It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: matafuchs
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: matafuchs
What law are they protected from? Again, there is no law.
Each state's Marriage Laws.
The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment or endorsement of religion by government but it also protects your right to belief and that the government should pass no law to restrict your religious freedoms.
The government didn't pass any new laws. And her religious freedom has not been restricted. If you say it has, tell me HOW. What freedom is she being denied?
So, is the federal government telling states that they have to abide by this ruling? If so, then the 'states' law are out the window. No matter what they vote the federal government is telling them otherwise which is not how our country was founded. It was created to protect the rights of the states but here, without passing a law, the federal government is telling states that it is illegal to NOT support, not enforce, gay marriage.
She is being denied the ability to live according to her belief system. When she was elected, there was nothing in her beliefs that would have prevented her from performing her duties, Now, after a SCOTUS judgement, the rules have changed. So, her beliefs were ok until she did not want to do something against them. See my point?
It is not about not allowing them, it is about those who are affected when a new rule comes into affect. The world should not change because same sex unions are seen as legal to the SCOTUS. It should incorporate to include ALL races, religions, and, as it stands now, sexual orientation.
originally posted by: DelMarvel
Yesterday her Liberty Council lawyer was saying that all she wanted was for her name (as clerk) to not be on the licenses.
Now her assistants are issuing licenses without her name on them and she is announcing through her lawyer that these aren't valid licenses.
Proof positive that this goes beyond her claims of being forced to do something that violates her personal beliefs. She wants to use the power of her office to impose her religious beliefs on others by dictating who can get a license even when she is off the hook as far as her personal involvement.
originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Really trying to go out on a limb and explain this. My religious belief is that I must sacrifice a virgin at the height of every full moon, how many moons will go by before I am facing a lethal injection?
My defense, you are infringing on my religious beliefs.
Everyone, and rightfully so, would be howling for my head on a stick.
Sorry for the graphic scene, but after 38 pages, I am not sure how to get a point across .
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: BubbaJoe
I understand it. But I think it sets a scary precedent across the board. I think many of you are so blinded by "YEAH FOR SAME SEX MARRAIGE' you do not see the bigger picture here on how else it can be applied and strip the core citizens not only of simple rights but if they interpret this one way, why not other laws? For 100's of years the right to bear arms is guaranteed but if the SCOTUS decides different then we ALL have to obey....
Again, I am for same sex marriage. It will bring jobs and pump money into the economy and start a totally new line of same sex divorce lawyers. go economy!
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: BubbaJoe
I understand it. But I think it sets a scary precedent across the board. I think many of you are so blinded by "YEAH FOR SAME SEX MARRAIGE' you do not see the bigger picture here on how else it can be applied and strip the core citizens not only of simple rights but if they interpret this one way, why not other laws? For 100's of years the right to bear arms is guaranteed but if the SCOTUS decides different then we ALL have to obey....
Again, I am for same sex marriage. It will bring jobs and pump money into the economy and start a totally new line of same sex divorce lawyers. go economy!
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66
they can't that's what the separation of church and state is all about.
they can't say that your belief against homosexuality is genuine and worthy and mine, whatever it is... if they do, they are promoting one belief system above another.
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66
The 14th Amendment WAS created to protect the civil rights of all and directly...slaves.
(and for the record, getting married does not provide life, liberty or property. Sometimes it is just a drinking problem, a weight problem and too much reality TV....)
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66
The 14th Amendment WAS created to protect the civil rights of all and directly...slaves.
(and for the record, getting married does not provide life, liberty or property. Sometimes it is just a drinking problem, a weight problem and too much reality TV....)
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: AboveBoard
If she did this with a gun license, I would, honestly, feel the same way. If she has the balls to stand up for some reason then, hey, good for her. In the end, it will be done one way or the other. But she stayed true to herself which I feel is hurting our nation today.
I am not anti same sex marriage. I am against continuance interpretation till we get what we want based on who is in office of control of the SCOTUS. Lobbyists pressed this to pass to get votes in 2016. Baaaaaa...sheep...hahahaha. It is a joke and should not even be an issue. These arguments have been around in the courts since the 60's and who stopped it then? Democrats.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
Knowing she couldn't do her job, why didn't she just resign? Hmmm? I know if I had a job that required me to do something I didn't want to, I would just quit. Why didn't she just quit? Because she wanted to control what happened in her county. That's a little different than just not wanting to do something against her religion. She thought she could rule over her county and stop same sex marriage there. That was her goal. Queen Kim Davis - ruler of her Kentucky county.
Since she has to be impeached and not just fired, she thought that because impeachment proceedings typically take so long, that she she could continue to stop same sex marriage in her county in the meantime. Nice try, but the judge was on to her, hence the jail sentence. Sorry, her county is not a theocracy, she doesn't get to rule over it. She doesn't get to decide that same sex marriage licenses aren't gonna happen in her county.
When you argue for enforcement under power of alleged law, complete with criminal and civil penalties and the ability to use force, up to and including lethal force, to compel compliance when no delegation of power exists for said alleged law what you are arguing for is an explicitly unlawful act undertaken by a mob that you happen to belong to and associate with.