Politics and Religion

Spades is correct, and the rest of you guys are confused LOL
marikod 1 Reviews 468 reads
posted

The state cannot require a judge to issue same sex marriage licenses, if doing so would violate the judge’s sincerely held religious beliefs, and if other officials can perform the job.

         Just bc same sex marriage are now “legal” does not mean the state may compel the judge to perform such marriages.  The First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and Title VII all  protect the judge in this situation. Whether described as making  reasonable accommodation for his religious belief, or using the least restrictive means, these laws essentially say that if you can assign another judge or official  to perform the marriage without undue hardship, you cannot make this judge perform the marriage.

        No, no, no the judge is not going to be “arrested”; no, no, no it is not “criminal,” and no, no, no “reasonable accommodation” is not limited to persons with disabilities (Bud it talking about a completely different statute).

       Further, in most  states judges are “permitted” to perform marriages but they are not require to do so. Many other officials –some state employees and some private – can also perform marriages.  The state cannot compel the judge to perform when other people could do it. And unless you are in a state where the judge is REQUIRED to perform marriages, he does not even violate the couple’s constitutional rights.

         So they are not going to sue him either. Now the judge can’t tell subordinates  to do the same and shut down the court house in violation of the law of the land but he can refuse to do it himself unless he is the only game in town

thisbud4u2626 reads

.... citing his religious beliefs.     I am sure he can be arrested for violating the law of the land as ruled by the Supreme Court.

On a side note, if this asshole ever has a medical emergency, he should not be taken to an ER but rather taken and dumped in his Church.

If Muslims at Walmart don't have to scan my bacon it's pretty hard to force a judge do something against his religious beliefs. There are plenty of other judges to do it I m sure. Hell I would guess a few members of the Supreme Court would refuse to preform the marriage too.  
     So where do you draw the line? Should the preist at your Catholic Church be forced to preform gay marriages because the sc decided they are legal? No where does it say they will force religions to accept them or preform them, just that the state has to accept them.  

Posted By: thisbud4u
.... citing his religious beliefs.     I am sure he can be arrested for violating the law of the land as ruled by the Supreme Court.  
   
 On a side note, if this asshole ever has a medical emergency, he should not be taken to an ER but rather taken and dumped in his Church.

if we "accomodate" religious beliefs of Sikhs or Muslims on the job, we need to do the same for Christians. Or Hare Krishnas. smh

I'd rather have a world where the essential duties of the job are the essential duties of the job, and people can decide to do the job or not, in accordance with their religious beliefs. In this case, the SCOTUS materially changed the essential duties of the job and the Judge (IMHO) needs to decide whether he/she is still able to perform those duties given personal religious beliefs - or whether to find another job that is more in alignment with those beliefs.  

As for arrest... hell no. We have too many excuses to arrest people now (3 felonies a day). I'd rather we find a solution without making a dissenting voice a criminal as the only means of winning the debate.

But I think the sc already decided employers can't discriminate based on religion and need to try and accommodate them. I would go with you on it, I m not sure all judges are required to preform marriage ceremonies as an essential part of their job. Many never do, I think they elect to do it in many areas (for extra money) but each county could be different.  
     The truth is people take offense to way to much. They have the right to believe what they want, if they are respectful and just decline to do it without scorn it s probably the best solution in most cases.  
       Besides do you really want to be married by someone who's heart is against it. Ideally you d want them to be hopeful for a successful union but at the very least not be praying for failure. If you force it that exactly what you might have. Also marriages are probably such a small part of a judges job not being willing to do them might not qualify as something you can be terminated for depending on the state and local laws/contract agreements. And if they are elected its a different story too.  

Posted By: MasterZen
if we "accomodate" religious beliefs of Sikhs or Muslims on the job, we need to do the same for Christians. Or Hare Krishnas. smh  
   
 I'd rather have a world where the essential duties of the job are the essential duties of the job, and people can decide to do the job or not, in accordance with their religious beliefs. In this case, the SCOTUS materially changed the essential duties of the job and the Judge (IMHO) needs to decide whether he/she is still able to perform those duties given personal religious beliefs - or whether to find another job that is more in alignment with those beliefs.  
   
 As for arrest... hell no. We have too many excuses to arrest people now (3 felonies a day). I'd rather we find a solution without making a dissenting voice a criminal as the only means of winning the debate.

I thought they divorce people or sent them to jail.

