Gays will have their cake, and eat it too. Supreme court decision.

Federal judge rules Mississippi clerks cannot cite religious beliefs to refuse issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples - AP

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/mississippi-same-sex-marriage/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is a great day for the 14th amendment. And a Great day for Jesus. Gone is the lame excuse of who would Jesus hate.

So, if I am reading this correctly, soon fundies of all walks, can drop the holier than thou, and get to serving.

Who says nothing good ever happens anymore?

 

I strongly suspect I concur, but the headlines on the articles I read are vague. I don't care if specific clerks in those clerk offices are or are not allowed to 'recuse', I care that the office provide the same service in the same place, in the same time frames to all couples. If the county clerks office can figure out a way to ensure that the service is provided during open hours Mon-Friday, while allowing Fundie Felicia to avoid issuing to same sex couples because Liberal Leon does not mind doing it for her, more power to them all! The government agency cannot use its employees religious objections as an excuse to refuse to provide prompt, convenient, respectful service to both straight and gay couples. Any inconvenience from pampering these employees, must be borne on the clerks office, not the customer.

 

I did notice the limited application. But, it is one domino.

 

Same sex marriages are not the equal of heterosexual marriages, but that's irrelevant in the U.S. in the 21st century.

This case was a no brainer. The clerk never had a chance of winning.

 

How is that?

 

I don't think a judge has anything to do with what Jesus said..

Just saying

 

Tyrrany of the minority wins again.

Sad what liberals have done to our society.

Soon they will require that everyone kneels when a gay walks past them.

 

What you REALLY mean is, what them friggin founding fathers did, as the Supreme court simply deems things con, or uncon.

 

I'm sure the founding fathers would be so happy to see two hairy dudes in pink panties and high heels leaping around in gay pride parades.

 

I disagree. If your religious convictions preclude you from doing your job - especially when you are drawing your salary from our tax dollars - then you should find another line of work.

 

How do you figure?

It seems the law has finally caught up to the 21st Century.

You are right about that. If your religion precludes you from performing your job you need to go work somewhere else.

 

How does legal parity constitute tyranny?

Interesting. So, you believe the role of government is to impose your personal beliefs on your fellow citizens?

Hyperbole noted.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought we were talking about marriage law.

 

I get your point and as a manager, I might well refuse to accommodate those religious convictions. I might say do it, or get fired. But I do not insist that other managers handle it that way. I leave managers to decide how they manage their human resources. . Its up to them to draw up job descriptions, and allocate hours to specific duties and decide how they much they are willing to work around the idiosyncrasies of their employees.

If, for example an otherwise wonderful employee cannot stand the feel of Styrofoam cups, I mean she really hates to touch styrofoam, and it is her job to refill the coffee station, but she asks the janitor to replenish the cups, do I really care if the janitor doesn't care? I am going to fire her because she can't or won't put a row of cups next to the stirrers and the sugar cubes, when the cups show up every day, on time and the janitor does not mind that he makes it happen?

I am not out to force antigay employees out of jobs, because I hate anti-gay people being paid by my tax dollars. I just want the bigotry not to impact customer service or morale. If the clerks office thinks this employee is an asset to the office, has great evaluations, perfect attendance, and is a hard worker, I will leave it up to the manager to determine how to solve this.

 

How about when they walk by everyone, we just let them keep walking by, instead of mowing them down with an assault weapon? Your expression of hatred gets an A+ for sure.

 

They should be happy. They set the precedent for gays with the Fourteenth amendment; http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage.html

 

It's the law of nature that opposites attract.

1) A male and female bring different strengths and weaknesses to a relationship. They complement each other, especially when it comes to raising a family. Same sex partners essentially bring the same strengths and weaknesses to a relationship.

2) Heterosexual parts fit together better homosexual parts.

3) With heterosexual partners, there is a certain mystery that adds an extra dimension to a relationship. If I were to have sex with my best friend (it won't happen), there would be no mystery involved at all. But I'll never know what being female is all about, so I learn something in every encounter.

Just my opinion.

 

Answer to the first point ... please see just above this.

On your third point, I agree. But then why should Muslims be allowed to keep jobs that they can't fulfill because of their religion? Some Muslim cab drivers won't allow alcohol or dogs in their cab, and they're allowed to refuse business. Isn't that like refusing to bake a gay cake?

 

If you are talking about a private business, you are free to run it however you please, in my view. But the government? No, sorry, you work for the taxpayers. You do your job or go work somewhere else.

 

Your points in the above post may or may not have merit, but are in my view irrelevant to a discussion of civil law. Free men do not need a government to make determinations of propriety or certain ideals you may favor. And as to your point about anatomy, again, I have to wonder why you think that should hold sway over matters of the civic franchise.

I never argued they should. I would apply the same standard, of course.

You are referring I think to the Minneapolis case. Unlike a government agency who must serve all equally and dispassionately, I believe in a proprietor's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they see fit. UNLESS you are a certain licensed professional and your refusal or service could constitute an undue burden on the public - like a taxi company that is licensed to provide a service using taxpayer-funded public infrastructure; a pharmacist who refuses to dispense prescribed medication; or a hotel or restaurant refusing to serve or accommodate blacks, for example.

It is actually worse that refusing to bake a cake for the reasons I cited above.

 

I believe heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships for the reasons I mentioned previously. But I agree, to deny civil liberties based on those reasons is difficult if not impossible. They hold no weight in court given our current legal interpretations.

 

and i'm sure it will be a very large, colorful cake... and they will enjoy it very much.
they'll even fix you a slice... don't worry, gay isn't contagious

 

now that's an open minded attitude! you poor thing... you'd like to lock them up, wouldn't you? or at least make them use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains. or is that blacks and Hispanics?

now you have to endure gays (and blacks and Hispanics, not to mention Asians and Democrats) walk around using the same stores and bathrooms as you.

how AWFUL for you!!

 

1) You're basing that on stereotypes. The general population has a far broader range than your stereotypes.

2) WTF???

3) The issue is whether you have the right to deny others what THEY see as attractive. What you find attractive is irrelevant.

 

Interesting question.

But, there is a major difference here in that these drivers aren't excluding you because of your race, religion, national origin, gender, or anything else about you as a person.

I drove a cab as a college student a long time ago (lol). I can tell you I really hated drunks and dogs.

Somehow, our society seems to have come to the conclusion that dogs that are not service animals can be taken literally anywhere. I've seen them in restaurants, grocery stores, etc., even when there are laws against it. My wife and I have to pick up dog turds left by owners who seem to think my lawn and plantings are a toilet that their dog should be free to trample.

I'm sorry - I'm MORE than fine with cab drivers who are responsible for the cleanliness of their cabs to choose not to accept behavior such as smoking, dogs, alcohol, etc.

 

1. sometimes, if you are really lucky.

2. their business.

3. Their mystery is wired different.