Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 1
Rescind it.
End MAGA and give country to Progressives.
Is that what you want.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Y'all have a link for that? Thomas has been saying a lot of reactionary things over the years, but he is only one.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
OK I rarely do links but you have been a cordial person to discuss things with. Here's one
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/court-to-consid...It's not imminent. But it's not far-fetched.
In the case gay marriage goes away -- the Liberal base will be electrified *and* those "young people" who love rallies and fucking and screaming, but dont like showing up to vote---will actually show up to vote.
Not to mention it's a total trap issue when GOP primary candidates have to take a position.
Leave this one alone if you dont want a Woke America.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Thanks for the link. Seems a pretty simple question.
Section 1, 14th Amendment:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendment...Granting, or denying, a marriage license, based on who a person wants to marry, violates the equal protection clause. If the government official refuses, on personal "free exercise" grounds, the government needs to provide an alternative, so as to not violate the couple's "equal protection" rights.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 6
Granting, or denying, a marriage license, based on who a person wants to marry, violates the equal protection clause. If the government official refuses, on personal "free exercise" grounds, the government needs to provide an alternative, so as to not violate the couple's "equal protection" rights.
Yes, this does seem very clear. Though I do take exception to one bit. The government doesn't need to provide an alternative. The government employee should be doing their job, PERIOD. If they can't do it for whatever reason, they need to find a different position (within or outside of government). The applicants for marriage licenses (for example) shouldn't be burdened with an employee that has "personal objections". The person certainly is entitled to their person objections, but there job is professional. Not personal. They should not be able to demur in their professional capacity. (Same with pharmacists, etc.)
We didn't have a problem, but I'm white and 1poorlady is Filipina. Had the clerk objected to miscegenation, that should not be my problem, and they should keep it to themselves. If they had hassled us, I would have been speaking to supervisors demanding they be fired. But, fortunately, it was very smooth with no issues. I just used this as an example that could have happened to me.
No. of Recommendations: 2
If Obergtfel is overturned Loving will fall next.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The government doesn't need to provide an alternative. The government employee should be doing their job, PERIOD.
The Constitution has a special carve out for religion, that can be interpreted as a license for religion based bigotry. As I read the 14th, seems the burden is on the state to not infringe the couple's rights, but the state is also not allowed to infringe on the clerk's "right" to religion based bigotry. The clear solution to me is the burden is on the state to find someone willing to issue the license, a clerk in another county, or a judge, and deputize them in the county where the objecting clerk is, to issue licenses the local clerk refuses to issue. The process must be barrier free, to the couple. They apply for the license in their local clerk's office. The application is faxed or FedExed to wherever the deputized person works, for approval, and the license faxed or FedExed to the couple. That way, the clerk's right to religious bigotry is not infringed, and the couple's right to equal protection is not infringed.
A number of years ago, Texas had a sodomy statute that only applied to gay couples. The same act was perfectly legal for a hetero couple. Originally, the SCOTUS upheld the Texas statute, using some twisted logic to interpret I forget which clause of the Constitution. Years later, the Texas statute was again brought before the SCOTUS. This time, the court overturned the law, doing so by an interpretation of the same clause of the Constitution, twisted the other way. In her opinion, Justice O'Connor said the equal protection clause would have also made a good argument for overturning the statute.
I would say the equal protection clause applies to the marriage license case just as much as it would apply to the sodomy statute. The state is not allowed to infringe anyone's rights due to a variable like the gender of their partner.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
The Constitution has a special carve out for religion, that can be interpreted as a license for religion based bigotry. As I read the 14th, seems the burden is on the state to not infringe the couple's rights, but the state is also not allowed to infringe on the clerk's "right" to religion based bigotry.
Sure. They can hold that preference personally. But, in their professional capacity, it is not unreasonable for employers and customers to expect them to do their jobs professionally. If their personal convictions prevent this, then they need to find another job.
And for any right-leaning person, consider this: a person works in a hunting supply store. She's willing to sell decoys, camo, and everything else. But she refuses to sell guns. I would say her employer has every right to reassign her (for example, to the stock room) or fire her. Because she is unwilling to fulfill her job description.
