Never forget that Kim Davis looks like a scarier version of Kathy Bates’ character from Misery.
If my religious beliefs eschew the concept of marriage rites, so does that mean if I were a county clerk I could refuse to issue any marriage certificates?
Asking for a friend.
Actually, under the argument Bates wanted to make, yes. It would also allow you to refuse to issue certificates to Muslims and, ironically, opposite-sex partners if you so believed.
leaving those with religious objections in the lurch
Better than the goddamn toilet, where they belong.
My religion requires the recusal of Thomas, Alito, Cavanaugh & the new nominee from any cases regarding LGBT rights.
“It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law.”
It is amazing that someone who could make it to the Supreme Court of the United States would look at the rights of Americans to do as they please (i.e. marry their same-sex partner) through the lens of other Americans who might be displeased by other Americans doing as they please. Like…I thought we were “free” in America.
“Religious freedom” is kind of a difficult argument to make anyway. What if it’s my religious belief that I should get married, and the official’s belief that I shouldn’t? Someone’s religious freedom is going to get violated. So the civil rights point of view (you can’t deny gay people the right to marry because then you’d be discriminating either based on sexuality or based on gender) makes much more sense.
I am sure that Judge Thomas needs to meet in close quarters with Donald Trump for some reason.
The thing about the “Religious Freedom” argument in Burwell vs Hobby Lobby for instance, I don’t understand how it doesn’t exempt Quakers from having to pay taxes that go to the military for instance. There is a real example of a real religion whose beliefs are being violated in just the same way that Hobby Lobby’s were, except that they aren’t conservative beliefs.
The maddening thing about all “religious liberty” arguments (aside from the obvious that you don’t have a right to trample my rights) is that it puts the government in the position of defining religion. IANAL, but I feel like that alone should violate the separation of church and state. If I say my religion is that laws don’t apply to me, then the court has to say “your religion isn’t real”. On what grounds? Because it’s new? So is Mormonism. So is Scientology. What’s the cutoff? If a declare my religion and make robes for it, then wait 50 years, is that religion now? FSMism was given the right to wear a colander on one’s head in a drivers license photo. So do they have the right to gay marriage because Christianity violates their religious liberty? Which religion gets more rights? Is it like trump suits in bridge? These are ridiculous unanswerable questions that the state has no business considering, but the current SCOTUS has put it on a road where it will have to.
I see you’ve found the crux of their rationale.
Exactly what “lurch” is that? The one where they don’t get to exert their religious beliefs on me?
What is it these people don’t understand about their religious freedom does not extend to imposing their faith on me.
Thomas rarely breaks his long silent streaks, but when he does it’s invariably in the service of evil.
Best point is best. You’ve hit the nail on the head. The 1st amendment was written to clarify that government should NEVER be involved with religion, and that means that when it comes to civil law, the law wins out over whatever religious dogma one spouts. Because ultimately every religion is going to have its opposite believers whose own religious beliefs disagree.
But Christians hate this fact, because of course they’d really love to be able to shove their religion down everyone else’s throat (and can’t because they are so fragmented no one denomination has enough power to dominate… hell, even individual churches within the same denomination can disagree over topics).
Here’s hoping if any case like this does hit SCotUS again, they’ve got some savvy folks to make the same argument you just made. It might not matter to those conservatives on the bench, but it’s the right argument to make.
In Justice Thomas’ lifetime his rationale would have led to him being denied a certificate for his own marriage in many places in the US, but I guess we are living in a hypocrisy-free time.
Anyone in a uniformed civil service position wanna bring suit cuz your uniform is made of 2 different fibres? It’s right there in the bible…
That is the crux of it and that is why the whole “originalism” thing is such an obvious lie.
He’s been far more vocal since Scalia died.
I guess he feels like somone has to take up the role of hate-filled bigot.
For those who espouse religious liberty, it doesn’t mean liberty for all religions, just conservative christians. As far as they are concerned, conservative christianity is the only religion. It’s their superpower to believe completely illogical things simultaneously without even understanding the beliefs are incompatible.
And one of the reasons I want to see critical thinking and logic taught in public school from an early age.