Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling

[Lookinagain]

I just object to calling someone vile because she wants a higher level hearing, she has every right to do this. She will be legally corrected and that would be a good thing.

Yes, she has a right to challenge the First Amendment/ damages issue as that directly affects her. I'm not sure what the Court will do with that. But she is allowing herself to be "used" for the 14th Amendment challenge as it really has nothing to do with her claim regarding liability and her First Amendment rights. That is the part that I think she could be criticized for.

And I agree Thomas should have never been put on the Court. Not just for his activism, but I do recall the allegations in his confirmation hearing and she seemed pretty credible.

 

[telephone89]

I don’t believe Thomas has any chance because according to your article posted above the other Conservative judges are not interested. Thomas should have never been put on the court IMO as he is totally fringe in his inability to let go of his fundamentalist activism. I believe overturning Roe v Wade was a bad incorrect ruling. See @Lookinagain ’s agreement with Matata above.

But -any- American has a right to have religious beliefs that conflict with other Americans’ beliefs and that might conflict with a job description. This County Clerk was jailed and fined almost a half a million dollars because the people around her had no other creative solutions. Anyone can bring grievances to the SC and petition for a hearing. Calling Christians loathsome and vile opens the door for all kinds of publicly yelled religious animosities (because I can think of some equally upsetting things being pushed by left wing churches, including the church I was raised in). Objectionable left wing beliefs that I currently would refuse to participate in and would refuse to do if at a job. Same sex marriage is not one of these issues, it’s been quite accepted for decades.

The article I link to above shows a huge majority of Americans want the “anyone can marry” law upheld. I just object to calling someone vile because she wants a higher level hearing, she has every right to do this. She even has a right to challenge the 14th Amendment decision. She will be legally corrected and that would be a good thing.

But OTHER PEOPLE getting married has no affect on her religion. Her beliefs stop with her. Once she starts pushing her religion on other people, she is no longer doing her job and is violating the law. That's like telling someone else they can't eat a donut because you are on a diet. It doesn't affect you.

 

[Lookinagain]

But OTHER PEOPLE getting married has no affect on her religion. Her beliefs stop with her. Once she starts pushing her religion on other people, she is no longer doing her job and is violating the law. That's like telling someone else they can't eat a donut because you are on a diet. It doesn't affect you.

I think her First Amendment claim is more about the fact that she was found liable and awarded a money damage for not issuing the license. Not that she lost her job because of it. At least the article didn't mention that as an argument, unless I missed that.
The 14th claim really shouldn't have anything to do with her claimed "injury".

 

[Matata]

But -any- American has a right to have religious beliefs that conflict with other Americans’ beliefs and that might conflict with a job description.

Americans have the right to practice their religion freely and they have the right to remove themselves from situations that conflict with their beliefs. Davis refused to do her job because she is anti LGBTQ. She could have resigned or asked for transfer to a different job. Instead she engaged in grandstanding for her 15 minutes of fame.

Imo, the accommodations that others are expected to make to appease the religious conflicts of anyone should be NONE. Her religion as she interprets it is anti-Christian, promoting discrimination against humans who do not fit its dogma. Denying rights to Americans based on any number of numerous religious sects that have conflicting interpretations of their religious texts is absurd imo.

Calling Christians loathsome and vile opens the door for all kinds of publicly yelled religious animosities (because I can think of some equally upsetting things being pushed by left wing churches, including the church I was raised in)

I didn't call her loathsome and vile because she says she's a Christian. I think she's loathsome and vile because she thinks there are humans who don't deserve the same rights that she has. And apparently, she's also a hypocrite. She identifies as an Apostolic Christian. I don't know if there are different apostolic sects with different beliefs but the link below discourages the type of behavior she's exhibited in her quest to make her mark on history.

Reflecting Christ to the LGBT Community

The Apostolic Christian Church is a brotherhood of believers that earnestly seeks to interpret the Bible literally. The teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles serve as the foundation of our doctrine and guide our members' daily lives. We have approximately 90 congregations in the United...

www.apostolicchristian.org

 

[Rockdiamond]

she has every right to do this

You have a very good point- of course she has the right to protest.
But how does she get SCOTUS to hear her case while literally millions of other people are left to rot in jail- or in other deplorable situations with no opportunity for redress.
It's so clear that we have no more "Supreme" court. Or a standardized code of laws. Wear a red hat, and he laws don't apply to you.

 

[telephone89]

I think her First Amendment claim is more about the fact that she was found liable and awarded a money damage for not issuing the license. Not that she lost her job because of it. At least the article didn't mention that as an argument, unless I missed that.
The 14th claim really shouldn't have anything to do with her claimed "injury".

Thanks for clarifying, I was mostly responding to lightbrights assertation that no one should have to their job if it it interferes with their religious beliefs. Everyone is allowed their own beliefs, but pushing those beliefs on others by refusing to issue their marriage license is inappropriate and does not in any way violate her personal beliefs. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't get married to someone of the same sex.

To me, this is akin to the donut reference above, or a muslim/jew server refusing to take someones order at a restaurant if they order a pork chop. Or a mormon working at starbucks who will only make frapps or teas because they dont drink coffee. And these aren't even civil, government positions. If you aren't eating/drinking/marrying against your religion, it should not stop you from letting other people live their life as they see fit.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

She is an A-1 hypocrite who cannot live up to the ideals she professes, impinging upon others, but not in relation to herself. This four time married woman has no grounds to be making any moral judgement to further an authoritarian agenda under the guise of fundamentalist religious principles in direct conflict with The Constitution.

She has no right to do this. That is loathsome.

 

[Matata]

If you aren't eating/drinking/marrying against your religion, it should not stop you from letting other people live their life as they see fit.

Amen.

Check out the propaganda from one of the culprits seeking to turn the US into a religious meritocracy. Heritage Foundation, author of Project 2025, several of whose members are embedded in the current administration. Insidious.

Heritage

 

[Lookinagain]

Everyone is allowed their own beliefs, but pushing those beliefs on others by refusing to issue their marriage license is inappropriate and does not in any way violate her personal beliefs. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't get married to someone of the same sex.

To me, this is akin to the donut reference above, or a muslim/jew server refusing to take someones order at a restaurant if they order a pork chop. Or a mormon working at starbucks who will only make frapps or teas because they dont drink coffee. And these aren't even civil, government positions. If you aren't eating/drinking/marrying against your religion, it should not stop you from letting other people live their life as they see fit.

I totally agree and your analogies are right on point, I think.

 

[kenny]

Oh, I wish religions didn't teach hate disguised as morality, so believers can feel superior.

Sure, it works swimmingly ... but it's such a revolting way to make money and control people.