? By adhering to her religious beliefs in a government position that is supposed to be providing a service to the general public, She is an agent of the government and cannot be seen as promoting one religion over another. By denying all licenses because she does not believe in same sex marriage she is espousing her beliefs by authority of her position. The Courts have previously ruled that "Freedom of Religion" can be seen as "Freedom from Religion". NO. One person's rights do not trump another's. This isn't an either or situation. There are solutions that don't involve jailing her for not ignoring her religious convictions. This would be akin to requiring that all doctors perform a certain percentage of abortions as part of their business, just because someone demands it. They could simply quite being a doctor if they have issues with that, right? This is all a product of an overreaching government. Seriously, click and read the first three posts... http://www.badweatherbikers.com/cgibin/discus/show .cgi?tpc=4062&post=2314697#POST2314697 These are not unforeseen conflicts. These are conflicts that have been created by our government with full knowledge of what was going to happen. |
