Thread: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays[W:297]

Havent read the whole thread yet but:

Meh, so what? There will be lots of clerks, etc that will issue the licenses. And eventually, all the hysteria will blow over and everyone will just do their jobs. And the ones that refused will look like the people that resisted segregation and supported Jim Crowe. And that's how history will remember them.

Originally Posted by WSUwarrior

Good to see that Texas is standing up to a SCOTUS gone rogue.

Recognizing equal rights for benefits and privileges accorded by the govt is 'SCOTUS gone rogue?' Damn!

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

I knew this would come. I am not surprised it comes from Texas. Telling employees they need not give a license leaves the AG and the state libel in every way. I think this protest is foolish as it won't come to anything except lawsuits and lawyers in Texas all buying new Mercedes. SCOTUS will not like this.

Then in the future, clerks may not be hired if they have religious objections to doing so. If they cant do the job, they shouldnt be hired, just like Muslim workers at Target, for ex, that dont want to handle pork. If you cannot do the job, you should not be hired.

Originally Posted by winston53660

Okay fair enough. So where do you stand on it?

Those against it now often say, 'it's not about SSM, it's about SCOTUS overstepping their bounds and deciding for everyone."

Originally Posted by ludin

This is what I find interesting. the SCOTUS struck down the defense of marriage act because they said that the federal government did not have the power to define marriage.
so what the SCOTUS did was break their own previous ruling by ruling by defining marriage at the federal level.

I think it needs to be reargued under that argument.

Did they define marriage? Or did they just make sure that govt conferred benefits and privileges were no longer being distributed in a discriminatory manner?

Originally Posted by reinoe

When was marriage ever defined in the first place? Is it between a man and his slave? Is it between a man and harem of women? Is it between a man and his sister? Is it between a man and his daughter?

Unfortunately, I think DOMA defined it as one man, one woman.

Originally Posted by ludin

that judge can do what he wants. the constitution says that the government cannot force them or discriminate against their religious views.
the state has to make reasonable accommodations. the SCOTUS has ruled on this time and time again.

that is that guy and his choice. you can't force others to do it based on the constitution.

Cool but any new clerks? Not getting hired if they wont do the job because their religion 'prohibits them from doing so.' They shouldnt even apply.

Heck, who says their managers cant reassign them to just handing out dog licenses or something else?

Even in TX there will be clerks that will be happy to do it.

It's total BS all wrapped up in homophobia and hate.

When's the last time you read of a clerk refusing to give a marriage license to a fornicator or a divorcee? Or an adulterer? Not even Catholic clerks.

And yeah, esp in smaller towns, they'd know.

Originally Posted by Taylor

I've already said numerous times that anything that causes an undue burden would likely not pass muster.

Anything can be considered an "undue burden" depending on the other person's point of view. How many minutes would be necessary to constitute an "undue burden"?