Page 55 of 57 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 562

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

  1. #541
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    here's the problem. when it becomes clear that they WILL negatively impact your religious rights I'm sure your opinion will stay exactly the same as it is. When all the private schools are forced to shut down because they lose tax exemption for not embracing gay marriage, then we'll see what BS you come up with to rationalize it and say it had NOTHING to do with this supreme court ruling. Or when christian churches get sued out of existence for not performing gay marriage.

    Oh I'll bet you will be on FIRE then, huh? admit you were totally wrong, right?......................yeah, I seriously doubt it.
    All the private schools? There are a good many private schools that are secular.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #542
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    All the private schools? There are a good many private schools that are secular.
    Well things are going to get interesting, no matter which side of the fence you're on. And in WA St. sexual orientation is a protected class.

    "Catholic school fires asst principle when it finds out he's married."

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1715326

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ju...teacher-for-m/


    IMO the Catholic private school should have the right to fire him. I dont "like" that but I still think they should have that right. However this will be a decision between a religious beliefs and anti-discrimination.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  3. #543
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    01-19-17 @ 11:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,420

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    the first amendment overrides any local laws.
    There are exceptions.

  4. #544
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    01-19-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,270

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Recognizing equal rights for benefits and privileges accorded by the govt is 'SCOTUS gone rogue?' Damn!
    Equal protection did not play any significant role in Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell. He wrote some gobbledygook about it which, as Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, "is, quite frankly, difficult to follow." Roberts continued: "The majority goes on to assert in conclusory fashion that the Equal Protection Clause provides an alternative basis for its holding. Yet the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions."

    Obergell, like Roe v. Wade, is entirely a substantive due process decision. The Chief Justice also recalled that the Court first used the doctrine of substantive due process in the notorious decision that made the Civil War inevitable, Dred Scott v. Sandford:

    "The need for restraint in administering the strong medicine of substantive due process is a lesson this Court has learned the hard way. The Court first applied substantive due process to strike down a statute in Dred Scott v. Sandford. There the Court invalidated the Missouri Compromise on the ground that legislation restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders. The Court relied on its own conception of liberty and property in doing so. It asserted that 'an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States . . . could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.' In a dissent that has outlasted the majority opinion, Justice Curtis explained that when the 'fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control' the Constitution’s meaning, 'we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.'" (emphasis added)


    For reasons that Justice Thomas explained in great detail in his dissent, the notion that the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment guarantees privileges that would not exist but for government has no support whatever in the history of the concept of due process, when it is analyzed from its roots in Magna Charta to modern times:


    Even if the doctrine of substantive due process were somehow defensible—it is not—petitioners still would not have a claim. To invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause at all—whether under a theory of 'substantive' or 'procedural' due process—a party must first identify a deprivation of 'life, liberty, or property. The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of 'liberty,' but the concept of 'liberty' it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses . . .
    ..................
    In enacting the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Framers similarly chose to employ the 'life, liberty, or property' formulation, though they otherwise deviated substantially from the States’ use of Magna Carta’s language in the Clause. When read in light of the history of that formulation, it is hard to see how the 'liberty' protected by the Clause could be interpreted to include anything broader than freedom from physical restraint . . .

    If the Fifth Amendment uses 'liberty' in this narrow sense, then the Fourteenth Amendment likely does as well. Indeed, this Court has previously commented, 'The conclusion is . . . irresistible, that when the same phrase was employed in the Fourteenth Amendment [as was used in the Fifth Amendment], it was used in the same sense and with no greater extent.' And this Court’s earliest Fourteenth Amendment decisions appear to interpret the Clause as using 'liberty' to mean freedom from physical restraint . . . That the Court appears to have lost its way in more recent years does not justify deviating from the original meaning of the Clauses.
    .................
    Even assuming that the 'liberty' in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.

  5. #545
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,348

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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"?
    We don't look at the other person's point of view. "Undue burden" is a legal term which has been interpreted as a substantial obstable, or a significant difficulty or expense. Having to wait a few extra seconds does not create an undue burden. Having to wait another week, or drive an extra 80 miles to another county would. Exactly how many minutes must one wait before it becomes an undue burden is a gray area, so naturally you would want to minimize the wait (if any).

  6. #546
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,348

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    Being a clerk has a job description in this case it is issuing marriage licenses it would be difficult to change this. Better that the people change jobs, get suspended, or be terminated.
    Having read more background on this case, it appears that in Texas, a clerk is elected by the county. The elected official delegates powers to deputy clerks and other staff to carry out the assigned responsibilities.

