An interesting question posed by the Christian Science Monitor (via Hot Air headlines)
Gay marriage: Can religious clerks conscientiously object to issuing licenses?
After the US Supreme Court’s decision declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental right last week, many county clerks and local magistrates soon found themselves at the center of new questions about the scope of religious liberty and the civic responsibilities required by their jobs.
Should there be a kind of “conscientious objector†or religious exemption status for those with deeply held religious objections to same-sex marriage, if other government employees are available to provide couples with their constitutionally guaranteed rights? Can clerks and judges opt out of participating in personally issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?
Now, many will say “hey, they’re government employees, so they are required to uphold the edicts as put out by the government. So what if it wasn’t legal prior to them being hired”. But, what of people who voluntarily join the military, then decide that they do not want to actually participate in military action? Many are given that conscientious objector status, despite knowing what the military does. Liberals certainly do not say “well, that person should resign, or be booted out”, do they? What of someone who has had a job for a long time, and is now being told to do something which infringes on their 1st Amendment provided Right to religious freedom?
Of course, some people are more equal than others. It’s apparently OK to infringe on some people’s Rights.
But on Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four couples – two same-gender and two opposite-gender – who were denied marriage licenses in a jurisdiction east of Lexington, where a clerk has refused to issue them to anyone.
The Kentucky branch of the ACLU said in statement that the clerk “has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs.â€
Interesting. As rogerb notes at the Hot Air link “The exact same people who supported Obama choosing which parts of Obamacare to implement and which parts to delay will tell you no, they can’t.” Truth boom.
Let’s consider how often elected officials pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. Think about illegal immigration. Sanctuary cities. Giving legal status to DREAMERS and others via executive amnesty. Releasing low (and high) level criminal offenders who are illegal aliens. Remember how Obama shut down parks and such, denying access to US citizens, then allowed a group of illegal aliens to hold a protest?
Imagine a company deciding to delete tens of thousands of emails, after using an unsecured private email server. Imagine a private company suddenly having a massive computer hard drive malfunction right as a serious issue of negligence came to light. Imagine a group running guns into Mexico. There are lots and lots of ways in which Team Obama has decided which laws to enforce, and which to not. Heck, even breaking the law. Let’s be clear, Republicans will pick and choose at times, too. Team Obama, though, stated they would refuse to defend DOMA, despite being The Law.
If Liberals want county clerks, and private citizens who are bakers and such, to be forced to violate their religious beliefs or face the consequences, they should also believe that Team Obama, including Barack, should face the consequences of failing to uphold the law, right?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Should we allow sharia law, if some people hold deeply held religious views? Should a person’s religious views allow them to opt out of secular laws? When muslim cab drivers refused dogs in their cabs your position was that THEY must obey the law. Now it seems like you are advocating for sharia law, if it is a deeply held religious view.
Should muslim cab drivers be able to refuse gay riders? Should public bus drivers be also allowed to decide which customers should be allowed on their busses based on what they feel their religion wants them to do? Can christians refuse to serve adulterers ?
And NO Teach the POTUS has a constitutional right of prosecutorial discretion. Always has always will that comes from being POTUS
A POTUS is a bit different than a county clerk.
Alas! It seems to me that county clerks, or whatever other government officials wind up issuing marriage licenses in individual jurisdictions, must obey the law, and cannot discriminate against homosexual couples any more than they could were they to object to interracial marriages; they have the choice of complying with the law, or resigning.
Private individuals, on the other hand, such as bakers — the obvious example — should have every right to choose with whom they will or will not do business.
Our esteemed host noted other public officials not obeying the law:
And we’ve just seen, in San Francisco, just how well that has worked out. The suspect in the killing of Kate Steinle was a convicted felon, and a five-time deportee who kept coming back, and the sanctuary city just turned him loose, without notifying ICE . . . and now an innocent girl is dead.
I’ll say it plainly: all of the officials in San Francisco who made and “enforced” the “sanctuary city” policy have Miss Steinle’s blood on their hands. Even if you believe our immigration policies to be wrong, public officials don’t get to ignore the law, and it defies all belief, and common sense, that San Francisco would let a convicted felon just walk free.
John actually makes some cogent and coherent points. Of course, they are mostly about protecting hardcore Islam, which he conveniently ignores want to replace Western governments with Islamic theocracies.
He also misses the part where Sharia Law is meant to replace existing law. I guess he’s fine with Islamists treating women like 3rd class citizens and property, as well as them throwing gays off roof tops.
You might to take a look at oath of office, John. The President doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. This is not a dictatorship. If elected officials and high ranking govt officials can choose to ignore the law, then why can’t you and I? Are you suggest g there should be different classes when it comes to the law? An aristocracy and a peasant class?
No Teach you “guessed” wrong. All good and true SJW hold ALL women’s rights in high regard including the right to abortions, which seems to place YOU squarely in with the muslims
Of course the POTUS gets to choose which laws will be prosecuted, just as lowly police officers get to choose which laws sucha s jaywalking THEY charge people with. And of course during wartime we were told by conservatives that the POTUS has near unlimited powers to use at his discretion.
