Discussion for article #233710
Could we have a bill in my home state allowing officials to refuse to serve in any capacity anyone from the North Carolina legislature?
3 Likes
Enjoy your Section 1983 lawsuits.
4 Likes
I can’t wait to see the headlines the first time one of those government officials use the "“sincerely held religious objection” to refuse to perform marriages for something other than same-sex couples.
If the official objects to a couple getting married who don’t go to church, an inter-faith couple, an inter-racial couple, a couple where one is divorced, a couple that previous had out of wedlock children, a Muslim couple, a Jewish couple, a couple too old to bear children, a couple where one or both are disabled, etc.
There are, no doubt, plenty of people who could claim to have a "“sincerely held religious objection” to any of those marriages (and more). Do we really think the NC Senate wants those to create those exemptions as well? Or are they really just writing a broad law that is intended to sanction discriminatory actions by government officials against one particular group - gay people.
2 Likes
Could they refuse because sincerely believe that God forbids interracial marriages? Or GOP/DEM mixed marriages?
4 Likes
Of course. Amurikkka’s RWNJs are quickly lumping EVERYTHING under their sadistic, self-absorbed, selfish, politicized bastardization of Christianity precisely so they can try to use the First Amendment to exempt themselves from the 19th and 20th centuries.
I almost wish Pope Francis wasn’t such a consummate diplomat and would excoriate them for their nonsense.
3 Likes
“> While the courts have taken steps to provide special rights to some, we must not ignore the constitutionally protected rights of others,” he said in a statement, according to Reuters.
This statement just says so much. Until these people understand that the courts aren’t giving anyone “special rights”, but enforcing equal rights, we’ll be on this merry go round forever.
2 Likes
Anyone else notice the terminology employed … “special” rights vs. “constitutional” rights? Wonder how they’re going to react after the SCOTUS rules in favor of same-sex marriages? Heads will be exploding and we should all take cover from the shrapnel coming from their tin foil hats.
Why not just fire them?
3 Likes
special rights
Would you argue with a vampire or sprinkle it with Holy Water?
There has to be a medical short and long term memory issue with these people…perhaps over consumption of Mountain Dew…beyond the mere fact of their ignorance.
If your religious beliefs prevent you from carrying out the legally-required duties of your position as a magistrate, you should not be a magistrate. This is not complicated.
4 Likes
Does anybody know when it was that getting married became a “special right”?
North Carolina… government by the people for only the right kind of people.
There is every reason to believe if and when SCOTUS steps in they will rule in favor of same sex marriage, or at the very least they’ll continue to reject challenges to same sex marriage. But it’s the nature of southern states to reject what’s going in the United States.
When the old man with a rifle is holding it to the head of the prospective bridegroom whose daughter is pregnant
I have it on good authority that Dr. Pepper is the holy southern water.
1 Like
“While the courts have taken steps to provide special rights to some, we must not ignore the constitutionally protected rights of others,”
Equal treatment under the law is not a “special right.” And, there is no “constitutionally protected right” of a public employee to refuse to provide services as required by law. Unless, of course, we are each “sovereign” and each of us carries the “constitution” we personally scrawled on a paper napkin around in our pockets. Remarkably, Michael Bowers, former Republican Attorney General of Georgia, has done an excellent job of calling bullshit on these “religious liberty” bills. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_KEK8-LWmzhUjdmMlRHZ0h2TEk/view
1 Like
High fructose and caffeine Jesus amen!
1 Like
Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, agrees with you. http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/16/southern-baptist-official-rather-than-refuse-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-alabama-judges-should-resign/
To borrow from the anti-legislation Republicans who stand in the way of laws like sensible gun regulations and hate crime statues on the grounds that we already have laws to cover that and they just need to be enforced, I’d offer that we already have provisions for public servants that decide on whatever grounds to not serve the public: they can resign. We are under no obligation as a citizenry to provide a welfare program for bigots unsuitable for the job.
2 Likes