In the movies a clergy person marries them. Some get married in Vegas drive thru and the Pope marries a bunch at the same time in Rome.
I never understood marriage or its ceremonies.  

and when on TV women say that it is the most important day of their lives...

and the guys that go crazy to "propose" so they can be "engaged?" . Writing marry me in the sky or doing something crazy in public  
so everybody can see.  like the other people actually care
even if they might pretend they do

or writing Just Married on the back of the car and attaching cans and honking...

No, I just don't get it. one more thing in millions I don't ge

thisbud4u363 reads

It merely says "perform civil weddings".   There is no If's, But's, Then or Else and does not say 'perform civil weddings based on your religious beliefs'.     So according to the ruling from the Supreme Court, he violated the civil rights of that Lesbian couple and also failed to perform his duties as set forth in his terms of appointment.     If he still has that job and gets paid, it is criminal.

The Lesbian couple have every right to sue this jerk for violating their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution as interpreted and ruled by the Supreme Court.

As for Church or Priests, I don't think any same sex couple in their right mind would go to a church.     They are filled with pedophiles!     Same sex couples, being what they are, have left religion behind and would not go to a church to get married.

A judge is a paid employee of the county, state and when he sits on that chair, he is what he is.    A paid employee.    If he wants to use his religion to pick and chose what he can and cannot do, he can find another job.    May be a janitor in the court building!     Clean up what he is?

I would argue he might be protected. Read up on religious protections for personal beliefs.  
         
       Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an “undue hardship” upon the employer. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and lateral transfers are examples of ways of accommodating an employee's religious beliefs.

Posted By: thisbud4u
It merely says "perform civil weddings".   There is no If's, But's, Then or Else and does not say 'perform civil weddings based on your religious beliefs'.     So according to the ruling from the Supreme Court, he violated the civil rights of that Lesbian couple and also failed to perform his duties as set forth in his terms of appointment.     If he still has that job and gets paid, it is criminal.  
   
 The Lesbian couple have every right to sue this jerk for violating their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution as interpreted and ruled by the Supreme Court.  
   
 As for Church or Priests, I don't think any same sex couple in their right mind would go to a church.     They are filled with pedophiles!     Same sex couples, being what they are, have left religion behind and would not go to a church to get married.  
   
 A judge is a paid employee of the county, state and when he sits on that chair, he is what he is.    A paid employee.    If he wants to use his religion to pick and chose what he can and cannot do, he can find another job.    May be a janitor in the court building!     Clean up what he is?

thisbud4u361 reads

The things you are referring was not in place.   Here is what I found out from a Labor Attorney:

Here is a plain definition of what is "reasonable accommodation".   All rules and guidelines on this subject are given by EEOC.

Reasonable accommodation is any change to a job, the work environment, or the way things are usually done that allows an individual with a disability to apply for a job, perform job functions, or enjoy equal access to benefits available to other individuals in the workplace.

Further, there is a procedure that has to  be followed.    The affected person has to fill out an official form asking for reasonable accommodation based on physical disabilities that prevents him from performing certain job functions.  Every employer has to have an official to process these applications and there is a time limit to take action.  The decision has to be communicated to the applicant.   If the request is denied, the applicant has an appeal process.

Nowhere an employee will be allowed to take up a job and then refuse to perform certain functions unless he has applied and has been granted accommodation to do so due to his physical disabilities and NOT HIS RELIGION.

In the case of this Ohio judge, he violated the terms of his office and also violated the fundamental civil rights of that Lesbian couple.   Using his religion is not a "disability" as defined by EEOC under the topic "reasonable accommodation".

Unless and until he follows the procedure and applies for religious exemption, is granted that accommodation, he violates the Federal Law every time he refuses to perform a same sex wedding

There's a difference between disability and religious Exemption but they function in much the same way. I ll bet the judge doesn't get criminally charged, doesn't get sanctioned and doesn't get loose a law suit for civil rights violations. How much you want to put on it. The fact is he had no idea he d need an exemption until the situation happened, if there was another person who could do it then there s isn't any harm done.  
       I deleted my source but there are standing laws regarding religious exemptions in all 50 states.  

Posted By: thisbud4u
The things you are referring was not in place.   Here is what I found out from a Labor Attorney:  
   
 Here is a plain definition of what is "reasonable accommodation".   All rules and guidelines on this subject are given by EEOC.  
   
 Reasonable accommodation is any change to a job, the work environment, or the way things are usually done that allows an individual with a disability to apply for a job, perform job functions, or enjoy equal access to benefits available to other individuals in the workplace.  
   
