Govt workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses -pope

The Pope is wrong, and his logic is a slippery slope towards all sorts of discrimination due to "religious" reasons.

 

She has been a "Christian" for less than 4 years - aka born again.
The magical sky fairy dust wiped all the adultery, divorce and illegitimate child births when she made the decision to choose her new religion.

I'm sure people believed marriage was between individuals of the same color, same religion, ect... and guess what happened there.

By the way - her beliefs are irrelevant in the public sphere, sorry

 

True. Like I said, enjoy it while it lasts. I never said they ruled wrong because of my beliefs. I said they ruled without using the constitution. Chief Justice Roberts agrees with me.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage has always been a male and female, regardless of skin color since the dawn of civilization. A blip in history among democrat Jim Crow laws isn't significant.

 

An appeal to tradition argument. Guess we should still be living in caves since that's the way it always was... Try again?
Marriage has been created, redefined, absorbed into religions, used as politics...

Your right, that's an excellent argument. We shouldn't allow women rights because they have always been subservient, oh wait - just think how far we could have progressed using your "beliefs". Dark ages here we come

No rational argument can be made as to why two legally consenting adults should not be able to sign a secular legal document - not one. This is here to stay

 

I agree. You call it whatever you want. Marriage is still a male and female and American citizens have the right to believe that.

 

LOL - because some cult leader says so, it's true ?

 

The essence of religion is justified bigotry. One could assert all religions were created for the simple purpose of giving order to the locals while at the same time erasing outside tribes of validity on the basis they are worshiping the wrong deity. Discrimination is a natural consequence of religion.

 

Who gives a poop what the pope says?

 

NO rights are absolute, and she took an oath to abide by the letter of the law, not the ones her beliefs agree with.

So you are OK with a Muslim judge enforcing Sharia Law in their courtroom? Yes or No

 

She freely took an oath that had no special consideration given to what she believes in, only to do her job according to the law. She has every right to disagree with a law, she does not however have a right to use her authority (she is a clerk by the way, a records keeper/paper shuffler. Nothing she is being asked to do takes away her beliefs or makes her an active participant in a sinful act, even according to her own standards), to hamstring a law just because her supremacist attitude deems it necessary.

 

No. Sharia law is not constitutional. The count clerk is backed up by her constitution.

 

She doesn't forfeit her first amendment protected right when she walks into her office or when an unconstitutional corrupt law is passed.

 

But the judges belief is protected by the constitution, and that means the judges religious belief is all that matters, or are you being hypocritical (not surprised by the way) or are you now claiming that only Christians have absolute rights (also not surprised)? Don't look now but your intellectual dishonesty is also showing.

She is not. Her beliefs are not constitutional. The right to have them is, this ridiculous notion she can impose them on others isn't.

She is delusional with her religion, and overwhelmed with power she thinks she has, and people like you encouraging her to persist with her ignorance isn't helping anything.

Equal consistent protection under the law is not unconstitutional. And she hasn't forfeited anything, she is attempting to impose her beliefs on others, also unconstitutional.

 

You're contradicting yourself. Sharia law is cruel and inhumane treatment. There is also this:
I’ll keep this one simple: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and allTreaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Clause 2

This part means that NOTHING, regardless of its source, INCLUDING SHARIA LAW, will EVER have any lawful superiority over the U.S. Constitution.

 

But like you keep saying, religious beliefs are absolute and protected by the 1st amendment, or are you now saying there are limitations, and exemptions to all rights, as I have been trying to explain to you the entire time?

Her beliefs are checked at the door, to the point that they cannot interfere with her doing the job she is sworn to do, and if she cannot do that then she lied when she took her oath (a sin by the way), and she should have never assumed the position to begin with.

 

She believes marriage is a male and female. She is well within her constitutional rights.

 

Not according to the constitution

 

Without reading all 17 pages, is it safe to assume the article's misinterpretation of what he actually said being ran with in here?

 

Discrimination is a good thing. You would quickly die without it. All laws are discriminatory both religious and secular

 

You are correct but hey it fits with bashing the liberals and Catholics.

 

The pope didn't weigh in on her case, specifically. He simply states that conscientious objection (as a concept) is a right... not that it's a right and that it gives an individual the ability to not do his/her job.

 

That doesn't give her the authority to impose those beliefs on others. PERIOD! She can believe what she wants, she can do her job under protest, what she cannot do is impose her imaginary sense of authority, that doesn't exist, on others who have rights she doesn't agree with, or defy the courts who have instructed her that her beliefs are not constitutional law.

 

One thing is what the pope says one thing is what the pope thinks. He can't all of a sudden dismiss centuries of christian omophobia but he prolly doesn't think gays are wrong. So i take his words as a: " do as you wish but don't blame me for your decision "

 

Once again you have it backwards. A corrupt unconstitutional decision was imposed on her beliefs. She is well within her rights.

 

I agree that he said it was a right that all humans have but never endorsed Kim Davis for not doing her job because of conscientious objection to the laws at hand. You are misinturpting his oringal anwser however they can't interfere with the liberty and rights of others based on their belief of an imaginary guy in the sky saying they should.