[GlobalMan]

(09-06-2015 02:13 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

They (the founders) would despise you and your values.

You know neither me nor my values, and you've misunderstood what I've said here.

Like a few others, you're re-arguing the legal merits and/or the desirability of gay marriage, when that is not what I'm talking about at all, and not what this is about. I'm approaching this specific situation with the knowledge that gay marriage is now legal. Its a settled matter legally. I'm not for gay marriage. However, its now legal. Approaching the situation of this lady from another perspective is disingenuous.

In addition to that, whether we are talking about gay marriage or any other issue, the lady, in her role as a government worker, cannot deny service based on her personal beliefs and/or those of the citizen seeking service. She has never had that ability/right whatever you want to call it. Not for any reason, ever. The fact that it's issuing gay marriage licenses in this instance does not change that. Are you under the impression that a representative of the State can refuse service based on personal belief?

She has not been jailed for her religious beliefs. She is completely free to practice whatever religion she chooses. What she can't do, and thankfully so, is decide who to give government service to based on her personal beliefs. Again, not just in this matter, but with any issue. There has been a legal battle with her for months, she was instructed she must follow the law. She refused, using an argument hat is not legally valid. More time went by, she still refused. She not only refused, she prevented her entire office from issuing licenses, she prevented people from doing so who otherwise would (and now are). She was offered a compromise by the judge of allowing her to not sign the documents, just allow her deputies to issue them. She refused. She was offered the option of resigning, she refused. She stated no licenses would be issued with her in charge. She, like you, is in essence re-arguing the already settled legal matter, not the legality of her action which is the actual issue. She has been given more leeway, for a longer period of time, than you or I could ever dream of when complying with a court order. She's now in contempt of court, and legally and rightfully so.

Whether or not gay marriage should be legal is one issue, but legality of an agent of the State denying a lawful service based on personal beliefs is a completely different one. And there's no question as to the legality of that- it isn't.

If a muslim county clerk refuses to issue liquor licenses for businesses because her conscience can't bear it, will you be rushing to her defense? You better, because that's the same new "right" you'd like to give the lady at issue here. That's the point some people are missing. The issue this time is gay marriage, but throw out the separation of church at State for this woman and there's no end to the hell we'd be opened up to.

The main issue here isn't really gay marriage- it's whether the State can impose a religious test. And it cannot. There are few things more important than that in the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion. Far more important than whether fags get a legal document. I stand by that.