 Further, there is a procedure that has to  be followed.    The affected person has to fill out an official form asking for reasonable accommodation based on physical disabilities that prevents him from performing certain job functions.  Every employer has to have an official to process these applications and there is a time limit to take action.  The decision has to be communicated to the applicant.   If the request is denied, the applicant has an appeal process.  
   
 Nowhere an employee will be allowed to take up a job and then refuse to perform certain functions unless he has applied and has been granted accommodation to do so due to his physical disabilities and NOT HIS RELIGION.  
   
 In the case of this Ohio judge, he violated the terms of his office and also violated the fundamental civil rights of that Lesbian couple.   Using his religion is not a "disability" as defined by EEOC under the topic "reasonable accommodation".  
   
 Unless and until he follows the procedure and applies for religious exemption, is granted that accommodation, he violates the Federal Law every time he refuses to perform a same sex wedding.  
   
 

GaGambler471 reads

Lets say a judge claims that his religion prohibits him from performing interracial marriages? We all know how a case like that would turn out, and most people will agree that you can no more decide your sexual orientation than you can your race, so I don't see this judge having a leg to stand on.

Some people will just have to accept the fact that this is now the law of the land.

If it is a deeply held belief, he should have to prove it in some manner, like conscientious objectors.

And I do think there is a difference to be made discriminating in what a person "is" as to what a person "does."

We shouldn't discriminate over something a person has no control over, like race or sexual orientation, and something they do have control over, i.e. getting married.

Some people should have the right to reject a client based on those very limited grounds, imho.

GaGambler312 reads

A judge is entrusted to uphold the law, and all people appearing before him are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. If a judge is so devoted to a religion that it prevents him from carrying out his duties without bias or discrimination, he has no business being a judge.

If I were ever to have a case in front of that judge and the ruling went against me, I would IMMEDIATELY file an appeal on the grounds that the judge was biased against me as a non Christian, and so would/will any one else with decent representation who has a case in front of him in the future.

As you say, "some" people might be on solid ground with this claim. As much as I detest organized religion, I think a priest would be on solid ground refusing to act on behalf of the church in "blessing" the union of two gay people. But an officer of the court, no fucking way. Not until we repeal the first amendment which clearly states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

If an officer of the court acting as an agent of the government refuses to fulfil his duties on religious grounds, and the government allows this, then at least in this limited case he has established a "state sponsored religion"

Personally I think the judge should be thrown off the bench, he clearly cannot be objective, and being objective is part of his job description

To me the bottom line is can that couple get married by THAT court not, necessarily by THAT specific judge.

If the couple cant, the judge in question has to do it. If the couple can get accommodated from another judge, why should we jam anything down the dissenting judge's throat?

GaGambler380 reads

Strong enough that he can't do his job, how can he possibly claim to be impartial if a gay, or any other non Christian has a case heard by him. IMO he has forfeited his right to be a judge because by his own admission his religious convictions are too strong for him to be impartial.

But let's be honest. If he were to use it as a reason to not judge a sexual assault case by a priest or something else a few times a year under the law its legal. How many marriages do you really think he will skip out on? A dozen a yr? What percentage of his job does it effect? Less than 2% or zero if he just switches marriages with another judge.  
      With separation of church and state and the promise of freedom of religion it's probably the best way to handle it don't you think?  

Posted By: GaGambler
Strong enough that he can't do his job, how can he possibly claim to be impartial if a gay, or any other non Christian has a case heard by him. IMO he has forfeited his right to be a judge because by his own admission his religious convictions are too strong for him to be impartial.

GaGambler526 reads

as should any atheists, gays, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, moonies, Mormons, Buddhists, Shintos, Wiccans et al et al et al.

The best way to handle it in my opinion is to kick him of the bench. He has proven that he can not be objective, and unlike a baker or a photographer, his entire job is based around his ability to be objective. I sincerely hope he is not a judge at all for much longer.

Thousands of conservative judges are religious. There are many Muslim judges who are just as intolerant of homosexuality. The fact is as long as his religious beliefs don't cloud his decisions he has the right to them. Are you saying an atheist judge couldn't or wouldn't side against say a catholic priest or nun solely because they are religious? Come on it's a two way track here so you can exclude everyone based on your argument.

GaGambler468 reads

If a Muslim judge were to make the same argument, I would argue to have him removed from the bench as well.

and yes, if an atheist judge were to refuse to perform weddings for churchgoers as a way to retaliate, or just to be a dick, I would also say that the atheist judge is too biased to perform his duties and push for his removal as well.  

