Posted on 07/10/2015 6:35:05 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Supreme Court could not have been clearer when it ruled late last month that states may not refuse to marry same-sex couples.
But in several states where the resistance to marriage equality has been most entrenched, government officials whose job it is to license or perform marriages continue to misunderstand, stall or flatly defy the court. However they justify these tactics, their conduct is illegal and they must stop.
These public employees seem to forget that taxpayers pay them to do their job. If doing that job violates his or her religious beliefs, the best solution is to find another job, as several have done in the days since the Obergefell ruling.
Government employees do not have a constitutionally protected right to pick and choose which members of the public they will serve, no matter their religious beliefs.
The Constitution’s protection of religious freedom simply does not include the right to discriminate against others in the public sphere.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
We need Sanctuary States for Obamacare and draconian EPA laws
I like the way this Pastor is standing up:
“Seceding from Sodom”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPs5z2knyPI
May God bless him and raise up more like him.
I suspect whatever “future history” we have will be written by ISIS or its ilk - if they can write at all.
Five catholic liberal elites make the call for the whole country on gay marriage. Maybe those ‘priests’ weren’t the exception after all...
But.. but Kennedy said religious freedom was protected in his opinion. Lying sack!
...and the horse they rode in on.
The majority in this decision were two cradle Catholics with no observed history of serious observation (Kennedy and Sotomayor) and three non-to-minimally observant Reform Jews (Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer). The dissenters were all Catholics, of whom at least two are serious about it: Scalia, one of whose sons is a priest, and Thomas, who converted.
The court did not say that. The court said homosexual marriage is “legal” in all 50 states.
Smoking is legal in all 50 states as well, but you can't just light up anywhere and not all stores sell tobacco.
That one sentance shows the extent to which the NYTimes Editorial Board has surrendered logic and submitted to the contortions required to make an emotionally-driven argument sound reasonable.
The NYT Ed Board says that the clerks work for the taxpayers. Which means they don’t work for the Supreme Court. So, logically, the clerks should do what the taxpayers want and not the Court.
Thats the argument the NYT Ed Board is really making, without understanding the logical implications of the taxpayers wanting something different than the Court. Or they just assume that the taxpayers in the jurisdictions where the clerks are refusing to comply support the Court’s decision. Which could be any one of a number of logical fallicies.
Should that pastor quit taking tithes and offerings from congregants in the free market?
I mean, since the free market is so immoral and all....should he put his money where your mouth is?
It all deppends on what the definition of “protected” is....
“However they justify these tactics, their conduct is illegal and they must stop.”
The Homosexual Slimes has spoken - this is the FINAL warning!
What does scripture say about that?
Yeah, some folks resisted SCOTUS on Dred Scott too, SLIMES.
This is hilarious, because many or even most of those county officials are elected, not appointed, so they cannot be “fired” by some other official.
Making it even funnier, is that in many or most states, the county clerk has some tasks that are required and some that are not. Thus, the big legal argument is whether the issuance of marriage licenses is required or discretionary.
Granted they can’t just issue to heterosexuals. But they can choose to not issue to anyone.
If I’m ever again called to jury duty and asked the question, “Do you promise to act according to what the law says rather than what you think it should say?” I will reply, “No. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to, so neither do I.”
Do they make you say that when you get called to jury duty these days? I’ve had jury duty before but it has been a lot of years ago. I don’t remember that question. Seems to me to be a wrongheaded question. What did the world judge should have been done with the immoral laws in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s? Some people got the death penalty for doing what the law said they should do.
You may want to reconsider and just do what judges do: lie. They take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and then do nothing of the kind. Who knows, some Christian charged with a crime may need you to hang the jury or lobby for no damages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.