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: xuenchen
a reply to: rnaa
But the Governor's EO is only removing the printed name of the County Clerks.
Nothing else changes.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: rnaa
The Deputy Clerks sign if the elected Clerk doesn't want to.
The Supreme Court didn't address the "reasonable accommodation" laws.
Here's the EO in Question
The Supreme Court case involved two Oregon men, Galen W. Black and Alfred C. Smith, who were denied unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. They were fired because they ingested peyote at a ceremony of the Native American Church, of which they were members.
In rejecting the men's claim that Oregon's law barring peyote use under all circumstances violates their religious freedom, Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing for the majority, said that the First Amendment freedom of religion does not allow individuals t o break the law: "We have never held that an individual's beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate." He said it would be "courting anarchy" to create exceptions every time a reli gious group claims that a law infringes on its practices.
www.publiceye.org...
Although Congress could enact "remedial" or "prophylactic" legislation to guarantee rights not exactly congruent with those defined by the Court, it could only do so in order to more effectively prevent, deter, or correct violations of those rights actually guaranteed by the Court. RFRA was seen disproportionate in its effects compared to its objective. Justice Kennedy wrote:
Congress' power under § 5, however, extends only to "enforc[ing]" the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has described this power as "remedial." The design of the Amendment and the text of § 5 are inconsistent with the suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]." (citations omitted)
Moreover, remedial or prophylactic legislation still had to show "congruence and proportionality" between the end it aimed to reach (that is, the violations it aimed to correct), and the means it chose to reach those ends—that is, the penalties or prohibitions it enacted to prevent or correct those violations. Because RFRA was not reasonably remedial or prophylactic, it was unconstitutional.
en.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: rnaa
The Deputy Clerks sign if the elected Clerk doesn't want to.
The Supreme Court didn't address the "reasonable accommodation" laws.
Here's the EO in Question
But in any event, if Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, she wouldn’t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty, and decline to issue such licenses at all — denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: xuenchen
I don't see a problem. If that's within his powers as governor, then he should be allowed to freely exercise them. Yeah, there will be a few other states that will pick up the banner with it and change their forms (to protect their religious liberty, of course). But the whole brouhaha about marriage equality will settle down eventually, and married gay couples will be totally normal, as it should be.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: xuenchen
I don't see a problem. If that's within his powers as governor, then he should be allowed to freely exercise them. Yeah, there will be a few other states that will pick up the banner with it and change their forms (to protect their religious liberty, of course). But the whole brouhaha about marriage equality will settle down eventually, and married gay couples will be totally normal, as it should be.
Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.
Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: xuenchen
I don't see a problem. If that's within his powers as governor, then he should be allowed to freely exercise them. Yeah, there will be a few other states that will pick up the banner with it and change their forms (to protect their religious liberty, of course). But the whole brouhaha about marriage equality will settle down eventually, and married gay couples will be totally normal, as it should be.
Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.
Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.