It's bad enough that we have activist judges in the first place, but refusing to do their job because they disagree with the Supreme Court is simply not an option. As I said before, there was a huge push back against interracial marriage, should we have allowed judges to ignore the law, seek refuge behind some ridiculous "Freedom of religion" law in order to continue to discriminate in the face of a ruling that prohibits them from doing just that? The same argument could have been made that interracial couples could simply find someone else to marry them and there weren't that many interracial couples at the time anyhow. That argument failed then, and it's going to fail now.

Posted By: GaGambler
If a Muslim judge were to make the same argument, I would argue to have him removed from the bench as well.  
   
 and yes, if an atheist judge were to refuse to perform weddings for churchgoers as a way to retaliate, or just to be a dick, I would also say that the atheist judge is too biased to perform his duties and push for his removal as well.  
   
 It's bad enough that we have activist judges in the first place, but refusing to do their job because they disagree with the Supreme Court is simply not an option. As I said before, there was a huge push back against interracial marriage, should we have allowed judges to ignore the law, seek refuge behind some ridiculous "Freedom of religion" law in order to continue to discriminate in the face of a ruling that prohibits them from doing just that? The same argument could have been made that interracial couples could simply find someone else to marry them and there weren't that many interracial couples at the time anyhow. That argument failed then, and it's going to fail now.

The state cannot require a judge to issue same sex marriage licenses, if doing so would violate the judge’s sincerely held religious beliefs, and if other officials can perform the job.

         Just bc same sex marriage are now “legal” does not mean the state may compel the judge to perform such marriages.  The First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and Title VII all  protect the judge in this situation. Whether described as making  reasonable accommodation for his religious belief, or using the least restrictive means, these laws essentially say that if you can assign another judge or official  to perform the marriage without undue hardship, you cannot make this judge perform the marriage.

        No, no, no the judge is not going to be “arrested”; no, no, no it is not “criminal,” and no, no, no “reasonable accommodation” is not limited to persons with disabilities (Bud it talking about a completely different statute).

       Further, in most  states judges are “permitted” to perform marriages but they are not require to do so. Many other officials –some state employees and some private – can also perform marriages.  The state cannot compel the judge to perform when other people could do it. And unless you are in a state where the judge is REQUIRED to perform marriages, he does not even violate the couple’s constitutional rights.

         So they are not going to sue him either. Now the judge can’t tell subordinates  to do the same and shut down the court house in violation of the law of the land but he can refuse to do it himself unless he is the only game in town

But let me ask...does the judge have to PROVE this is a deeply held belief or would they just take his word?

And why cant private businesses be able to do the same? Why cant a baker refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding as long as there is another baker in town that will?

And what about a baker that doesn't discriminate against gays in general, i.e. the store serves openly or knowingly gay customers on a regular basis, but simply refuses to not take part in ONE aspect in gay life they have deeply held religious beliefs against?

The reason GaG is wrong today is because sexual orientation is not yet a "Protected Class". At least not yet at the federal level under pressent civil rights laws. Some States may be different, I don't know. But of course I predict this is all about to change over next few months or (years more likely) as sexual orientation (and gender orientation) law suits regarding a whole variety of things are lodged.

GaGambler357 reads

But these laws are being written and interpreted as we speak, I have every confidence that by the time this case is sorted out, or one very, very similar, my position will be the one the court takes.

Any takers?  

Obviously not Mari, he won't even take my "easy money" where it comes to Rick Perry. But maybe someone cares to put their money where their mouth is?

For all intents and purposes, gays are a de facto protected class, whether or not the laws ever catch up to it or not.  

Any future legislation stating they are not would be deemed unconstitutional, correct?

GaGambler411 reads

I disagree with ED that this will take years. I predict in a few short months this will happen.

Refusing to marry gays will be just as impossible as refusing to marry interracial couples in the VERY near future. Mark my words.

Being gay is not yet a protected class. Not until Legislated from Congress (or more likely the court). I was disagreeing with anyone but there are going to be several more law suits and it WILL take years. It will take at least another year, probably 2 just to get the next one back to SCOTUS. Mari's dealing with the already protected class of religion. What is about to happen is gay's are going to push for protected class status (actual not de facto) regarding additional non-marriage issues (workplace, housing, etc. where in some states I believe these things still exist) If/when they achieve that there will then be a colossal collision of the two protected classes.

GaGambler347 reads

We both agree that gays are going to get this protected class, and I will concede there will be a certain amount of time for that to happen, but momentum is on the side of the LGBT community and these changes are going to happen faster than you think.

The GOP also needs to be very careful about this issue, this is not 2004 when George W Bush was able to use this issue to scare conservative voters into showing up to vote. Public sentiment on this issue has turn 180 degrees which is why the politically astute Barrack Obama got out in front of it and changed his tune. If the GOP continues to make this front page news, and a major issue in '16 its going to cost them votes. Just like South Carolina has been stampeded to get rid of the rebel flag in record time after decades of successfully resisting the call to do so. The same is going to happen with this issue if the GOP has any brains in their leadership (big if I know) the last thing they want to be debating is gay rights in 2016. Even if they win, they still lose, and I am betting that they know this.

And if there is a different judge who can do it; it will be perfectly legal to refuse and allow the other judge to do it. It's not stopping them from being married, not even delaying their marriage. Tell me how it d be infringing on their rights? But it would be infringing on the judges right to freedom of religion. I d bet what ever you wanted on it in fact.

GaGambler509 reads

I despise the Catholic Church, but I don't dispute their right to "bless" or "not bless" whichever marriages they choose, but a judge is a different matter. Judges might be able to get away with this for a while longer, but not for long. The lawsuits are already flying and the gays are going to win.

The judge isn't stopping them, isn't denying them a marriage liscense. Just saying someone else should preform the ceremony. It s not even in doubt he has the right to do it if someone else can preform the marriage. The same protections everyone else has applies to a judge as well.

since the correct reasons are explained in my post. Being a “protected class” has nothing to with whether this particular judge can be compelled to perform the marriage when others judges could do it.  Think of it this way. If you run a bakery that services exclusively black customers, you still cannot make me work on the Sabbath if I have a sincere religious belief against working on that day and you can assign someone else to work that day.
 

Posted By: ed2000
The reason GaG is wrong today is because sexual orientation is not yet a "Protected Class". At least not yet at the federal level under pressent civil rights laws. Some States may be different, I don't know. But of course I predict this is all about to change over next few months or (years more likely) as sexual orientation (and gender orientation) law suits regarding a whole variety of things are lodged.

basically confirms the way you analyzed it.

        This is a pretty basic application of existing law and will never see the SCOTUS. Of course, he has to have a sincere religious belief and I am unaware of any religion that even remotely addresses judges performing same sex marriages.  If the judge is simply making his own interpretation of vague religious text against homosexuality, I'm not sure that will fly, so he could lose on that ground.

       But if you assume his religion indeed prohibits that and he sincerely holds that belief, it is a pretty easy case of religious accommodation.

There are lesbian pedophiles?  

I'm sure you've read my "Why would  a same sex couple want a child?" posts before. The gist of it is if you are not attracted to a people of the opposite sex, why would you want to have/raise children?  

It's my opinion that a gay or lesbian individual would/could not posse that desire. Since they are not attracted to the opposite sex.  

Posted By: thisbud4u
It merely says "perform civil weddings".   There is no If's, But's, Then or Else and does not say 'perform civil weddings based on your religious beliefs'.     So according to the ruling from the Supreme Court, he violated the civil rights of that Lesbian couple and also failed to perform his duties as set forth in his terms of appointment.     If he still has that job and gets paid, it is criminal.  
   
 The Lesbian couple have every right to sue this jerk for violating their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution as interpreted and ruled by the Supreme Court.  
   
 As for Church or Priests, I don't think any same sex couple in their right mind would go to a church.     They are filled with pedophiles!     Same sex couples, being what they are, have left religion behind and would not go to a church to get married.  
   
 A judge is a paid employee of the county, state and when he sits on that chair, he is what he is.    A paid employee.    If he wants to use his religion to pick and chose what he can and cannot do, he can find another job.    May be a janitor in the court building!     Clean up what he is?

If a person is "born" gay/lesbian and have decided to live the lifestyle they were destine to live. They should have no desire to procreate, given the fact that naturally it takes a man and a woman to create a child, there is no other way to naturally create a child.  

If a person isn't attracted to the opposite sex, where would the desire to make a child come from?

 
Are you really going to go against the science of nature on this one?

hotplants381 reads

You’re like the 8th wonder of the world. Your inability to grasps the simplest concepts is almost as mesmerizing as the great pyramids.  

