• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

If many states followed Texas's we could tie up the courts all over the country showing this pathetic law is just that pathetic. Texas is the Lexus of justice.

No. All it would do would be to cause many people to get sued, possibly fired and several states and towns/cities/municipalities to lose money in not only fighting the lawsuits but also in the payouts that they are most certainly going to end of being required to pay to those who file the suits.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Bob jones University had nothing to do with couples getting married but rather a university losing a certain tax status because it was refusing to allow interracial couples in the school. It wasn't a church, nor is a school equivalent to a church, nor is going to school the same thing as having a religious ceremony.

I guess it would help to understand how legal precedence can impact other issues. The law has to do with principles, and how they apply, and not necessarily specifics related to identical issues.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I guess it would help to understand how legal precedence can impact other issues. The law has to do with principles, and how they apply, and not necessarily specifics related to identical issues.

Its easy, the same principle that applied there doesn't apply to churches. Churches are free and have always been free to choose who they will perform a ceremony for. They're discriminatory practices have no connection to their tax exempt status.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

There is still gay bashing. There are businesses that do not want to serve us. There is gay bullying in schools still. There is still gay bashing. We are not just gays and lesbians we are every filthy name some can speak. If a child comes out at home they are asked to leave or stay in a home where they are hated even by there parents. Gay teens are the largest segment of homeless kids. Suicide rates are high. The flippant they are gay so what comment does not fly at all. The in your face issues start with the lies people are taught. They are told we are perverts and we make a choice to be gay. It starts when people choose not to understand. Those are the emotional attacks and yes this is the energy.
I will stand by what I said and SCOTUS will not make churches marry gays. I think the churches should have lost their tax status years ago when they began to support political policies or candidates and when they choose to fight some policies The Prop 8 campaign put down by the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church.
I can't find your comment on immigration. If you recall it of link it I will respond.

You are describing an ignorant segment of the population. There are fools in every segment. There are parents who don't understand, but there are also peers who are likely the worst offenders. How do you plan to legislate against them?

People hate. It's a sad but true reality. I can't venture into certain parts of Southern California because the color of my skin would make me a target. Oh well.

Proposition 8 passed by a majority of voters in California. It serves no purpose other than to delude yourself that it was the Mormans, or the Catholics who caused it to pass. The fact is, the issue revolved over an attempt to co-opt a word that the majority of people wanted to preserve. The Gay Community refused to respect and understand that, and in retribution, sought to destroy anyone who they could expose that agreed with the attempt to preserve the meaning of a word. I think you will find that people are rather accommodating, to a point. However, it appears there is a limit to what people are willing to let groups co-opt for themselves. Lots of unnecessary emotional damage arises from these efforts. To many, it appears the issue is not about the right, but about the demand to take something special from them. A risky plan that should be expected to stir up lots of negative emotions and outbursts. It's probably a bit much to expect it wouldn't.

As to immigration, read post #1425 in this thread.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

You are describing an ignorant segment of the population. There are fools in every segment. There are parents who don't understand, but there are also peers who are likely the worst offenders. How do you plan to legislate against them?

People hate. It's a sad but true reality. I can't venture into certain parts of Southern California because the color of my skin would make me a target. Oh well.

Proposition 8 passed by a majority of voters in California. It serves no purpose other than to delude yourself that it was the Mormans, or the Catholics who caused it to pass. The fact is, the issue revolved over an attempt to co-opt a word that the majority of people wanted to preserve. The Gay Community refused to respect and understand that, and in retribution, sought to destroy anyone who they could expose that agreed with the attempt to preserve the meaning of a word. I think you will find that people are rather accommodating, to a point. However, it appears there is a limit to what people are willing to let groups co-opt for themselves. Lots of unnecessary emotional damage arises from these efforts. To many, it appears the issue is not about the right, but about the demand to take something special from them. A risky plan that should be expected to stir up lots of negative emotions and outbursts. It's probably a bit much to expect it wouldn't.

As to immigration, read post #1425 in this thread.

Some gay bashing beatings bulling and so on is okay in your eyes. It is also more than just some a lot of this goes on. Lots and Lots. You may not feel like that if you are in the minority. To say oh it's no big deal because all segment hate. Wow that is really special. I will look at te immigration comment. Peers who are worse offenders? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. Parents who don't understand so they disown their child? Yipes this is harsh. There is no post #1425 in this thread it goes up to #480. I looked at #425 in case and I can't find the comment there either.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Again, nobody is being prevented from getting a marriage license. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

You're making that assumption, which is fine, and also that the same sex couple, or mixed race couple, or Muslim couple, or atheist couple, or whatever couple fails the clerk's individual religious sensibilities doesn't face any actual barriers, such as coming back the next day, or driving to the next county. But if the situation is you take a number, and when called, Bob OR Betty takes your application, payment, checks a few boxes to see that the couple qualifies, and issues a license, then I agree that's a reasonable situation.

Why do you feel this need to force someone to do something against their religious beliefs when an acceptable alternative can be worked out? The only plausible reason seems to be anti-religious animus.

