Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
But...but...I thought dissent was the truest form of patriotism.
KY Clerk Refuses to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses, Get's Jailed
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
But...but...I thought dissent was the truest form of patriotism.
And because I am I can discern what is relevant to this particular case. The issue here is can SCOTUS hand down a ruling that nullifies someone's constitutional rights.. When SSM was handed down in June, the first thing most scholars said was that SCOTUS is writing law. Couple that with First Amendment nullification and Houston we have a problem. Garcetti has nothing to do with this so stop reading crap that tells you what to believe. There is one thing for sure, if it is Muslim, involves baby parts, can take your gun, or queer as a football bat, Iceman is for it.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I don't have a problem with her dissenting. She has the right to express her religious freedom but first amendment rights do not apply to employment requirements. The constitution doesn't include the right to a job. She knew what her job requirements entailed when she took office. If she was unwilling to fulfill them for whatever conscientious reasons, good for her. She should resign and find something else to do that won't force her to compromise her principles.
Law was written by 5 SCOTUS justices after she had been performing her job requirements. I am certain had this law been in place prior she would not have sought the position. Or had she been prescient enough to foresee it. We have a serious First amendment issue here, in fact Roberts and Thomas alluded to it in their dissents. Civil disobedience is the weapon of choice for the left, well now the right are using it and about damn time. This is heading back before the Supremes amigo and they have a lot of 'splainin' to do.
I really don't understand how people do not understand this point. I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who takes a different stance on this since it is not complex and is fundamental.
I would have more respect if the argument was that this a civil disobedience in protect of the Supreme Court ruling. If they wanted to hold up the argument that it is not within the Federal jurisdiction to make any rulings on marriage and protest that, I may not agree with it, but I would respect it.
To take the stance that their religious rights are being infringed on by her denying someone else the right to marry just isn't logical.
It all strikes me as very insincere. I have lost any respect I may have had for Mike Huckabee and the others.
This isn't an issue like abortion and I can't believe that all of the people expressing these beliefs misunderstand the legal aspect of this.
Simple, SCOTUS must interpret the constitution, not trample on constitutional rights in order to write law. Why some can't conceive of this simple fact is why the public believes anything handed down by SCOTUS is "The Law Of The Land". Davis was supposed to either go away or capitulate like a good little girl. See you in D.C.
Perhaps if you were in the legal profession the nuances of Constitutional law and what powers SCOTUS possess would be clearer to you. You sound like the BMW owner that doesn't like the repair bill of 3000 dollars when the highly trained tech tells you that the piston is cracked and you are convinced it is just a spark plug.
:rofl2:
Garcetti v. Ceballos: "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom." There's a difference between private and public citizens. Her private beliefs are covered by the 1st but once she enters her official role as a government official, she's no longer a private citizen. The 1st amendment that protects her freedom of religion also restricts the government from having any official religious beliefs. On this she has no case because she's a public official but if she were a baker refusing to service gays, she would have little more leeway
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Yeah. Damned that pesky old Equal Protection Clause!!
this all would've gone over without controversy (at least from the left) if she said she was muslim.
<crickets>
ya know, cause they kill homosexuals.
<crickets>
ya know, cause they kill homosexuals.
explain that to me please. The Equal Protection Clause as it relates to marriage.
He can't, without making things up . The constitution does not grant the right to marry.
The validity of the ruling is being challenged here. Everyone understands it is law . The ruling stands unless challenged. Which is what is happening now. Glad to know you are this hung up on following the letter of the law though. There is enough work on your,side to keep you busy for a while.
You've really been pounding on this today. I can only assume you're referring to Obama's long list of transgressions and constitutional violations. If only there were a group of people who had been paying attention, watching him to try to catch him out when he breaks all these laws, but he's gotten away with so much evil and there's still literally nothing to point to. If only they would ask some plucky 60 year old legal secretary from New York, I'm sure they'd have the president gift wrapped by supper time!
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I'll let Justice Kennedy explain it:
One can choose to disagree but it is the correct interpretation of the amendment and the clause(s) from my perspective as they relate to this particular issue.
BlkHawk
Closed Account
"You most spread some reputation around blah blah ..."
Either you need to stop making posts that make sense to me, or others need to start making more. *sigh*
ApolloBalboa
Was King of the Board for a Day
What's this? Christians upset that others are impressing their beliefs upon them, forcing them to adapt around their agenda?
I'm inclined to say that the pendulum has swung the other way; that's not to say that it won't swing too far (and very well might at some point), but in the meantime I'm in support of everyone having equal marriage rights. That's all I'm going to say on the issue.
I'm inclined to say that the pendulum has swung the other way; that's not to say that it won't swing too far (and very well might at some point), but in the meantime I'm in support of everyone having equal marriage rights. That's all I'm going to say on the issue.
Oh he chose Kennedy, why didn't you submit that "clown in black face" dissenting opinion? He actually predicted this very thing. Oh that's right it doesn't fit your predisposition to the issue. The court will be forced to clarify their position now. Let's see who they side with. I take satisfaction that 2 months later the flaws of this ruling are being exposed. Kim Davis is a god damned American treasure!
and I can post the dissenting opinion.
but here's just my own thoughts on the matter:
if marriage is traditionally and legally defined as being between a man and a woman, that applies across the board equally. A straight person would have the exact same right to marry as a gay person under that definition. Whose civil rights were being violated there? That kind of distinction is made all the time. The legal driving age for many if not most states is 16-years-old. When I was 15 and felt I could perfectly handle a car, was I being denied equal protection under the law by not being allowed to drive legally?
My sister and I are pretty close.
Similar threads