Sexual desire and the desire to have children are as far apart as Egypt and the tip of your nose.  W-T-F? It's blatantly obvious that many gay couples desire to have a family, and raise children.  

If the only way children got here was because one man and one woman actively decided to procreate, for the sole purpose of getting pregnant, the problem of over-population in the world would not exist.  

My completely heterosexual parents love me madly (and for good reason…lol). But I can assure you, (and they agree) 150%, that when they lost their senses in the back seat of a car on a hot summer night way back when, barely out of high school….the last thing in the world they were hoping for was…yep…..me!  

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

Hey…try to look at it this way: when gay couples have children, you can bet yer ass they’ve thought through every aspect of that decision.  They have come to a mutual agreement on the timing, and they agree that they have the desire, the energy, and the resources to do it right---because they are choosing to.  

My parents are great. But, when I come back next time around, I want gay parents.  

And a pony

Next time around, I would like a few lesbo parents. Lipstick, of course. lol

But did you really need 8 paragraphs to respond to JohnyCumsTooQuickly? That seems to be about 7 1/2 paras too many.

Don't fear though. All I want is for him is to be in SPOTY contention, and his post firmly not only guarantees that, but also makes him the front runner at the midway point. LOL

Why would the opposite sexes be attracted to each other if it wasn't for procreation?
 

Posted By: hotplants
You’re like the 8th wonder of the world. Your inability to grasps the simplest concepts is almost as mesmerizing as the great pyramids.  
   
 Sexual desire and the desire to have children are as far apart as Egypt and the tip of your nose.  W-T-F? It's blatantly obvious that many gay couples desire to have a family, and raise children.  
   
 If the only way children got here was because one man and one woman actively decided to procreate, for the sole purpose of getting pregnant, the problem of over-population in the world would not exist.  
   
 My completely heterosexual parents love me madly (and for good reason…lol). But I can assure you, (and they agree) 150%, that when they lost their senses in the back seat of a car on a hot summer night way back when, barely out of high school….the last thing in the world they were hoping for was…yep…..me!  
   
 Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!  
   
 Hey…try to look at it this way: when gay couples have children, you can bet yer ass they’ve thought through every aspect of that decision.  They have come to a mutual agreement on the timing, and they agree that they have the desire, the energy, and the resources to do it right---because they are choosing to.  
   
 My parents are great. But, when I come back next time around, I want gay parents.  
   
 And a pony.  
   
 

When you take a job, you are expected to do the job regardless of your personal, and religious beliefs. Your choice is not to take a job where you have to do things you don’t believe in.

It is funny to see Republicans running around bashing the supreme court. When the supreme court agrees with their idiotic ideas about the constitution you tout the decision and say the court has spoken, case closed and when the supreme court decides against your idiotic ideas then the supreme court is unconstitutional, overstepping their bounds and legislating from the bench

Does anyone of you really spent 20 seconds to think and realize how stupid you sound? Probably not!

and quite possibly the dumbest thing said on this board. Was GaG's comment about a judge being able to tell if someone is not Christian, or is gay/lesbian.  

Why would that come up in trial?

Liberal court and liberal civil liberties groups pushing them. I m not on either side just stating the law as it sits. I believe it was passed to protect Muslim prayer rights at Tyson or some other chicken producer. Not positive but pretty sure. Liberal court protecting the jobs of employees that refused to do part of their job.  
       Prove me wrong if you think it was to protect republican Christians.  

Posted By: anonymousfun
When you take a job, you are expected to do the job regardless of your personal, and religious beliefs. Your choice is not to take a job where you have to do things you don’t believe in.  
   
 It is funny to see Republicans running around bashing the supreme court. When the supreme court agrees with their idiotic ideas about the constitution you tout the decision and say the court has spoken, case closed and when the supreme court decides against your idiotic ideas then the supreme court is unconstitutional, overstepping their bounds and legislating from the bench  
   
 Does anyone of you really spent 20 seconds to think and realize how stupid you sound? Probably not!

What's the problem?  

Posted By: thisbud4u
.... citing his religious beliefs.     I am sure he can be arrested for violating the law of the land as ruled by the Supreme Court.  
   
 On a side note, if this asshole ever has a medical emergency, he should not be taken to an ER but rather taken and dumped in his Church.

GaGambler335 reads

For the record. I found it funny. lol

Now as far as Hadji is concerned, I think many of us now know why this issue seems to hit so close to home, don't we Hadji?

Funny...

Posted By: dani987x
he would not be able to consummate the marriage.

Register Now!