I can't address how the law sees it but from a principled standpoint, I don't see how a person acting as an agent of the state and employed to do a ministerial task is violating their religious beliefs by doing so. They're not asked to bless, approve, sanction, ANY marriage. Their sole task as a state/county employee issuing licenses is checking off a few boxes, and if the couple meets legal requirements, issuing a license. And given that it's certainly not "religious animus" to expect a person employed by the state to simply do their job instead of butting their heads into my choice of spouse or my religious beliefs.

And related to the point I made earlier, if a clerk is actually motivated to only issue licenses in accordance with his or her deeply held religious beliefs, we should expect them to quiz all straight couples coming before him about their religious beliefs about marriage, and promptly refusing them a license if her own church would refuse to conduct the ceremony, as best she can tell in a 60 second or so interview. We all know that isn't going to happen because straight couples being subjected to arbitrary religious tests that vary from clerk to clerk wouldn't be tolerated in that office or in that town or county. We could measure their careers in that job in hours or days, not weeks.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Some gay bashing beatings bulling and so on is okay in your eyes. It is also more than just some a lot of this goes on. Lots and Lots. You may not feel like that if you are in the minority. To say oh it's no big deal because all segment hate. Wow that is really special. I will look at te immigration comment.

You know, I can't imagine how you could possibly get from anything that I posted that gay bashing and beatings are okay in my eyes.

I guess it's important to you to invent enemies to feed your victimhood.

Have a nice day.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

You know, I can't imagine how you could possibly get from anything that I posted that gay bashing and beatings are okay in my eyes.

I guess it's important to you to invent enemies to feed your victimhood.

Have a nice day.

I did not say you said this action was okay you pushed it off as if you were swatting a fly. It is a very big problem. I am not now or have I ever been a victim. You made light of the problem. You have a nice day as well.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I did not say you said this action was okay you pushed it off as if you were swatting a fly. It is a very big problem. I am not now or have I ever been a victim. You made light of the problem. You have a nice day as well.

BS

"Some gay bashing beatings bulling and so on is okay in your eyes."​

And yes, to invent an enemy that doesn't exist is playing victim. Get over it.

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

Which is why my children will rule their children.

I believe you overestimate your children's worth and ability.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

You're getting better. Not showing that public school education as much.
Now, what is it that you want to know?

Another failed insult and still zero facts to support your claim. Again lets us know when you can post one fact that supports the lies you posts. thanks
Your post fails and facts win again
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

If many states followed Texas's we could tie up the courts all over the country showing this pathetic law is just that pathetic. Texas is the Lexus of justice.

The cons are good at throwing fits, which is all this would be doing. The law is settled, get used to it.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Bull****, this could've been accomplished years ago by civil unions. It was not necessary to redefine marriage.

another lie that will never be true and that no topically educated person will ever take seriously. lol
also marriage wasnt redefined thats another failed sound-byte that just gets mocked

remind us again how many states also banned civil unions AND domestic partnerships and some even went as far as any contracts between two homosexuals that reassembled marriage in any way. (just as many that tried to infringing on equal rights and ban marriage)

remind us when that first happened also (1970 for marriage and then in 2000 for civil unions and domestic partnerships once gays started trying for those)

remind us how you make civil unions = to marriage since that impossible.

sorry your claim is factually false and facts win again
 
[h=1]Paxton: State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples[/h]
Here we go the first actual decent from the Joy. I think this is doomed before it starts. There is no end to hate and judgement IMO. Thoughts.

My thought is that your comments suggest is is you who is expressing a hateful and judgmental view. Disrespect by any American for the right to free exercise of religion is just as regrettable as disrespect for other fundamental First Amendment rights like the freedom of speech.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

You're making that assumption, which is fine, and also that the same sex couple, or mixed race couple, or Muslim couple, or atheist couple, or whatever couple fails the clerk's individual religious sensibilities doesn't face any actual barriers, such as coming back the next day, or driving to the next county. But if the situation is you take a number, and when called, Bob OR Betty takes your application, payment, checks a few boxes to see that the couple qualifies, and issues a license, then I agree that's a reasonable situation.
Yes, I think we agree on this. Something like coming back the next day, having to drive to a different office, or going to a dedicated line for same sex marriages would likely not pass muster given the recent ruling.

I can't address how the law sees it but from a principled standpoint, I don't see how a person acting as an agent of the state and employed to do a ministerial task is violating their religious beliefs by doing so. They're not asked to bless, approve, sanction, ANY marriage. Their sole task as a state/county employee issuing licenses is checking off a few boxes, and if the couple meets legal requirements, issuing a license.
Yes, and this is where it gets difficult. I certainly don't have a religious belief that would preclude me from issuing a marriage license, but also don't feel comfortable in saying that those who claim to are being insincere. And, certainly we don't want to put the government in the position of having to determine which beliefs are or are not valid.