    According to the Texas Code, deputy clerks are *allowed* to perform any of the official duties assigned to the clerk, though they are not *required* to perform any duty. Therefore, at least for deputy clerks and other staff, it is very easy to change a person's job description - it's written into the same code that granted the power to issue licenses in the first place.

    Again, we're left with the idea that so long as the duties are being performed in a manner that does not create an undue burden on anyone (and treats people with dignity), who cares how they've decided to handle any underlying staffing issues.

  7. #547
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Equal protection did not play any significant role in Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell. He wrote some gobbledygook about it which, as Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, "is, quite frankly, difficult to follow." Roberts continued: "The majority goes on to assert in conclusory fashion that the Equal Protection Clause provides an alternative basis for its holding. Yet the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions."

    Obergell, like Roe v. Wade, is entirely a substantive due process decision. The Chief Justice also recalled that the Court first used the doctrine of substantive due process in the notorious decision that made the Civil War inevitable, Dred Scott v. Sandford:

    "The need for restraint in administering the strong medicine of substantive due process is a lesson this Court has learned the hard way. The Court first applied substantive due process to strike down a statute in Dred Scott v. Sandford. There the Court invalidated the Missouri Compromise on the ground that legislation restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders. The Court relied on its own conception of liberty and property in doing so. It asserted that 'an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States . . . could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.' In a dissent that has outlasted the majority opinion, Justice Curtis explained that when the 'fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control' the Constitution’s meaning, 'we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.'" (emphasis added)


    For reasons that Justice Thomas explained in great detail in his dissent, the notion that the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment guarantees privileges that would not exist but for government has no support whatever in the history of the concept of due process, when it is analyzed from its roots in Magna Charta to modern times:


    Even if the doctrine of substantive due process were somehow defensible—it is not—petitioners still would not have a claim. To invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause at all—whether under a theory of 'substantive' or 'procedural' due process—a party must first identify a deprivation of 'life, liberty, or property. The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of 'liberty,' but the concept of 'liberty' it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses . . .
    ..................
    In enacting the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Framers similarly chose to employ the 'life, liberty, or property' formulation, though they otherwise deviated substantially from the States’ use of Magna Carta’s language in the Clause. When read in light of the history of that formulation, it is hard to see how the 'liberty' protected by the Clause could be interpreted to include anything broader than freedom from physical restraint . . .

    If the Fifth Amendment uses 'liberty' in this narrow sense, then the Fourteenth Amendment likely does as well. Indeed, this Court has previously commented, 'The conclusion is . . . irresistible, that when the same phrase was employed in the Fourteenth Amendment [as was used in the Fifth Amendment], it was used in the same sense and with no greater extent.' And this Court’s earliest Fourteenth Amendment decisions appear to interpret the Clause as using 'liberty' to mean freedom from physical restraint . . . That the Court appears to have lost its way in more recent years does not justify deviating from the original meaning of the Clauses.
    .................
    Even assuming that the 'liberty' in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.
    LOL

    Not reading that wall of text. I saw the words written in their decisions. Did you?
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  8. #548
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Having read more background on this case, it appears that in Texas, a clerk is elected by the county. The elected official delegates powers to deputy clerks and other staff to carry out the assigned responsibilities.

    According to the Texas Code, deputy clerks are *allowed* to perform any of the official duties assigned to the clerk, though they are not *required* to perform any duty. Therefore, at least for deputy clerks and other staff, it is very easy to change a person's job description - it's written into the same code that granted the power to issue licenses in the first place.

    Again, we're left with the idea that so long as the duties are being performed in a manner that does not create an undue burden on anyone (and treats people with dignity), who cares how they've decided to handle any underlying staffing issues.
    Or they can rewrite job descriptions and ask, can you complete these tasks as specified if you take this job? They dont have to ask why, the person just has to say that they can or cannot do the job as described.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #549
    Professor WSUwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    03-21-16 @ 02:34 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Recognizing equal rights for benefits and privileges accorded by the govt is 'SCOTUS gone rogue?' Damn!
    The federal government has no such authority. We should stop letting them pretend that they do.
    "Opportunity does not come knocking. It is usually running down the street, you have to chase and tackle it." - Sheriff David Clarke, Milwaukee County.

  10. #550
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by WSUwarrior View Post
    The federal government has no such authority. We should stop letting them pretend that they do.
    To confer benefits and privileges on marriage? OK. I personally dont think they should but they didnt ask me when they decided that marriage is a civil right...as posted in several people's responses here already.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •