Religious rights vs. equal rights

This is an ever increasing issue particularly in terms of the right of some to claim freedom of religion to deny equal rights to the LGBT community. From a business refusing to sell products based on the sexual orientation of the purchaser to the Kentucky clerk who refused to honor the oath she swore to uphold the Constitution based on her alleged religious beliefs. Is it ok to discriminate against individuals based on religious beliefs? In the case of the Kentucky clerk who is going to jail for contempt of court for refusing to perform her government required duty of issuing marriage licenses since she claims it would violate her religious beliefs, this is a clear case. She swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and to perform her duties. The Supreme Court has held that gays have a constitutional right to equal treatment under laws including marriage laws. She violated her oath. The law is clear that one has the right to your religious beliefs, but you do not have a right to keep her job. Here, since she is an elected official, she can not be fired without an impeachment process by the legislature which would take over a year. The federal judge held a trial, she lost, she refused to go forward on the judicial order, the penalty being contempt of court.

She has the right to her questionable beliefs (this is an individual who has divorced three times and had multiple kids out of wedlock, yet refuses to issue licenses for gays to marry) that Christ taught that gays should not marry (which he never did), but is ok with divorce and remarriage (which Christ explicitly taught is adultery). However, she is not entitled to her government salary while refusing to perform the duties that are required of her office. If she so fervently believes against gay marriage, she should resign her government job. How would she feel if a dispatcher refused to send an ambulance to her home in a medical emergency as it would violate the tenents of his religious beliefs as a Jehovah Witness? Or if a military officer refused to send troops into a critical battle as it would violate her Quaker religion?

This woman didn't do her job by following federal law and should be relieved from that job... although I think that being put in jail and denied bail is quite a bit too far.

That said Dog, do you think ALL federal laws should be followed and enforced or just certain ones?

So believe federal laws on immigration should be followed too? And the mayors of sanctuary cities should be arrested?

Or the Colorado police who refuse to arrest pot dealers who are breaking federal narcotic laws?

I think the marriage laws of the clerk's state still don't allow for legal same sex marriage.

You are conflating federal laws with equal protection under the Constitution. Same sex marriage is not guaranteed under federal law, but under the Constitution. The Supremes found that marriage is a fundamental right and guaranteed under equal protection clauses of the Constitution regardless of the sexual orientation of couples, thus states and county clerks cannot deny that right to gay couples regardless of their "religious beliefs". Immigration law on the other hand is federal law. Federal law is supreme (meaning that states can not legislate against it), but the federal government can not mandate that state and locals enforce federal law. The feds can step in and enforce it but states and locals do not have to enforce it. Thus the situation with alleged sanctuary cities and pot dealers in Colorado. The states and locals can enforce the federal laws regarding immigration and pot if they so choose, or they can decline to do so. In either case, the feds can enforce those laws if they so choose. Presently, the feds are not enforcing pot dealers operating within state regulations, but they could choose to do so in the future.

So some laws(constitutional) are more equal than other laws? Makes sense.

No, you are mixing up the issues. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. Constitutional rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and are enforced against the government(including states and county clerks) to protect the rights of the individual. Kim Davis as an agent of the government was violating the constitutional rights of the same sex couples seeking a marriage license.

Constitutional rights are the antithesis of federal laws, protecting the individual from the government (including county clerks).

off topic but really funny.

twitter.com/nexttokimdavis

Something the Dog Said wrote: No, you are mixing up the issues. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. Constitutional rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and are enforced against the government(including states and county clerks) to protect the rights of the individual. Kim Davis as an agent of the government was violating the constitutional rights of the same sex couples seeking a marriage license.

Constitutional rights are the antithesis of federal laws, protecting the individual from the government (including county clerks).

Like the 2nd Amendment? Which should overrule unreasonable anti-gun laws states create?

It is good to see a petty bureaucrat taken down for limiting freedom. I think many more need to do time.

Something the Dog Said wrote: This is an ever increasing issue particularly in terms of the right of some to claim freedom of religion to deny equal rights to the LGBT community. From a business refusing to sell products based on the sexual orientation of the purchaser to the Kentucky clerk who refused to honor the oath she swore to uphold the Constitution based on her alleged religious beliefs.

How can a person take your argument seriously whenever you distort cases? I do not know of any who refuse to sell products based on sexual orientation. The most publicized case involved a baker who was willing to sell products to LGBT but refused to produce products as a participant in their "marriage". This statement of your is a show stopper for me. Care to back up and state the cases accurately?

Also, liberals care nothing for the Constitution. Why use it as an argument?

Arlen wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This is an ever increasing issue particularly in terms of the right of some to claim freedom of religion to deny equal rights to the LGBT community. From a business refusing to sell products based on the sexual orientation of the purchaser to the Kentucky clerk who refused to honor the oath she swore to uphold the Constitution based on her alleged religious beliefs.

How can a person take your argument seriously whenever you distort cases? I do not know of any who refuse to sell products based on sexual orientation. The most publicized case involved a baker who was willing to sell products to LGBT but refused to produce products as a participant in their "marriage". This statement of your is a show stopper for me. Care to back up and state the cases accurately?

Also, liberals care nothing for the Constitution. Why use it as an argument?

Arlen, you are of course incorrect on all counts. I have posted several relevant passages from the judicial decision regarding the baker that clearly states that the Masterpiece baker refused to sell products to a couple solely based on their sexual orientation. I expect your apology to be forthcoming.

As to your broad brush statement regarding liberals and the constitution, well, you are once again showing lack of intellect and inability to frame a coherent and cognizant response to my post. Come back when you are able to do so.

From the Colorado Court of Appeals decision in the Craig & Mullins vs. Masterpiece Bakery and Phillips case.
"7. The parties did not dispute any material facts. Masterpiece
and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public
accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a
cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage wedding."


"25. . . . We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage is
closely correlated to Craig’s and Mullins’ sexual orientation, and
therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpiece’s
refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because
of” their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA. "

"40. . . . Masterpiece’s potential compliance with CADA in
this respect does not permit it to refuse services to Craig and
Mullins that it otherwise offers to the general public."

"42. . . . CADA prohibits
places of public accommodations from basing their refusal to serve
customers on their sexual orientation, and Masterpiece violated
Colorado’s public accommodations law by refusing to create a
wedding cake for Craig’s and Mullins’ same-sex wedding
celebration. "

"63. First, Masterpiece does not convey a message supporting
same-sex marriages merely by abiding by the law and serving its
customers equally."

"105. . . . Therefore, CADA’s proscription of sexual orientation
discrimination by places of public accommodation is a reasonable
regulation that does not offend the Free Exercise Clauses of the
First Amendment and article II, section 4. "