I suppose that my position is that compelling people to issue licenses by threatening their jobs is probably not the best solution if there is a way to ensure that those who need licenses get them without undue burden, while enabling the religious objector to maintain their job.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

another lie that will never be true and that no topically educated person will ever take seriously. lol
also marriage wasnt redefined thats another failed sound-byte that just gets mocked

remind us again how many states also banned civil unions AND domestic partnerships and some even went as far as any contracts between two homosexuals that reassembled marriage in any way. (just as many that tried to infringing on equal rights and ban marriage)

remind us when that first happened also (1970 for marriage and then in 2000 for civil unions and domestic partnerships once gays started trying for those)

remind us how you make civil unions = to marriage since that impossible.

sorry your claim is factually false and facts win again

If you ever had any facts, you might have a point.

In a way, you did get one thing right, bad SCOTUS decisions will not turn SSM into the real thing. ;)
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Doesn't matter where the belief comes from. The belief is there, and sincerely held. This whole "religion is protected" thing is taking the 1st Amendment much farther than it was ever meant to go, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things. You cannot use your religious beliefs to justify breaking the law, discriminating against others, particularly in the performance of your duties as a state/government employee.

Yet that is exactly what they are trying to do, but it's only acceptable when they do it. If a Muslim comes by and says their religion orders them to kill the infidels, their religious freedom gets curtailed immediately.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

1.)If you ever had any facts, you might have a point.
2.)In a way, you did get one thing right, bad SCOTUS decisions will not turn SSM into the real thing. ;)

1.) translation: you cant provide ONE fact that supports the lie you posted. thanks but we knew that
2.) its been real, now its just gaining towards national legalization, that too is also a fact that you cant change :D
your post fails and facts win again

oh yeh please let us know when you can support that false claim you made. we'd love to read it, thanks
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

So straight up bigotry is how you're demonstrating your intellectual superiority? Any fool can make childish jokes at the expense of others.

He's a troll, stop feeding him.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

They'll simply replace Bob. That's almost too easy to work around.

Which would be fine but now Bob can sue for religious discrimination because you replaced him. We live in a hyper-litigious society after all.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

If your time is too valuable, then there is no way you would be happy about someone wasting it in delaying in because of their problems with something about you, like your race, sex, religion, spouse, etc.
A few seconds, a minute or two, versus months or years of legal battles and all of the emotion that goes along with that? For me, it's an easy decision, but I have the benefit of having suffered through several lawsuits already.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Oh, I guarantee you that my skin is much too thick, and my time much too valuable to be wasted on lawsuits everytime someone didn't treat
me the exact same way they treat others.

But there's a lot of people out there who aren't and there are far too many shyster lawyers who will take on discrimination cases, hoping for a big payday.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

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. The job they are holding has nothing to do with religion and they work for the government which is a non discriminatory non religious employer. A persons personal religious views really don't matter in this case.
No, it's not at all difficult. Have everyone sign in upon entering. Assign people to a particular window, or give them a number for the clerk to call. Clerks issue licenses to whoever comes to their window, or to all numbers to which they've been assigned. Done.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Yes, I think we agree on this. Something like coming back the next day, having to drive to a different office, or going to a dedicated line for same sex marriages would likely not pass muster given the recent ruling.


Yes, and this is where it gets difficult. I certainly don't have a religious belief that would preclude me from issuing a marriage license, but also don't feel comfortable in saying that those who claim to are being insincere. And, certainly we don't want to put the government in the position of having to determine which beliefs are or are not valid.

I suppose that my position is that compelling people to issue licenses by threatening their jobs is probably not the best solution if there is a way to ensure that those who need licenses get them without undue burden, while enabling the religious objector to maintain their job.

Sherbert v. Verner seems to apply here. The RFRA states that its primary purpose is to restore the compelling interest standard the Court used in Sherbert. The case concerned a Seventh-Day Adventist who was fired because she would not work on Saturdays, and then denied unemployment benefits by the state. The Court made clear that government action which forces a person to abandon a religious belief to get work violates the First Amendment, unless the government can prove it serves a "compelling interest."

"[N]ot only is it apparent that appellant's declared ineligibility for benefits derives solely from the practice of her religion, but the pressure upon her to forego that practice is unmistakable. The ruling forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work, on the other hand. Governmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against appellant for her Saturday worship."

Texas has an RFRA, as do quite a few other states, and I doubt those laws allow government employees to be forced to abandon the precepts of their religion as the price of keeping their jobs. But I would like to see states go much further yet. As Justice Scalia pointedly noted, the Court has no power to enforce its judgments. I hope that any state where a majority disapproves of same-sex marriage will refuse to comply with Obergefell's flagrantly lawless command. I'd like to see this equally lawless president try to order troops into a dozen states to force them to obey an unconstitutional dictate which deserves no one's respect, and which is a vile insult to democracy.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

No, it's not at all difficult. Have everyone sign in upon entering. Assign people to a particular window, or give them a number for the clerk to call. Clerks issue licenses to whoever comes to their window, or to all numbers to which they've been assigned. Done.

As I've said, this isn't what happens or is necessary in many county clerks offices. We were the only ones in the office besides the clerk the whole 20/30 minutes it took to get our license typed up. One person was there. What if that person had not approved of our marriage on religious grounds? Why should we have had to delay our plans (which would have cut into my leave period) just because someone had wanted to refuse to do their job?
 
Back
Top Bottom