If you think that all in the USA are treated equally under the law you must also still believe in those UNICIONS !! that are mentioned in your Bible.
And again NO Teach sharia law is not meant to replace governmental law, and remember I have lived under sharia law for 6 months in Afghanistan in 1976-77 so don’t try and tell me what sharia law is by dittoing Rush And who wants religious law except those on the right wing like christianists and islamists? What is the difference in a licensed bakery owner and a cab driver refusing service on religious grounds? What about those religions which have a tenet against black people like the Christian Idenity Church? Can you imagine the stink the right would make if the Nation of Islam refused to sell their bean pies to christians?
Interesting, because your SJWs do all you can to protect hardcore Islamists.
Anyhow, what you’re saying is:
1. It’s A-OK for women and gays to be treated like crap under Islam
2. You’re fine with the political aristocracy ignoring the law (of course, the minute a Republican does something similar, you’ll pitch a fit)
3. You’re just fine and dandy with doing away with any conscientious objectors.
John can’t see the difference:
There’s a lot of difference: the bakeries in question did not say that they wouldn’t bake any cake for the homosexuals in question, just that they refused to participate in a homosexual “marriage” ceremony. Had the customers in question asked for a “Happy Birthday” cake, the bakery would (almost) certainly have provided it.
We have no choice. The political correctness forced on us by the communist Democratic left will ultimately lead to entire sections of this nation practicing Sharia law. Already we are seeing this in smaller areas of our country.
England is almost gone as a nation…..there are entire gigantic sections of London which are no go zones because of Sharia domination and Sharia Law.
All across Europe and Russian ex sattellite countries muslim women are averaging 7.9 babies per muslim mother….while non Muslims are averaging just 1.2 babies per NON muslim woman.
At this rate by 2100 that dreaded AGW moment…..Europe, Russia and Most of Asia will be completely Sharia Law Dominated….the Chaos of the Middle East will spread to Europe and trading partners of the USA which will be 45 percent hispanic, 25 percent black and 25 percent white and practicing some form of Neo Fascist Communism will be a slum ridden wasteland.
Islam will continue its push and the Communist Atheists will not be able to stop it and they sure as hell wont be able to debate it….any debate will be met with their tongues cut out or worse….entire families murdered for the Infidels.
The only potential country to stand in the way will be destroyed from within as we embark upon the communist lefts own destruction of this country…….
Whats Ironical in all this is that the nirvana they seek….will be crushed by the Islamic Caliphate they laugh at today and refuse to address because………EVERY DOLLAR, EVERY THOUGHT that leaves our shores for another country or another ideal is a dollar or thought lost on their own agenda.
RIP WORLD…..for by 2100…we will either be flooded and baking as the AGW commies claim or we will be putting or rugs on the ground and worshipping ALLAH. Neither of which fits into the communist lefts plans of a new world order that has them at the top of the food chain.
Liam please try and stay rational I know that you can get a bit emotional at times but try and maintain
Leftists progs, etc. do NOT want religion to trump secular laws. The radical religious right (which yes DOES include some muslims) wants citizens to opt out of laws that conflict with their religious beliefs. I think this is wrong. Here in NYC we had public buses in Orthodox neighborhoods making women ride in the back of buses because of fears they might be “unclean” i.e. menstruating
I do not think that people should be allowed to discriminate in a publicly licensed business. Muslims must take alcohol in their regulated cabs. Bakers must not discriminate in THEIR state regulated business. If at home those bakers do not wish to decorate their cakes with a moon and crescent or rainbow flags I have no probleAs for calling me a commie for believing in AGW I denounce YOU as a Nazi !!
So there!!
I do not think that people should be allowed to discriminate in a publicly licensed business. Muslims must take alcohol in their regulated cabs. Bakers must not discriminate in THEIR state regulated business. If at home those bakers do not wish to decorate their cakes with a moon and crescent or rainbow flags
You can believe what you want john. The question is whether people’s rights can be trampled.
You like to bring up Muslim cab drivers and compare them to bakers decorating a cake as if they are the same thing. They are not.
You are correct that the job of a cab driver is to take people somewhere and they should not discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs. I have yet to hear from anyone (other than those who erect straw man arguments such as you) that bakeries should not sell baked goods to everyone.
The issue is the message that the cake sends or creates. When a baker is forced to create something with a message that is against his religious beliefs, that is a clear violation of the First Amendment in two ways.
First, it is a violation of the person’s freedom of religion. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the message the baker is forced to create is compelled speech. The Supreme Court has long held that “compelled speech is not free speech.”
Tell me john, should people be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Should a gay baker be forced to make a cake that says “homosexuality is a sin?” Should a black copywriter be forced to create announcements for KKK rallies? Should a Jewish graphic designer be forced to create flyers and advertising for the Nazi party?
It is not the product or the service, but the compelled speech that is against one’s religious beliefs that puts this issue squarely on the side of those who believe in the rights of people and the Constitution.
(In other words, people unlike you.)