Reply With Quote
muh religious rights
can't wait to see the first county clerk to stand ground
" Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton*issued a statement Sunday saying state workers can refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses if doing so is contrary to his or her religious beliefs."(Judges and other state workers) may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections,"*Paxton said in the statement.
Workers who choose to deny licenses to same-sex couples may face litigation and fines, but there are lawyers willing to defend them, according to Paxton.
"Numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights," Paxton said......
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ples/29456745/
can't wait to see the first county clerk to stand ground
yeah. We don't have to marry those s if we don't want to.
While liberals are on the correct side of this issue, the perverse glee they take in forcing religious people to violate their beliefs is quite hypocritical. Talking to you Blake.
ter McGee
It's not like they're forcing the state works to get gay married. It's there job to do this.
I want to be paid for a job which I don't want to perform because it is contrary to my religion. Why, for example, would Seventh Day Adventists want to marry Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, or Catholics? They all cons ute offenses against their faith, right? Is the TX legislature just hoping they have a majority of Lutheran, Catholic and Baptist employees that agree with them? How far is TX willing to go with this before they realize the corner they're painting themselves into? SMH is right.
Bull .
Fundamental rights trump silly religious beliefs every time.
Govt employees in a position to hand out marriage licenses took an oath to uphold the Cons ution of the USA. If they refuse, aka break their oath of office (for the bull of God-Told-Me-To-Hate-LGBT), then they should be fined, fired, etc.
No "glee" involved, just "law enforcement" that you -for-brains rightwingnuts insist upon so vehemently when applied to blacks and browns.
Ohh, bull , nothing makes you liberals more happy than forcing a religious person to bake a gay wedding cake or better yet, not baking it so you can sue them. Its really pretty pathetic. I'm not talking about the legalities one way or another. Just the irony of how progressives get off on destroying the lives of people who disagree with them. Tolerance my ass.
ter McGee
That must be why there are SOOO many examples of this happening.
, the law is the law, an oath is an oath, even for the God-Told-Me-To-Hate-LGBT Bible humpers, Christian Taliban supremacists. They started this hate-filled fight, and they ING LOST IT.
Government employees have an obligation to do their job. If their job entails filling out marriage licenses and SCOTUS says gays can marry then they need to do their job and fill out the license or quit.
Private citizens on the other hand should have every right to tell them to off, whether it's baking the wedding cake, renting out the facility, or performing the ceremony.
Lol explain how a bigoted clerk's life is destroyed by handing out a marriage license to a gay couple.
I admit I e-get off on seeing bigots cry about not being able to enact their bigotry any more.
Crofl. gots melting down in every thread.That must be why there are SOOO many examples of this happening.
croflmao at you not knowing what a meltdown is
the state doesnt endorse any one religion. if you are a state employee, then you are part of that en y. your religion is what you do on your own time, not while you're punched in and collecting a paycheck from the state
clerk could go to a church after work and confess his sin granting gays a marriage
County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms
that may provide accommodation of their religious objections to
issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Justices of the peace and judges
also may claim that the government forcing them to conduct same sex
wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, particularly
when other authorized individuals have no objection to conducting
such ceremonies, is not the least restrictive means of furthering any
compelling governmental interest in ensuring that such ceremonies
occur. Importantly, the strength of any particular religious accommodation
claim depends on the particular facts of each case.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...015/kp0025.pdf
Why not just have a deputy clerk do it? Or another JP?
Sure I do. Member when you posted that your wife cucked you in the club?
Obama must have missed this memo
That's all fine and good except for the part in which it violates the Cons ution (and the now recognized cons utional right of same sex couples to marry). This nonsense about being able to use religious preferences in deciding whether to perform ministerial, governmental duties is pretty well divorced from any Cons utional basis.
A governmental clerk can no more justifiably deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple than he can deny a marriage license to an interracial couple. Each couple now has precisely the same right to marry, and the religious beliefs of the clerk have nothing to do with their exercise of that right through acquiring a necessary license.
If a governmental employee doesn't like carrying out parts of his or her job that are cons utionally required but personally offensive, perhaps that person should find other employment.
I don't think that's a correct reading. I just give the opinion a quick glance, but I think the AG's point is that an individual can pass off on performing his ministerial duty to another clerk if he has an objection. That's why it speaks in terms of accommodation, the presence of another JP, and "the facts and cir stances of each case." I don't think it suggests outright denial is proper.
County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow
accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage
licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of
each case.
Justices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms, and
may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex
wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, when other authorized
individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means
of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur. The strength of any such
claim depends on the particular facts of each case.
Yes, that was a meltdown. This isn't.
If you want to see some meltdowns on this issue, I'll start a new thread and show you some genuine ones. Most are ing hilarious.
That's the AG's personal opinion on the matter.
He further made it very clear that if a clerk denies a license based on religious grounds that he/she is gonna probably need a personal defense lawyer.
^ Thanks buddy. Coulda swore that was an Attorney General Opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
