Clerk Defies Supreme Court, Refuses Gay Marriage Licenses

[MTL]

TheRocketSurgeon

I gave kudos to your comment,
but this portion intrigued me.

Can you elaborate as to why this would be?

Because I am an American who believes in the Constitution, including the fundamental right to be free from government interference in religious practice.

The same tenet that (should) prevent them from harming us by their religion prevents us from harming them for it. In short, the moment anyone takes on a job that amounts to being the government, they must follow the law with absolute neutrality, regardless of their position on religion. That idiot clerk should have resigned, if she had an issue with homosexuals. There are many Christians, particularly Catholics, who feel (correctly) that the Bible prohibits divorce except in cases of infidelity or apostasy, but that clerk and her office issued divorce certificates on literally the same piece of paper [1] that she suddenly refused to sign when it came time for homosexuals to be granted the same rights everyone else possessed. That makes her a bigot, not a Christian martyr trying to uphold the Bible, and would not have been a justification for either act I just described in any case, since she was an agent of the government.


[1] Rowan County, Kentucky, Form VS-230, "Application for Marriage/Divorce Certificate": https://www.ecclix.com/pdf/marriagedivorce.pdf


****************************************************************************

The problem for me is the number of Americans who seem to opine that they Constitutionally have
"Freedom OF Religion",
but that Atheist Americans are not vouchsafed "Freedom FROM Religion"

Having "In God We Trust" being emblazoned on everything from your currency to your police cars
seems to mean, to many Americans,
that if you don't believe in God, you don't enjoy the same freedoms that Theists do.

I remember reading about a disputed quote, allegedly from former president George H. W. Bush:

" No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.
This is one nation under God. "

I am Canadian, needless to say we have a very different system and a different Constitution,
yet there are similar provisions, protecting religion.

But even here, in Canada, it rankles with me:

I realize that changing it now is obviously off the table,
but I feel that simply "protecting religion", seems like a poorly-thought-out principle,
since some religions
....Islam comes to mind....
DO have passages in their holy writs that make tolerating anyone NOT of their religion, a sin against God
...albeit that not every member of the religion chooses to take it so literally.

To me, to Constitutionally "protect religion", carte blanche, is naive,
DEPENDING on what a given religion might require of its followers.

It's a bit like saying "freedom to be a Neo-Nazi"
....freedom to assimilate; freedom to persecute with impunity,

I feel like it could have been more carefully defined,
and because it wasn't,
religion has the upper hand in America, today.

So, I don't dispute that legally, American law certainly protects religion in the way that you have illustrated,
and that yes, an attorney would certainly have a much easier time justifying the legal persecution of an Atheist refusing service to someone based on their religion,
as opposed to vice-versa;

and I respect that you honour your American Constitution, personally;

But when presented with this "religion trumps all" attitude,
doesn't it raise the issue for you of how prudent it is to "protect religion" at all?

For me, I feel that the decision to include this in the Constitution had largely to do with the culture of the times,
and what religious persecution the first pilgrims might have been fleeing from in Europe,
when they arrived in America,

and I feel that the sentiment came from the right place,

but I can't help but feel like the letter of it,
(rather than the "spirit" of it, if you will)
is being deliberately exploited by Theists, today

(Theists who, ironically,
probably have much more in common with the very religious autocrats
that the pilgrims were fleeing from,
than with the pilgrims, themselves;

much in the way that Kim Davis is being shockingly compared, by her supporters, to Rosa Parks,
when in truth, Kim Davis far more closely mimics James F. Blake).