WBC vs Kim Davis

[The Great Domain of Eli]

Her job is to serve the government. The government is secular and she cannot allow religious bias to get in the way of that. She was told to serve marriage licenses and she refused. She broke the law.

Well, that is actually quite true, I think that the couple needs to go somewhere else for a license. Another clerk would happily give it to them.

That would cost valuable time and money that the couple may not have. They have a constitutional right to get married wherever they want.

[Farnhamia]

This was interesting ...

Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.

Five of the six deputies told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that they would issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.

The lone holdout was ...

[Neutraligon]

Well, that is actually quite true, I think that the couple needs to go somewhere else for a license. Another clerk would happily give it to them.

Government officials do not get to pick which parts of the law they obey.

That is not...necessarily true. After all there where clerks who disobeyed the law and handed out marriage licenses. The difference was that they did not do so due to religious reasons, but because they thought the law was unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court has already made a judgement on what is and is not constitutional here this law clerk does not have a leg to stand on.

[The Siverian Republic]

Well, that is actually quite true, I think that the couple needs to go somewhere else for a license. Another clerk would happily give it to them.

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

[The Black Forrest]

This was interesting ...

Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.

Five of the six deputies told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that they would issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.

The lone holdout was ...

And somebody mentioned he want's moms job......

[Farnhamia]

Government officials do not get to pick which parts of the law they obey.

That is not...necessarily true. After all there where clerks who disobeyed the law and handed out marriage licenses. The difference was that they did not do so due to religious reasons, but because they thought the law was unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court has already made a judgement on what is and is not constitutional here this law clerk does not have a leg to stand on.

Those clerks were as wrong as this one is.

[Deuxtete]

Well, that is actually quite true, I think that the couple needs to go somewhere else for a license. Another clerk would happily give it to them.

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

You shouldn't. It's a violation of your civil rights.

[Minoa]

There are no complicated factors here: the Kentucky official simply discriminated in defiance of a clearly recognised civil right where more and more people are in support for, including me.

[Neutraligon]

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

Right there in the equal protection before the law, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

Are you fucking serous... are you really fucking serious.... did you not see the colossal fucking court case about it declaring same sex marriage legal earlier in the year? It is law, as was upheld by the Supreme court.

Fucking honestly,

[The Great Domain of Eli]

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

If you need to say "I'm not homophobic but" you've already lost, buddy

[The Great Domain of Eli]

That is not...necessarily true. After all there where clerks who disobeyed the law and handed out marriage licenses. The difference was that they did not do so due to religious reasons, but because they thought the law was unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court has already made a judgement on what is and is not constitutional here this law clerk does not have a leg to stand on.

Those clerks were as wrong as this one is.

Not quite. There's a huge difference between civil disobedience and what they're doing.

[Farnhamia]

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

Two cases, Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges. The first established a right to marriage and the second declared that the states may not ban same-sex couples from marrying.

[Geilinor]

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

Given your posts, it's clear that you are homophobic.

[Neutraligon]

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

You shouldn't. It's a violation of your civil rights.

No it is not, as the person can still practice their religion when not representing the US government. As a practical necessity of obeying the Constitution and the rule of law in not having the government recognize one religion, when representing the US government, federal and state employees have their freedom of religion limited. Similarly they have their right to strike also limited.

[The Siverian Republic]

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

Are you fucking serous... are you really fucking serious.... did you not see the colossal fucking court case about it declaring same sex marriage legal earlier in the year? It is law, as was upheld by the Supreme court.

Fucking honestly,

No wording says that they can marry, nor does a Constitutional Amendment. If they really have a problem, then get it ratified and passed, then you can judge whether or not here actions were against the law because of her religion.

[Geilinor]

Are you fucking serous... are you really fucking serious.... did you not see the colossal fucking court case about it declaring same sex marriage legal earlier in the year? It is law, as was upheld by the Supreme court.

Fucking honestly,

No wording says that they can marry, nor does a Constitutional Amendment. If they really have a problem, then get it ratified and passed, then you can judge whether or not here actions were against the law because of her religion.

The Fourteenth Amendment does.

