Clerk Defies Supreme Court, Refuses Gay Marriage Licenses

[Crossless2.0]

Even the gay hating Westboro Baptists have denounced her, but not for standing firm against the gay-homo-athetits threat. No no no!

They just can't abide a serial adultress! Denounced as the hypocrite she is. violating one of God's most muy importante rules no less.


Irony is good stuff.

It sure is.  And Biblical "sin" is a bitch when hypocrites fail to notice the beam sticking out of their own eyes.

[MTL]

It's time we see an atheist clerk refuse to issue car registrations/tags to people with Jesus Fish on their bumpers.

"Sorry, mister, but if you're too dumb to understand the Theory of Evolution, you're too dumb to operate a 1500-kilogram killing machine."

"Ah, right. That's 3300 pounds, in your units."

(Grandpa Abe Simpson quote: "The metric system is the tool of the Devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hog's head, and that's the way I likes it!!")

Exactly.  That's precisely the point I've been making to Theists, in forums other than this, as well...

If you try to use your religion as justification for things like refusing to do your job,
it can backfire, spectacularly.

Atheists have a long list of actual grievances against religion,
collected over thousands of years,
that justifies refusal of service to Theists;

whereas the only complaint that Theists have towards Atheists
is that Atheists have had the nerve to be defiant
in the face of completely unsubstantiated Theist claims and arrogance.

[Minimalist]

Anyone know how batshit Kentucky's governor is

He isn't.  He's a Democrat who went all-in for Obamacare in Kentucky.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235...care-model

A Gallup poll last month found that Kentucky had the second-largest drop in its uninsured rate, after Arkansas, in 2014. The rate declined from around 20 percent to around 10 percent, a result Beshear cited as evidence of the law's success. 
A recent analysis of Kentucky's Medicaid expansion in its first year found that the program added 375,000 people. The study found that as providers expanded to provide the extra care, 12,000 jobs were created, he said. 
“In short, the first year was even better for Kentucky financially than predicted," said Beshear. 

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I like the way you phrased that, MTL.

But it does make me realize I need to add a disclaimer:

In case it's not obvious to all, I don't actually mean I think any atheist should show religious bigotry toward any believer in their official capacity as agents of the government. Were I an attorney, and I saw an atheist doing what she did in return, I would take the case of the theist who was harmed by the bigotry.

In another other instance besides official and/or public capacity, I do agree that we have a long list of actual grievances against the religious in this country (and far more, if you open the history books), whereas most of theirs against us are just invented slanders based mostly on the fact that they imagine we must be pretty terrible, since we don't get our morals from a book (that condones/encourages slavery and treats rape against women as a property crime against her father/husband/fiancee).

[MTL]

Were I an attorney, and I saw an atheist doing what she did in return, I would take the case of the theist who was harmed by the bigotry.

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

Can you elaborate as to why this would be?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Were I an attorney, and I saw an atheist doing what she did in return, I would take the case of the theist who was harmed by the bigotry.

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

[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).

[Thumpalumpacus]

You misunderstand him. Religion does not trump all. Religious neutrality trumps everything in executing any office of government at any level of government.

Slogans and mottoes do not abnegate SCOTUS rulings.

[MTL]

You misunderstand him. Religion does not trump all. Religious neutrality trumps everything in executing any office of government at any level of government.

Slogans and mottoes do not abnegate SCOTUS rulings.

I don't misunderstand him, at all.

But what I'm saying is that so many Americans seem to THINK that Religion trumps all.

RocketSurgeon said that if he was an attorney,
and was presented with the chance to take a case
wherein an Atheist behaved towards a Theist
the way that Kim Davis behaved toward these gay couples,
that he would take the case,
because he believes in the Constitution.

Perhaps, once again, I was too verbose and not clear enough in my meaning:

I realize what he is saying,
but what I'm saying is:  Don't you find it difficult to defend religion,
given the unequal leverage that religion carries in America...and the world?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

MTL
****************************************************************************

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 certainly understand the concern, and I agree that it is un-Constitutional to have those things on our money, etc. They are the result of petitioning by the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization) in the 1950s, at a time when our Red Scare (Senator McCarthy) was in full swing, and the politicians who voted for it were afraid to appear atheistic and thus suspect-communist-sympathizer. It would have been political death. I find the legal tap dancing it has required, for our SCotUS to defend it as neutral, to be amusing, and I suspect strongly that it will soon find its legal death at the hands of someone who can prove harm, and thus standing to bring suit.

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.

We do not protect religion, except from government intrusion against the individual right of conscience. And, apparently, taxes. There are places where they do encroach, such as holding services in tax-paid schools, or National Day of Prayer services, and we fight back... but we use the Constitution to do it. Just because we cannot win hands-down, due to weight of certain traditions that have grown up in the wake of our national crisis over communism (and its lingering anti-atheist sentiments) and the political deaths of those who were seen as allied with us, does not mean it is not in its death gasp, historically. The USA is growing more secular, despite all the noise those fundies can make.

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

At best they have a home-field advantage. They do not have carte blanche. See, e.g., Kim Davis.

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

Yes, we have the absolute freedom to be a Neo-Nazi. They have the absolute right to speak their minds and to try to recruit members. And likewise I have the right to fight back, verbally, against that. The moment they "persecute", their "impunity" goes away and they are arrested by the FBI, who keeps tabs on them. Quickly.

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

Today? Religion has always had the upper hand, in this country. The French author of Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote in the 1830s that the reason religion flourished in the USA was because we kept government out of it, and left them alone, whereas countries (e.g. Sweden and England) which pushed official state religions saw their believing populace fade and die. I would venture to say that the excesses of the past 50 years, with respect to religious intolerance in the USA, particularly the fallout of the Reagan '80s and "Moral Majority" '90s, is one of the major factors in the decline of religious sentiment among the younger generation, 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;

It would be a major victory for atheism if a prominent atheist lawyer took the case, pro bono publico, on behalf of an oppressed religionist against another atheist who was actually trying to deny her government services as a result of her Constitutionally-protected right of conscience. Not only does it build up the "Wall of Separation", but it shows them that we are committed to the principle, even in their defense. One of the major reasons, I think, for their willingness to attack the Wall is not only because they think God Wills It, but because they assume we would do it to them-- after all, their preachers have been telling them for generations that atheists are evil and are out to destroy their faith. A substantial showing of defense of the principle of free conscience would go a long way toward poking holes in that idea.
As in Sweden, etc., I think that once they cease to feel persecuted, themselves, while the neutral parties see their attacks on the secular communities of the USA, the hordes of the faithful will begin to die away.