Gay Marriage and 2A....

[cclaxton]

Without sidetracking the thread I started even more, I'll ask you a few questions with the caveat that I don't think we've had a real leader that understands exactly what Murika is about since Reagan:

1. What has Obama done to improve foreign relations and end the GWOT? Aren't we sending troops in like fire fighters now?

2. What has Obama done to maintain his claim of "most transparent presidency" evahhr?

3. What has Obama done to cut back the civil liberty issues he and his party thought was an abomination, the Patriot Act?

4. What has the first black president done to improve race relations in the US?

5. Where is the labor participation rate right now under Obama as compared to any president in your living memory yet what does this administration claim the unemployment number to be?

6. What has he done to fix the wall st and main st divide?

Asking more questions is not making a case.
Cody

[BaiHu]

So you have no answers.

[cclaxton]

So you have no answers.

It's not my case to make. You are the one trying to make the case and asking the questions. Do the research, put down the successes and failures, and show that your conclusions are valid.
Cody

[BaiHu]

It's not my case to make. You are the one trying to make the case and asking the questions. Do the research, put down the successes and failures, and show that your conclusions are valid.
Cody

I did. My answers are in the questions.

If you think what SCOTUS did for gay rights and Obamacare is legal, then that's why you'll never understand my questions or answers. I won't waste my time with someone as smart as you that is unwilling to be intellectual honest about my questions. I guess we'll both claim cop out and have this discussion in another form in another thread like we've done so many other times.

[LostDuke]

Actually the Constitution never mentions "separation of church and state." The language in the first amendment forbids the federal government from establishing as religion, as the Anglican Church was established in England (or the Congregational churches were established in parts of New England).

Specifically, the first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The leading text on that clause is Philip Hamburger's "Separation of Church and State," which shows how the doctrine of the "separation of church and state" arose in the 19th Century after the 1st amendment was passed, primarily for political reasons, and was thereafter was pushed by nativists.

Now personally, I don't want to live in a religious state either--but I do think the government should make reasonable accommodations to respect the religious beliefs of its employees, and such accommodations fit quite well with the actual text of the first amendment.

You never replied to a previous point: would you also accommodate a public employee whose religion prohibits her to marry:

1) people of different races?

2) People of different religions?

3) women who are not virgin?

Where do YOU draw the line?

And how about we just draw a big fat line saying keep your religion in your heart, in your church, outside of government buildings? How about in a Government building is the Government who decides and not its employees?

[LostDuke]

I did. My answers are in the questions.

If you think what SCOTUS did for gay rights and Obamacare is legal, then that's why you'll never understand my questions or answers. I won't waste my time with someone as smart as you that is unwilling to be intellectual honest about my questions. I guess we'll both claim cop out and have this discussion in another form in another thread like we've done so many other times.

SCOTUS not legal? Now that is an interesting point, I thought their job was to decide on cases brought before them to settle the law of the land... The best legal scholars have decided to rule that way. What are your qualifications to say their ruling is not legal?



Also, the mere thought of the Kool Aid spilling on my lap carrying AIWB ( I need to post on that) makes me confused, uncertain. You guys suddenly look attractive....

[RoyGBiv]

And how about we just draw a big fat line saying keep your religion in your heart, in your church, outside of government buildings? How about in a Government building is the Government who decides and not its employees?

It should be that simple, but never is.

If you come to work for me and refuse to do some parts of the job that you were told up front you would be required to do, I can find someone else willing to do all of the job. Asking for time off to go to Church on Ash Wednesday is not even close to the same "accommodation" as refusing to interact with my __________ customer because you find their ____________ objectionable. Adios.

[Jeep]

You never replied to a previous point: would you also accommodate a public employee whose religion prohibits her to marry:

1) people of different races?

2) People of different religions?

3) women who are not virgin?

Where do YOU draw the line?

And how about we just draw a big fat line saying keep your religion in your heart, in your church, outside of government buildings? How about in a Government building is the Government who decides and not its employees?

I apologize if I didn't respond to those questions before; I did not notice them. But to answer here, those are classic "strawman" questions because they don't deal with real and material issues, and we know that because clerks haven't been asking for exemptions in those cases.

However, to honor the "free exercise" clause of the Constitution, if clerks had legitimate, good faith religious objections to giving marriage certificates to, for example, red-haired heterosexuals, I think the government ought to reasonably accommodate those objections even if I find them bizarre. Again, I think the accommodation needs only be reasonable and not absolute, but a tolerant society is one that tolerates those with whom you disagree as well as those with whom you agree.

As for your suggested "big fat line" to "keep your religion in your heart, in your church outside of government buildings," that is not what the Constitution provides. It protects the "free exercise of religion" and doesn't require it to be kept in people's hearts or in church buildings. Now, you might not be much of a fan of religion and the Constitution protects your view. But it also protects the view of those who disagree with you on that subject. Both sides of the debate can, and in my view, should be reasonably accommodated if we indeed are a tolerant society.

And if we aren't tolerant--or if the current "winners" get to define tolerance in the terms most favorable to them, then I'd suspect that things in this country will get much more contentious.

[Jeep]

It should be that simple, but never is.

If you come to work for me and refuse to do some parts of the job that you were told up front you would be required to do, I can find someone else willing to do all of the job. Asking for time off to go to Church on Ash Wednesday is not even close to the same "accommodation" as refusing to interact with my __________ customer because you find their ____________ objectionable. Adios.

Well, there is a difference between a government agency--which must respect the first amendment rights of its employees--and a private business, which has no such restrictions. However, you will find that even private businesses are required to make such accommodations in a lot of cases under the civil rights laws.

[RoyGBiv]

Some Counties Withholding Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

There you go... Hood County Clerk's OFFICE (the clerk has decided for all her employees) will not issue licenses.

I’m standing up for my religious liberty,” said Hood County Clerk Katie Lang, who said her office would not give out same-sex marriage licenses on religious grounds.