It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: xuenchen
I understand the intent of the OP, and though this thread has been through the grinder on procedural jurisprudence, I found an article that echos his position:
Some of the content echos posts in this thread:
Davis’s arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws. Take, for example, Democrat Gavin Newsom, who is currently the California lieutenant governor. Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses:
Just like Kim Davis, who is an elected Democrat, Newsom justified his lawlessness by citing his own conscience and beliefs about right and wrong rather than deferring to the actual laws of his state. If you look for evidence of gay rights advocates chastising Newsom for his blatant lawlessness, you won’t find it. Because it doesn’t exist. You similarly won’t find any evidence of these principled law enforcement purists chastising California state officials for refusing to enforce or defend the Prop 8 ballot initiative in California, which was passed overwhelmingly by California voters.
My personal favorite:
When you really think about it, though, this whole kerfuffle is obviously the fault of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses. She should’ve known better. She should’ve thought this whole thing through. If Kim Davis really wanted to avoid the ire and attention of progressives and their media allies, she should’ve just videotaped herself killing babies and then selling their organs. Then she could operate with total impunity.
That's what I love about the threads here. Reasonable discourse without devolving into derogatory name calling.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Khaleesi
There isn't an intrinsic double standard in the OP's example. I assume he used that example because he saw a double standard in the LGBT community and how their supporters react and how the religious right and their supporters react.
I don't see it. That doesn't mean that I don't think that double standards don't ever exist. For example, the woman in question, Kim, is operating on a double standard by refusing to licence LGBT couples, but has no test for adultery. Now that's a double standard.
originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo
I don't see how equal marriage rights are a left or a right issue. There's just "for" and "agin".
You're seeking a debate that isn't there. My stance on marriage rights or LGBT issues wasn't the focus of my post, as much as you're trying to make it that. BTW, the "for" and "again" thing--only Siths deal in absolutes. Find someone else to argue with.
When the George W. Bush administration allowed an evangelical organization in 2007 to hire only members of its own religion to work on a government contract, Sen. Barack Obama criticized the decision, saying taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize discrimination in hiring, and that he would end it if elected president. But Obama’s Justice Department has followed the same policy, and it is now being invoked by religious organizations that have applied for federal funds while refusing to hire gays or lesbians, offer accommodations to transgender employees, or provide information to minors about abortion or contraception. Groups promoting civil rights for minorities, women and the LGBT community say it’s time for the president to act.
But Obama’s Justice Department has followed the same policy, and it is now being invoked by religious organizations that have applied for federal funds while refusing to hire gays or lesbians, offer accommodations to transgender employees, or provide information to minors about abortion or contraception. Groups promoting civil rights for minorities, women and the LGBT community say it’s time for the president to act.
President Barack Obama will sign an executive order on Monday barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, senior administration officials said.
But in April 2014, Obama’s Justice Department relied on the 2007 memo in saying that religious organizations with federal contracts to combat violence against women could choose to hire only members of their own faith. Now, some Christian organizations are seeking a broader exemption in grants for programs to combat sexual abuse and trafficking of immigrant minors entering the United States.
The February 2015 letter from Catholic and evangelical Protestant organizations objected to the contracting rules that require contractors to provide access to emergency contraception. The groups also objected to requirements that information and access to all legal medical services, including abortion, be offered if a girl becomes pregnant. Both requirements would violate their religious freedom, the groups said.
A March 2015 letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also sought exemptions from rules banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
A religious organization would be barred from making hiring decisions based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Exceptions would be allowed for ministers, and groups would be allowed to favor individuals of a particular religion when hiring.
originally posted by: kellyjay
but again , how you feel shouldnt trump the law, the double standard is that both were in the same situation, both broke the law based on their personal beliefs and one was hailed a hero and the other is villanized...THAT is the double standard
I think the SCOTUS found a right that does not exist in the COTUS. There is not right to marriage for anyone. If there was, I could demand that Gryphn66, Buzzywigs, Trapped Princess and several other posters who definitely are not fond of me marry me and marry me now, and when they say no, I could sue them for denying me a basic right.
You guys do realize this is the only time in history that the religious reason to not issue licenses is valid right? When these people were elected or took the job, they didn't have to worry about this because it wasn't legal, the law changed and now their religious beliefs are being trampled badly.
Right. SCOTUS does not make laws. But not all laws are legal. It is the job of SCOTUS to make that determination. You know, like racial segregation laws? Illegal. Discrimination based on gender? Illegal. Discrimination based on sexual orientation? Illegal.
Not only that, but the Supreme Court is to interpret law, Congress makes the law!
Yeah. Like in 1964! Damned blacks got all uppity, didn't know their place. Or 1922, damned women, thought they should have the right to vote.
And as long as we stay silent and keep allowing 9 unelected people to overstep their bounds