[Val Halla]

Again why should the be forced to spend the time and money to go elsewhere when they have the Constitutional right to be married? Why should their rights be limited because one clerk does not understand that her freedom of religion is limited at the government office door?

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

It is in there. Remember that whole thing a few months ago? The reason why she's in jail?

[Neutraligon]

Are you fucking serous... are you really fucking serious.... did you not see the colossal fucking court case about it declaring same sex marriage legal earlier in the year? It is law, as was upheld by the Supreme court.

Fucking honestly,

No wording says that they can marry, nor does a Constitutional Amendment. If they really have a problem, then get it ratified and passed, then you can judge whether or not here actions were against the law because of her religion.

The Supreme Court has stated that the Equal protection clause of the Constitution applies when it comes to marriage, namely that state are not allowed to deny marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Thus denying them the right to their marriage (something the Supreme Court has also said is a fundamental right) directly goes against the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. Something does not need to be explicitly stated to be unconstitutional.

[The Siverian Republic]

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

Given your posts, it's clear that you are homophobic.

It's not homophobic if it is wrong. I won't let my religion play a part in this debate, but clearly you forced it out. It's like calling someone a coward for not serving in the armed forces, because their religion says that they cant kill. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Straight from the Christian Bible. King James Version.

[Neutraligon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

Given your posts, it's clear that you are homophobic.

It's not homophobic if it is wrong. I won't let my religion play a part in this debate, but clearly you forced it out. It's like calling someone a coward for not serving in the armed forces, because their religion says that they cant kill. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Straight from the Christian Bible. King James Version.

Your religion has nothing to do with if you are homophobic. There are those who are homophobic atheists. Your bible is irrelevant when it comes to the US government or state governments.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Are you fucking serous... are you really fucking serious.... did you not see the colossal fucking court case about it declaring same sex marriage legal earlier in the year? It is law, as was upheld by the Supreme court.

Fucking honestly,

No wording says that they can marry, nor does a Constitutional Amendment. If they really have a problem, then get it ratified and passed, then you can judge whether or not here actions were against the law because of her religion.

....

And you are done, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about at all. As was declared in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges Same Sex marriage is a protected right upheld by the 14th amendment in the United States Constitution. This happened this fucking year, it is law, part of the 14th amendment, you would have to be living under a rock to not know this with how widespread it was talked about both online and off-line.

Next time you go to argue about something, at least have a basic fraking understanding about what it is you are going to argue about.

[The Black Forrest]

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, regardless of whether or not they are gay, can marry? I'm not homophobic, just stating a fact.

It is in there. Remember that whole thing a few months ago? The reason why she's in jail?

It's just about oppressing Christians man!

[The Siverian Republic]

No wording says that they can marry, nor does a Constitutional Amendment. If they really have a problem, then get it ratified and passed, then you can judge whether or not here actions were against the law because of her religion.

....

And you are done, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about at all. As was declared in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges Same Sex marriage is a protected right upheld by the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. This happened this fucking year, it is law, part of the 14th amendment, you would have to be living under a rock to not know this with how widespread it was talked about both online and off-line.

Next time you go to argue about something, at least have a basic fraking understanding about what it is you are going to argue about.

If I looked up the text of the 14th amendment, it would say that.

It's not homophobic if it is wrong. I won't let my religion play a part in this debate, but clearly you forced it out. It's like calling someone a coward for not serving in the armed forces, because their religion says that they cant kill. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Straight from the Christian Bible. King James Version.

Your religion has nothing to do with if you are homophobic. There are those who are homophobic atheists. Your bible is irrelevant when it comes to the US government or state governments.

The most followed religion in the world says that. If God wrote the bible and told the authors what to write, then it is a sin to be gay.

[The Black Forrest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

Given your posts, it's clear that you are homophobic.

It's not homophobic if it is wrong. I won't let my religion play a part in this debate, but clearly you forced it out. It's like calling someone a coward for not serving in the armed forces, because their religion says that they cant kill. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Straight from the Christian Bible. King James Version.

Just embrace the homophobia. Moralists are funny about that. They want to be able to do the bad things but not be labeled.

Your religion doesn't give you the right to be exempt from the consequences of your actions.